You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] TrialsAndTribulation ago 

Here's a useful rule of thumb: If a person's new theory or system completely repudiates everything that preceded it and replaces it all with a sweeping new conception of how things work, tends to be all-encompassing, and is a self-contained paradigm the requires multiple new but unproven concepts to reinforce the whole, that person is probably a crank. Such a person has too much imagination and not enough understanding or knowledge, and often too much ego and self-importance.

0
0

[–] TheSeer [S] ago 

So the idea that Plato lived and wrote 1800 years later than you previously thought he did, is just too much for your small mind to handle, therefore I am a crank. OK... Did you ever get around to figuring out when the AD/BC system became widely used? Cement/concrete? Crossbows?

How about the trace amounts of cocaine and nicotine that has been found in Egyptian mummies? "In 1992, German toxicologist Svetlana Balabanova discovered traces of cocaine, hashish and nicotine on Henut Taui's hair as well as on the hair of several others mummies of the museum[5] which is significant,[2] in that the only source for cocaine and nicotine had been considered to be the coca and tobacco plants native to the Americas, and were not thought to have been present in Africa until after Columbus voyaged to America" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henut_Taui

Now, whereas most would say "The Egyptians must have gone to the New World before Columbus!" the other conclusion is that the chronology of the Egyptian mummies is simply mistaken! As is the chronology of the crossbow, cement, 'ancient Greece', 'ancient Rome', and so on. Just about everything that is a 'mystery' of history is due to wrong assumptions.

How did the work of Homer survive as an oral tradition for thousands of years? It is clearly ludicrous. Some tales would have survived, sure, elaborated on, yep, written down, edited, further elaborated on, but is anything more than the rough outline of the story Homer's? Of course not.

Karamzin questioned accepted Chronology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Karamzin

Jean Hardouin questioned accepted Chronology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hardouin "It is, however, as the originator of a variety of eccentric theories that Hardouin is now best remembered. The most remarkable, contained in his Chronologiae ex nummis antiquis restitutae (1696) and Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum, was to the effect that, with the exception of the works of Homer, Herodotus and Cicero, the Natural History of Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, and the Satires and Epistles of Horace, all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome were spurious, having been manufactured by monks of the 13th century, under the direction of a certain Severus Archontius by whom he might have meant Frederick II.[2] He denied the genuineness of most ancient works of art, coins and inscriptions, and declared that the New Testament was originally written in Latin, as he underlined with good reasoning in his short work Prolegomena which appeared in the year he died, 1729"

Isaac Newton questioned accepted Chronology.

All crackpots, I guess! They should have asked Trials and Tribulations how much can be acceptably repudiated. Your rule of thumb is just a guideline for mediocrity of thought.

0
0

[–] TrialsAndTribulation ago 

So the idea that Plato lived and wrote 1800 years later than you previously thought he did, is just too much for your small mind to handle, therefore I am a crank.

No, you're a crank regardless of what I think. And yes, Hardouin was a crackpot. Newton's gift was in mathematics, reason, and observation. He spent the last decades of his life studying occult learning and alchemy and searching for the philosopher's stone. I wouldn't use him as the basis for any kind of authority outside of the science he pioneered.

I'd recommend actually reading some books rather than getting a facile and superficial education on Wikipedia. You know at the bottom of a Wikipedia page there's often something called "Bibliography". That's a list of sources, often in the form of books, the sort of thing I asked you to provide when we started this. Trying reading some. They're a lot better than the internet.

Lastly, If you can find someone reputable and credible who agrees with you, you might be on to something, but if you're a lone voice preaching your gospel, you're a crank and a nut and a kook, not to mention a half-assed, would-be manque scholar with pretensions of education.

Bye, kid.