How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?

By -
I'm listening to some lectures by Professor Thomas Williams of The University of South Florida, on medieval philosophy. In regards to the question in this posts' title, he notes:

1) No one has ever discovered this actual question in any medieval text; and
2) When angels were discussed in medieval philosophy, they were used in the same way as modern philosophers employ zombies and brains-in-vats. (That is not to say medieval philosophers did not believe in angels!)

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley4:56 PM

    Even supposing that people did discuss the question, I'm not sure why that would be such a bad thing. People today will spend countless hours arguing over whether Chewbacca or Spock would win in a fight, etc. Idle conversation can be entertaining, and is going to come in any civilization where people have more than a minimal amount of leisure. And the angels question is at least more elevated than many of the idle questions were argue about today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PH3:24 PM

    What is there to discuss? The correct answer is π. Obviously.

    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