The Closing of the Western Mind

[Mike Renzulli]

Since one of the centerpieces or axioms of Objectivism is atheism, I thought I would mention this book since I think it is relevant in lieu of the rise of faith and the fall of reason in this country.

The author, Charles Freeman, is a scholar of ancient history having written a few books on ancient Greece and Rome. Now Freeman has published this book in which he attributes the Dark Ages with the rise of Christianity.

As many of you may know, Ayn Rand pointed out in her essay Faith and Force that there are two schools of philosophy, those of Plato and Aristotle, that constantly rise and fall in popularity. George Freeman also comes to the same conclusion and gives a meticulously detailed look into what happened after a significant event that occured during the 4th Century when Emperor Constantine declared a policy of toleration for Christianity in the Roman Empire.

It was prior to this event and a little while afterwards that reason and free inquiry was practiced in the Ancient world which was inspired, in large part, by the ancient Greeks whose ideas were adopted by Rome.

As Freeman points out, Emperor Constantine and some of his successors thought that by institutionalizing Christianity with the Roman state that it would act as a unifying force at times when the empire threatened by outside hostile forces, like outside invaders, and be an effective means of social control.

According to Freeman, because the Christian bishops at the time acquired political power as a result of church-state union, and were given a rich and powerful institution to operate, that dissent and the tradition of free inquiry was crushed and replaced with 2 centuries of dogmatism and repression. More commonly known as The Dark Ages.

Unfortunately, we are seeing this even more so in the United States today that originally rejected the idea of church-state union. Charles Freeman makes a vivid link between philosophical, political and cultural shifts while providing many historical details making the connection between the altruism that is bread by religion and how it subverted reason and free inquiry then like it is doing now.

I have a religious background and what I found most fascinating about this book are the details that took place then and how they are repeating themselves today. Especially with how religious sects (like Christianity) are trying to hinder scientific inquiry about the existence of God and evolution while religions of all beliefs are in conflict with each other today just like they have been many times in the past.

The question that people should ask is "why" when any country or culture dumps reason and inquiry (i.e. Aristotelianism) for faith and force (i.e. Platonism) and how Aristotle's influence can make a comeback. Freeman's book provides answers to this and many other philosophical questions in this well-researched, lucid, and excellent book.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

Since one of the centerpieces or axioms of Objectivism is atheism, I thought I would mention this book since I think it is relevant in lieu of the rise of faith and the fall of reason in this country.

The author, Charles Freeman, is a scholar of ancient history having written a few books on ancient Greece and Rome. Now Freeman has published this book in which he attributes the Dark Ages with the rise of Christianity.

As many of you may know, Ayn Rand pointed out in her essay Faith and Force that there are two schools of philosophy, those of Plato and Aristotle, that constantly rise and fall in popularity. George Freeman also comes to the same conclusion and gives a meticulously detailed look into what happened after a significant event that occured during the 4th Century when Emperor Constantine declared a policy of toleration for Christianity in the Roman Empire.

It was prior to this event and a little while afterwards that reason and free inquiry was practiced in the Ancient world which was inspired, in large part, by the ancient Greeks whose ideas were adopted by Rome.

As Freeman points out, Emperor Constantine and some of his successors thought that by institutionalizing Christianity with the Roman state that it would act as a unifying force at times when the empire threatened by outside hostile forces, like outside invaders, and be an effective means of social control.

According to Freeman, because the Christian bishops at the time acquired political power as a result of church-state union, and were given a rich and powerful institution to operate, that dissent and the tradition of free inquiry was crushed and replaced with 2 centuries of dogmatism and repression. More commonly known as The Dark Ages.

Unfortunately, we are seeing this even more so in the United States today that originally rejected the idea of church-state union. Charles Freeman makes a vivid link between philosophical, political and cultural shifts while providing many historical details making the connection between the altruism that is bread by religion and how it subverted reason and free inquiry then like it is doing now.

