overview for jerryk

The poet Homer was a court physician who simplified Greek polytheism to help understand reality

jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 7 days ago

The poet Homer was a court physician who simplified Greek polytheism to help understand reality(self)

5 points4 points6 points7 points submitted 7 days ago by jerryk to /s/Philosophy

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!

2

The poet Homer was a court physician who simplified Greek polytheism to help understand reality(self)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 7 days ago by jerryk to /s/books

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!

0

The poet Homer was a court physician who simplified Greek polytheism to help understand reality(self)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 7 days ago by jerryk to /s/history

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!

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

jerryk[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 18 days ago

2

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

5 points4 points6 points7 points submitted 19 days ago by jerryk to /s/books

"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!

1

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

5 points4 points6 points7 points submitted 19 days ago * by jerryk to /s/history

"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!

Hitler ruled much of Russia for years. Do Russians perceive Hitler, historically, as a Russian Tsar?

jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 29 days ago

0

Hitler ruled much of Russia for years. Do Russians perceive Hitler, historically, as a Russian Tsar?(self)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 29 days ago * by jerryk to /s/WorldPolitics

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?

7

Hitler ruled much of Russia for years. Do Russians perceive Hitler, historically, as a Russian Tsar?(self)

5 points4 points6 points7 points submitted 29 days ago * by jerryk to /s/history

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?

The Trump mandate

jerryk[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun 1 month ago

3

The Trump mandate(reuters.com)

9 points8 points10 points11 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/news

1

The Trump mandate(reuters.com)

6 points5 points7 points8 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/politics

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police always get their men!

jerryk[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun 1 month ago

4

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police always get their men!(yahoo.com)

16 points15 points17 points18 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/news

0

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police always get their men!(yahoo.com)

16 points15 points17 points18 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/WorldNews

OMG! I can't find the Kursk Incursion anymore. What happened to it? How did I lose it?

jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 1 month ago

1

OMG! I can't find the Kursk Incursion anymore. What happened to it? How did I lose it?(en.wikipedia.org)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/news

2

OMG! I can't find the Kursk Incursion anymore. What happened to it? How did I lose it?(en.wikipedia.org)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/WorldNews

Canada and Mexico needn't fear US tariffs. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy!

jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 1 month ago

Canada and Mexico needn't fear US tariffs. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy!

jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 1 month ago

2

Canada and Mexico needn't fear US tariffs. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy!(self)

3 points2 points4 points5 points submitted 1 month ago by jerryk to /s/WayOfTheBern

This year, American voters made their decision. They, marginally anyway, decided to fill the office of the Presidency, the Executive Branch, with a serial rapist and a pedophile, who has earned his living by systematically committing tax fraud of the grossest and most extreme type, for many, many decades. Donald Trump isn't merely grossly unqualified to fill the office of the Presidency, Donald Trump is a very poor excuse for a human being.

So, accordingly, in their flexible, adaptable way, Americans are coming to terms with this situation, and dealing with it in an appropriate fashion. When Donald Trump attempts to appoint pedophile drug addicts to his cabinet, so that he can have people he can really comfortably relate to around him at all times, they are politely told by Senators that they would best withdraw from contention, or face sufficient public scrutiny that they will never get out of prison, alive. And, accordingly, they do, indeed, withdraw from contention. Isn't democracy wonderful?

But, really, the implications go rather beyond this. While the motto of Trump supporters may be "Let's make America great for pedophiles again!", probably the majority of Americans do not entirely subscribe to this view. So, actually, what these Trump supporters really voted for, although they may not realize it, is to totally vacate the Executive Branch of office for the next few years, and leave all decision making up to Congress. Hence, what we have in Congress now, is a kind of joint Prime Ministership between the leader of the House of Representatives, and the leader of the Senate. As for the judiciary, the Supreme Court, and all other judges would be well advised not to trifle with the Congress, or they might find themselves impeached and locked up rather quickly. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy!

Why "socialist" you ask? Well, think about it. Sure, these members of Congress are all rich capitalists, that's true, but, they are also members of the government, and they like their jobs. Fact is, there's no such thing as a capitalist committee. The very concept of a "capitalist committee" is oxymoronic. Capitalism is individualism, it is money making as an end in itself, as the ultimate good, pursued by wildmen, by cowboys who will do anything whatsoever to make a buck. People like Elon Musk, for example.

So, what exactly does government by committee have to do with capitalism? Nothing whatsoever! Zip-all, nada, zilch! Sure, you could have a President who was a capitalist, and that would influence the structure and behavior of the US government, but, you cannot possibly have a capitalist, all-powerful Congress. That is a psychological, political and sociological impossibility. Even most of the Republicans in Congress will act like socialists under these circumstances, they won't have any choice in the matter, they will be forced to think in terms of political control, long term social outcomes, revenue streams to achieve these goals. They simply won't have the time or opportunity for capitalist greed, corruption or initiative.

We can see this already, as even the Republicans are saying among themselves now, that the Trump tax cuts from his last presidency will not be renewed for ten years. Maybe for four years, we can't afford to lose so much tax revenue. Once the Democrats get into the mix, they won't be renewed at all, and, instead, we'll have tax increases, including corporate tax increases.

So, what about these proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, that Trump says he will enact, on day one. Well, the problem here, is that Congress is given full control of all Commerce, including international Commerce, by the US Constitution. Now, that said, the President is supposed to have some expertise in national security, so, at times in the past, Congress has temporarily delegated some authority to Presidents to regulate some aspects of tariff decisions from the White House. However, Donald Trump has no expertise whatsoever in national security, so, really this doesn't apply in his case. In any case, the only law currently in place that authorizes the President to have any say in tariffs is one from 1974, which gives the President the right to authorize a 150 day 15% tariff on a specific country, if the President can prove national security issues are in play. Which, he certainly can't with Canada or Mexico. So, there will be no tariffs, at all. Fact is, we're not going to be deporting tens of millions of immigrants either, or federalizing state national guards just because Trump says so. He can only do that in the case of mass rioting, otherwise no.

Fact is, Trump is just living in his rubber room in the Oval Office from now on, while the socialist congress runs the country, including foreign policy and the military. Know any soldier or NATO leader who would trust Donald Trump? I sure don't!