history

jerryk · 2025-01-14T20:23:27+00:00

If you read the Iliad with attention, in Greek, it's perfectly obvious that its writer wasn't just a poet, he was a scholar of some considerable training and experience. The descriptions of battle injuries constitute much of the action in the Iliad, and, they are anatomically precise, and disconcertingly so. His presentation of the counsels and speeches of the great Greek and Trojan lords are compellingly real, and psychologically accurate, as you would expect from a court physician regularly in attendance at the feudal councils that constituted government in Homer's time, in ancient dark age Greece. Because, of course, that's what the poet Homer had originally been. He was a court physician, trusted with treating the ills of the Greek Lords, and in attendance as a great wise man at their counsels. When he went blind, later in life, he was still loved and respected, and they kept him on as their poet-philosopher.

And, a great philosopher is exactly what Homer was. Like his physician successor, centuries later, the great Aristotle, Homer helped redefine the nature of our understanding of the universe, in Western Civilization. Aristotle developed the concepts of intense empirical observation, and theoretical summaries of these observations, to help predict the define further investigations of reality itself. Homer, the earlier incarnation of Aristotle, helped to simplify and reify our understanding of reality, by moving away from traditional polytheism, with its almost infinite number of Gods. Instead, and in its place, Homer postulated a concept of reality very closely associated with the feudal councils he was so familiar with. Reality was postulated as being composed of a small number of great Gods and Goddesses, who ruled by power and discussion, and whose powers were very great, but, somewhat limited by their competition with each other, and the nature of reality itself. So, people came to understand the universe in strictly anthropomorphic terms, in terms of a few great men and women making decisions, taking actions, controlling the forces of nature, and the behavior of human beings. As such, people came to think very analytically and critically about these things. Why would these human-like Gods choose to do one thing, rather than another. For what reason? When, and why, exactly? How could the Gods be understood, and their decisions be predicted, or influenced? What were the patterns that could be observed in these things?

Necessarily, it was much easier to think analytically and try to understand a few Gods and Goddesses, than thousands of Gods of all types, throughout all the material world, all the animal kingdom, and all of society, as was the case in traditional polytheism. So, progress in thought and understanding was more likely with this basis for understanding. And, as well, and perhaps even more importantly, Homer was such a compelling and brilliant poet, because of his scholarly background, that the ancient Greeks specifically developed the first true alphabet specifically to transcribe and record Homer's poetic songs into written form, for accurate repetition. And, this alphabet made literacy easy and universal in ancient Greece, much simpler than earlier logograms, requiring the memorization of hundreds or thousands of symbols. With universal literacy, and Homer's brilliant simplification of polytheism, the Greeks had a terrific advantage in terms of understanding and communicating reality!

In-the-clouds · 2025-01-02T23:03:05+00:00

René Descartes used that as evidence that the pineal gland is the seat of the soul:

“My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed. The reason I believe this is that I cannot find any part of the brain, except this, which is not double. Since we see only one thing with two eyes, and hear only one voice with two ears, and in short have never more than one thought at a time, it must necessarily be the case that the impressions which enter by the two eyes or by the two ears, and so on, unite with each other in some part of the body before being considered by the soul. Now it is impossible to find any such place in the whole head except this gland; moreover it is situated in the most suitable possible place for this purpose, in the middle of all the concavities; and it is supported and surrounded by the little branches of the carotid arteries which bring the spirits into the brain”

“Since it is the only solid part in the whole brain which is single, it must necessarily be the seat of the common sense, i.e., of thought, and consequently of the soul; for one cannot be separated from the other."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/

jerryk · 2025-01-02T16:36:49+00:00

"Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!"

I, like so many others have been stunned by the beauty of this Shakespeare quotation, from Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo first sets eyes on his beloved. What an incredible image, where did he get it from, why exactly is it so compelling? What original genius!

However, just recently I have considered an alternative possibility. Many of you will have heard of the tragic incident of a homeless woman from New Jersey deliberately burned to death on the New York subway.