I have a religious background and what I found most fascinating about this book are the details that took place then and how they are repeating themselves today. Especially with how religious sects (like Christianity) are trying to hinder scientific inquiry about the existence of God and evolution while religions of all beliefs are in conflict with each other today just like they have been many times in the past.

The question that people should ask is "why" when any country or culture dumps reason and inquiry (i.e. Aristotelianism) for faith and force (i.e. Platonism) and how Aristotle's influence can make a comeback. Freeman's book provides answers to this and many other philosophical questions in this well-researched, lucid, and excellent book.

We dumped Aristotle in the U.S. over one hundred and forty years ago (when slavery was abolished). Since then we have developed the railways, electrical power, automobiles, automatic machinery for production, electronics and have raised within our midst world class physicists and mathematicians. We launched the GPS and no one in the entire world need ever be lost again. We have discovered that the earth moves and we are not the center of the cosmos. We have developed medicine that have removed the scourge of crippling and deadly diseases from our children. We dumped Aristotle and looked what happened to us! Oh the horror, the horror! We live longer healthier and freer lives than the Greeks ever dreamed of. Oh the horror, the horror!

Are you aware that the Aristotle favored slavery? And that he thought women inferior to men? Yes, we sure gave up on these Aristotelean ideas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 22, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

We dumped Aristotle in the U.S. over one hundred and forty years ago (when slavery was abolished). Since then we have developed the railways, electrical power, automobiles, automatic machinery for production, electronics and have raised within our midst world class physicists and mathematicians. We launched the GPS and no one in the entire world need ever be lost again. We have discovered that the earth moves and we are not the center of the cosmos. We have developed medicine that have removed the scourge of crippling and deadly diseases from our children. We dumped Aristotle and looked what happened to us! Oh the horror, the horror! We live longer healthier and freer lives than the Greeks ever dreamed of. Oh the horror, the horror!

Are you aware that the Aristotle favored slavery? And that he thought women inferior to men? Yes, we sure gave up on these Aristotelean ideas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We dumped his superstructure, not his foundation! We stand on the shoulders of giants (his)! At least, some of his foundation. Look, Aristotle had not to just be right for what he was right about, but wrong for what he was wrong about. If humanity didn't refute the wrong for a long, long time, whose fault was that? Aristotle's? Blaming the victim, Aristotle, instead of celebrsting Aristotle II, however long he took to arrive? The fact that Aristotle was wrong for so long and not recognized as such is a tribute to, among other things, how smart he was and how dumb people generally are, for he was right about a lot. But when you fuck philosophy you fuck science and progress. Not his fault since he was a pioneer. He helped, not hindered. He built a wall half-way high, someone elses had to do the rest. Give the man a break; he didn't have the INTERNET!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

We dumped his superstructure, not his foundation! We stand on the shoulders of giants (his)! At least, some of his foundation. Look, Aristotle had not to just be right for what he was right about, but wrong for what he was wrong about. If humanity didn't refute the wrong for a long, long time, whose fault was that? Aristotle's? Blaming the victim, Aristotle, instead of celebrsting Aristotle II,

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. The lesson in physics we take from Aristotle is this: don't bother checking your conclusions empirically. Some lesson. Aristotle's monument has this inscription on the base: He didn't check!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Bob likes to oversimplify so he can crap on his betters (like Aristotle).

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant,

Bob likes to oversimplify so he can crap on his betters (like Aristotle).

Michael

When I was six years old I dropped a heavy ball and a lighter ball from the same height and noticied that they hit the ground at the same time (give or take very little). Aristotle did not do that even when he was an adult. If he had, he never would have come up with the nonsense that heavier things fall faster than lighter things through a low viscosity medium. So it looks like six year old me was one up on Aristotle. Read -On the Heavens- and -Physics-. When I was a little kid I learned from my parents and by my own experience that one ought to check his conclusions empirically. Apparently Aristotle never quite got that down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Thanks for proving my point.

:devil:

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Bob likes to oversimplify so he can crap on his betters (like Aristotle).

