Who Wrote It? When?

By -
Try to guess the year this was written, before you Google for the quote:

"You have learned from astronomical proofs that the whole earth compared with the universe is no greater than a point, that is, compared with the sphere of the heavens, it may be thought of as having no size at all. Then, of this tiny corner... take away... the seas, marshes, and other desert places, and the space left for man hardly even deserves the name of infinitesimal."

Comments

  1. Unknown9:11 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy10:01 PM

    Michael Oakeshott, obviously, but I don't know when. When you were still a libertarian?

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah6:03 PM

    Come on, Bob, try for real -- you'll like this one!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown6:39 PM

    I see that you keep censoring my messages Callahan. That's the catholic way no?

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah6:52 PM

    No, "censorship" is when the government stops someone from publishing something. "Taking out the trash" is what is called when someone is warned about using my blog to personally insult me, and then keeps going anyway.

    Now piss off.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy1:09 AM

    Gene wrote:

    No, "censorship" is when the government stops someone from publishing something.

    Does it matter if the government is following the law as the community has always understood it to be?

    (I'm not being a wiseguy, I really think you have adopted a new framework that is going to leave you stranded on the interstate far from Cracker Barrels.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob Murphy1:10 AM

    I'm guessing it is really old, showing that the "unscientific" medievals didn't think the earth was the center of the universe?

    ReplyDelete
  8. PH5:35 PM

    It comes from Boethius, a 6th century Christian philosopher, in a work dated c. 524 (Consolation of Philosophy).

    Side note: The translation is evidently a modernization of the one found in Collingwood's The Idea of Nature (1945). The last bit—i.e., "hardly even deserves the name of infinitesimal"—does not mesh well with the older translations I consulted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. gcallah7:30 PM

    PSH wins the cigar!

    I took some liberties with the translation in order to hide the age.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more