Posted on 02/04/2014 3:25:22 PM PST by Carry_Okie
As I wrote in the article, he told me that even Democritus showed some signs of Jewish influences. Not having read his work, I don't know what came from where, being more interested in the environmental policy implications.
Well, I can say for certain that Nichols placed Democritus' influence in a more prominent role.
Well, Democritus was the principal founder of atomism, a century before Epicurus, so of course his influence was prominent. ( I’m looking at THE ATOM IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN THOUGHT by Bernard Pullman, which I bought once, back in the Border days. )
It’s an amazing thing that even at the beginning of the twentieth century atoms were regarded as hypothetical. “Mach, in contrast, was still on record as proclaiming his rejection of the theory in 1910.” ( op. cit. )
It’s an amazing thing that even at the beginning of the twentieth century atoms were regarded as hypothetical.
We've still got new-agers blathering about air, earth, fire, and water while simultaneously railing about chemicals, periodically so to speak. ;-)
But you said that a creator was an idea with which he was clearly uncomfortable. So now you say, well, he was just using it to get the reader into what he had to say ... Whaaaa?
What's inconsistent about that? I say he was uncomfortable with it because of how he reviled religion and particularly human sacrifice. He lived in a police state, where free assembly was illegal for all but the collegia licita. Why wouldn't he be circumspect about 'dissing' the powers that be? Hence, open the piece with the appropriate "fan"-fare. Writers and artists in oppressive situations have done that forever.
What's inconsistent is that you said he was "clearly uncomfortable" with the idea of a creator. I'll grant that his paean to Venus was a poetic convention, but I don't see anything to suggest that he was uncomfortable with it.
Speaking of oppressive situations, this was a crucial aspect of the appeal of Lucretius in early renaissance Europe. Nascent humanist thought was just ready to bust loose, and found an anthem in Lucretius’ poem.
True indeed. As was stated in the article, the scientific and intellectual community was unhappy with the church's treatment of Galileo in particular. The theme also fit well with the general tenor of the Reformation.
Then why write the book at all? Remember too that it is likely Lucretius was born of an aristocratic family, within which there might also be considerable social pressures. I can't tell you how many technical papers on environmental I've read wherein the data and the entire tenor of the paper were at odds with the executive summary. Even the IPCC papers on "climate change" read that way.
It's the human condition. Have you ever perused Leo Strauss' book, Persecution and the Art of Writing? My philosophy professor in college gave me a copy. Unfortunately, I've never troubled to untangle the Greek in parts of it.
No it isn't, and you're unbelievably naive for thinking so.
Do you think you and your higher critical ilk are the first to notice all the "problems" in the Torah text? You literally have no idea. Do you know how a Torah scroll is written? You have no idea, do you? The greatest commentator of all time, Rashi, dealt with this very issue in his commentary on the Chumash. Why don't you try reading that sometime? Are you aware that the chronology by which Jewish years are numbered (the current one being 5774) is Halakhah? Have you ever heard of Seder `Olam? Are you the least bit familiar with traditional Jewish interpretation?
If you read the whole thing I think you'll find it reinforcing. Lucretius had quite apparently been taught by a Jew. Interesting isn't it that the "Enlightened" philosophers, in their zeal to reject Christianity, adopted a teaching based in total ignorance of its Jewish foundations?
The only think I'm getting is that Judaism is to blame for radical environmentalism. Is that what you wanted to convey? That's funny, since traditional European right wingers always considered Jews "urban" and "alienated from nature," and both the Nazis and the radical left blame Genesis for the traditional understanding of nature being created for man.
Kindly leave me off any more ping lists for your atheist, higher critical rants.
I think you need to do a little background work before claiming that. The chabad.org website changed their translation of Ex. 23:11 because of my book.
Do you think you and your higher critical ilk are the first to notice all the "problems" in the Torah text? You literally have no idea. Why don't you try reading that sometime? A
Rashi was dead wrong about Shemitta. So was Milgrom. You have no idea.
The only think I'm getting is that Judaism is to blame for radical environmentalism. Is that what you wanted to convey?
The world doesn't revolve around you.
That's funny, since traditional European right wingers always considered Jews "urban" and "alienated from nature," and both the Nazis and the radical left blame Genesis for the traditional understanding of nature being created for man.
Gen 1:28 teaches that man was created to care for nature, not the other way around.
Kindly leave me off any more ping lists for your atheist, higher critical rants.
No problem.
Thank you for confirming that.
cannot afford the discussion
No problem, I understand.
I actually had similar questions to Carry_Okie, and now I see his answer at 16.
I think that sometime around AD 1500 a catastrophe has happened in the Western Culture, the outcomes of which were latent till the 20th century. I would not ascribe the root of the catastrophe to any single man. The environmental disaster resulting from the perverted view on man in relation to God is likewise not the only manifestation of the catastrophe.
From my copy, compiled and translated from 23 sources by Charles VanderPool:
Man's place in nature or his ability to modify the world around him depended on whether he was a hunter/gatherer, a farmer, or an industrialist. You can tell a lot about the man/nature relationship by looking at the man's religion and myths.
As for the Enlightenment, you can't look at that in isolation. You have to take Frances Bacon and the scientific method, plus the Enlightenment, plus the industrial revolution. Before Bacon, knowledge/technology was closely guarded, but after Bacon knowledge would be widely disseminated.
Obviously the pre-columbian Amerindians modified their world. But modern man tends to exaggerate that by degree and ability. Probably because modern man feels guilty about raping and plundering Mother Nature and the Nobel Savage
I gotta go to WalMart now. They have Round-Up on sale. I will need it this spring to kill the weeds and honeybees.
I think, that verse in the Psalm is some form of conjunctive mood expressed idiomatically, similar to today's:
[wagging finger] I don't know if I am gonna let you play with your beach ball any more...
Septuagint nails it with its "ει εισελευσονται", but Jerome's "si introibunt" looks contrived, as is the English "if" in this context. That is because "ει" covers a lot of semantics, much more that "si/if" does. See, especially section C in LSJ
The industrialist needs the hunter/gatherer more than he knows, as you will soon find out if he doesn't.
As for the Enlightenment, you can't look at that in isolation.
I'm not. The Enlightenment isolated itself so to speak.
Obviously the pre-columbian Amerindians modified their world. But modern man tends to exaggerate that by degree and ability.
I would dispute that strongly. So would the extirpation of 33 our of 45 megafauna species after the late Pleistocene.
I gotta go to WalMart now. They have Round-Up on sale. I will need it this spring to kill the weeds and honeybees.
Your point is?
My point is that I am going to modify nature by spraying round-up to kill the weeds and might end up raping and plundering mother nature if the round-up kills the honey bees.
You won't find me disputing that we should not manage wild lands as the Indians did, particularly because we are no longer harvest those resources for food. Yet we need to deal with the consequences of that change in management and preservation is a decidedly suboptimal method. Hence the need for a cohort dedicated to that task. Government is both maladapted and too corrupt to be ceded that management service, as control of access to resources is too much power for those who would game the system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.