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-subway-burning-woman-688e2ebd46f0eb8f5c9e3430cf2b4bd5

Leaving aside the possibility that this might, indeed, have been preferable to life in New Jersey, isn't it really quite amazing how perfectly accurately this Shakespeare quotation described this woman's situation at the time? It is absolutely technically accurate, in detail, and, would have been particularly compelling in the sixteenth century, when witch burnings and the burnings of heretics were very common indeed, and when torches and candles were the only source of light after dark.

Now, just before Shakespeare's birth, bloody Queen Mary was, indeed, burning heretics, male and female, rather frequently throughout England, and, one could actually smell their burning flesh on a regular basis throughout the land. So, isn't it rather likely, that Shakespeare would have heard about this, and known people would have witnessed it? And, when these unfortunate women were set alight with torches at the stake, wouldn't the fat from their burning flesh have caused the torches to flame ever more brightly? So, what could possibly be more natural, than that people would have shouted "Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!"

So, actually, the reason this particular passage and image in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is so compelling, is precisely, because he didn't make it up, at all. It's real! Shakespeare's just thought he could use it, and, perhaps, sanitize it a bit, for popular consumption. Indeed, I'll bet people in the audience in the sixteenth century actually laughed at it, recognizing its origins, and the reference!

Of course, historians don't like this kind of thing. Historians are very socially conformist individuals, and don't like anything that confirms just how nasty, malicious and destructive human beings really are. That's why historians don't like to admit that political assassinations are often very useful indeed. Absent Leon Czolgosz' assassination of President McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt might never have come to power, and necessary reforms and controls on robber baron capitalism might never have been put into place. Absent, Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Austro-Hungarian Empire might never have broken apart, and the nations making it up might never have gained their freedom, etc.

So, next time you see a Shakespeare play, try to think what Shakespeare really had in mind, because, it's probably not at all what it seems, or what historians say!

jerryk · 2024-12-23T17:14:13+00:00

I've always been surprised by how positively Adolf Hitler is portrayed in the Russian media, and always has been. After all, the Russians suffered some twenty million deaths, military and civilians as a result of Hitler's invasion of Russia, how could they possibly portray him in positive terms? But they do! Hitler is always portrayed as inspired, rational, brilliant and charming. A great guy!

In contrast, the British and Americans always portray Hitler as a total lunatic, raving and screaming at everyone for no very obvious reason, at every opportunity, and they tend to refer exclusively to the most violent passages in his speeches -- which, of course, were pure theatrical acting on Hitler's part, to entertain the audience -- as if these represented Hitler's true, habitual personality.

The Germans tend to have a rather more nuanced portrayal of Hitler. He is portrayed as brutal, and crude, but, also rather inspired, at least at times.

So why would the Russians "like" Hitler? Does this make any sense at all?

Well, first of all, the Russians, unlike the British and Americans, who ridicule their enemies, tend to treat their enemies with respect. The Russians tend to see this as the best strategy to deal with their numerous enemies on all sides, lest the Russian people become complacent about them. Your enemies are smart, your enemies are dangerous, deal with them accordingly, is the traditional Russian view.

However, there may be more to this, in the case of Hitler. Napoleon, for example, does not tend to be portrayed as positively in Russia films and TV series as Hitler is. Napoleon is portrayed as being capable, but, also, rather arrogant, and unable to perceive his own limitations. A fairly accurate portrayal, of course, in terms of his 1812 invasion of Russia, and disastrous retreat from Moscow.

So, why do Russians seem to actually "like" Hitler?

Well, bear in mind, Hitler actually did conquer and rule much of Russia for years. He didn't just rush down the road to Moscow, and, then run away with his tail between his legs, having lost his entire army, like Napoleon did. Hitler genuinely was a Russian leader, at least rather briefly. And, when you consider some of the leaders Russia has had, Hitler really may not have been any crazier, more brutal, or more destructive than some of them, like Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, or even Peter the Great, by some accounts, anyway.

So, to the Russians, was Hitler, effectively, just another Russian Tsar, who didn't last too long, or do a particularly good job? But, as an actual Russian leader, do the Russian people actually accept Hitler up to a point, and admire him up to a point? Is this a possibility, anyway?