Michael

He's been giving Aristotle a lot of credit for a lot of things.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

When I was six years old I dropped a heavy ball and a lighter ball from the same height and noticied that they hit the ground at the same time (give or take very little). Aristotle did not do that even when he was an adult. If he had, he never would have come up with the nonsense that heavier things fall faster than lighter things through a low viscosity medium. So it looks like six year old me was one up on Aristotle. Read -On the Heavens- and -Physics-. When I was a little kid I learned from my parents and by my own experience that one ought to check his conclusions empirically. Apparently Aristotle never quite got that down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well Ba'al, he obviously didn't have your parents.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He's been giving Aristotle a lot of credit for a lot of things.

Brant,

They kind of pale when he lays lack of scientific progress for centuries at Aristotle's feet. But Bob doesn't just crap on Aristotle. He craps on many of the greats. He is an equal opportunity crapper.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

We dumped his superstructure, not his foundation! We stand on the shoulders of giants (his)! At least, some of his foundation. Look, Aristotle had not to just be right for what he was right about, but wrong for what he was wrong about. If humanity didn't refute the wrong for a long, long time, whose fault was that? Aristotle's? Blaming the victim, Aristotle, instead of celebasting Aristotle II, however long he took to arrive? The fact that Aristotle was wrong for so long and not recognized as such is a tribute to, among other things, how smart he was and how dumb people generally are, for he was right about a lot. But when you fuck philosophy you fuck science and progress. Not his fault since he was a pioneer. He helped, not hindered. He built a wall half-way high, someone elses had to do the rest. Give the man a break; he didn't have the INTERNET!

--Brant

If false propositions flowed logically from his metaphysical presuppositions then at least one of his basic assumptions was wrong. On the other hand if his conclusions did -not- follow logically from his suppositions then he reasoned incorrectly. In either case his thinking was defective.

Conclusions deduced from true premises MUST be true. Since several of Aristotle's conclusions concerning the motion of bodies was incorrect then he made a mistake somewhere. For starters, placing the earth at the center of the cosmos. Aristarchus did not make that error. He assumed the earth was one of several planets. Aristotle rejected Aristarchus' hypothesis. This hypothesis surfaced 1800 years later with Copernicus. Aristotle rejected the theory of atoms and limited divisibility, a theory put forth by Ionian presocratics Democratus and Luecippus. What is troubling is that Aristotle did not bother to check, even when it was relatively easy to check. He believed that humans would be led to correct necessary suppositions from their experience. In short, Aristotle believed that induction would reveal the correct necessary truths from which all else could be deduced. If he had bothered to check thoroughly he would have seen this is not the case. That was Aristotle's major error. He believed induction would eventually reveal necessary truths.

Aristotle also believed the earth was eternal and that the various species of living things on earth existed forever. For Aristotle there was no Creation or Beginning. How was it that Charles Darwin, with no major scientific technology to help him, found otherwise? Darwin did not have fancy molecular chemistry at his disposal. He did it the same way that Aristotle did. He went on field trips and he -looked- at what he found.

Aristotle believed that light originated from the eye. How was it that 1600 years later Ali Hazan was able to show that light originated from bodies by either reflection or radiation and entered the eye from without. Ali Hazan had no special equipment. Ali Hazan checked his conclusions. Aristotle did not.

As to rejecting philosophy, science has progressed to the extent that it has dumped Aristotle's metaphysics and notions of causations. Aristotle believed that form and matter combined would eventually produce a complete combination. This is entelachy, a notion that Aristotle had that somehow form is fulfilled in matter. One of the first items overboard in modern science is telos or completion (mistranslated as purpose or end). The success of quantum physics has revealed that the world is not deterministic and strict causality does not hold. Einstein tossed notions of time and space that had been accepted for thousands of years. So much for philosophy. Philosophy, on the balance, has misled science. Common sense is the worst possible guide to What is Going On Down Below and Out of Sight. Science progresses to the extent that Common Sense is rejected.

Ba'al Chatzaf