tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post5102250276470844629..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: AtF: Frustration Sets InGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-20042593130501146812009-05-19T11:56:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:56:00.000-05:00hapax:
Dang. Forgot about ol' Isaiah, there.
An...hapax:<br /><br />Dang. Forgot about ol' Isaiah, there.<br /><br />And, yeah, I read that part in Timaeus. I missed the part about the cross-shaped radii, though. I was under the impression that he was saying the peak of all creation was the planets, which really doesn't help the whole Plato/Genesis thing...<br /><br />And, yeah, the snark will still be coming. It still amuses the hell out of me. I just need to get to a different system of philosophy. Or, um, whatever it is that you want to refer to Cooper's "history" as...<br /><br />GailVortex:<br /><br />It's closer to 6:1 commentary to quotation, actually...<br /><br />The thing that I've noticed with doing this instead of, say, <I>Left Behind</I>, is that I have to do homework. Fred can present the text, then present the actual Biblical quotation or church tradition or whatever and he's got his contradiction. Or he can present the text, then present reality as pretty much everyone save the PMDs knows it.<br /><br />I've had to track down the works of a dozen or so philosophers and/or pagan theologians (assuming that's a correct term to apply to someone like Hesiod). I'm not overly familiar with, say, Cicero or Hesiod. The breathtaking scope of absurdity I've found in six pages worth of texts requires a similar scope of research for rebuttal.<br /><br />The interesting thing, too, is that I've actually skipped a few things that totally weren't worth rebutting or that I couldn't track down. Chances are the frequency of that sort of occurrence will increase. But I'm guessing there will be plenty of fool's gold to mine, anyway...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-32198385753074780762009-05-19T11:25:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:25:00.000-05:00[cause the quality of snark might suffer ;)][cause the quality of snark might suffer ;)]GailVortexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-84694038896871764202009-05-19T11:24:00.000-05:002009-05-19T11:24:00.000-05:00I'm pretty sure that Fred hasn't ever had a 17:1.5...I'm pretty sure that Fred hasn't ever had a 17:1.5 ratio of commentary:content. <br /><br />I think you tend to be, ummmm, less concise that Fred, though.<br /><br />But, still, Geds--your loyal band here don't want you to suffer brain damage.GailVortexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-67223363673236056282009-05-18T22:39:00.000-05:002009-05-18T22:39:00.000-05:00I cannot believe that Cooper missed the nifty bit ...I cannot believe that Cooper missed the nifty bit in TIMAEUS in which Plato discusses the shape of God, which must be spherical with an infinity of intersecting radii that make...<br /><br />wait for it ...<br /><br />the shape of a X.<br /><br />Indeed, Proclus expands upon this with God inscribed upon the universe like the *a man upon a cross* (in J. P. Lundy's LOLtastic translation. Seriously, MONUMENTAL CHRISTIANITY makes Cooper look sober and sane)<br /><br />Y'see, even Plato knew! So everybody must have known! *They just refused to admit it!*<br /><br />Oh, you forgot the very favorite proof-text of universal knowledge sufficient for salvation, Isaiah 55:1-11.<br /><br />I love this stuff. Keep the snark coming.hapaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-73912453344404315372009-05-18T12:52:00.000-05:002009-05-18T12:52:00.000-05:00That's why I put the link to his stuff up in every...That's why I put the link to his stuff up in every post. Wait. I forgot to do it this time. Damn.<br /><br />The simple fact is, no, I'm not cherry picking. Most of the time I grab a quote to attempt to unpack the context, then go back and say, "Wow, that's just breathtakingly stupid."<br /><br />Also, I've written some 17 pages on the first chapter so far. Those seventeen pages cover about six and a half pages of text from <I>After the Flood</I>. I don't have to cherry-pick. This is what I like to call a target-rich environment. And it's why, when all is said and done, I suspect I'll be able to give Fred Clark a run for his money on the duration of a single book review.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-21564114935840065272009-05-18T12:34:00.000-05:002009-05-18T12:34:00.000-05:00"Applegate"! Hee!
If you're not cherrypicking quo..."Applegate"! Hee!<br /><br />If you're not cherrypicking quotes for incomprehensibility from this doofus but this is a representative sampling of his command of the English language, I'm not sure you'll be able to make it all the way through without brain damage.GailVortexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-36414228315042348882009-05-18T09:42:00.000-05:002009-05-18T09:42:00.000-05:00Hey, hey, we're not about grammatical correctitude...Hey, hey, we're not about grammatical correctitude around here...<br /><br />Either way, yeah, it might help. The strange thing is that I find the frustration I have is almost entirely with his methodology. I have to put massive amounts of work in to finding his quotations and the context (seriously, I almost gave up on that Chrysippus quote yesterday because I simply could not find it in the Project Gutenberg version).<br /><br />And I really do keep forgetting his thesis. I really have no argument with Plato, Zeno, or Cicero here. They knew far less about the universe than we do and did an impressive job of coming up with explanations. But it's not like they had the ability to text the Epicurean atomic theory, so everything was semantics and philosophy.<br /><br />Mocking them for not understanding modern science is kind of like trying to discredit Darwin for not understanding genetics. It's a fool's errand.<br /><br />The fact is, "goddidit" in one form or another was the default explanation whether you were Greek, Jewish, or Chinese back in the day. Many similar-sounding explanations aren't a sign that there's only one source of knowledge, as Cooper would argue, but that there simply weren't good ways of arguing from a non-First Cause standpoint.<br /><br />Now we can. But I can't hold that against the ancients. I can certainly hold it against Cooper, though...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-44046030654777709232009-05-18T09:21:00.001-05:002009-05-18T09:21:00.001-05:00an advantage or advantageous.an advantage or advantageous.PersonalFailurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-82558253120296641292009-05-18T09:21:00.000-05:002009-05-18T09:21:00.000-05:00I'm beginning to think that a knife through the sk...I'm beginning to think that a knife through the skull would be advantage when reading this work.PersonalFailurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034292023591747601noreply@blogger.com