Torturing and even killing madmen was a common practice in the past centuries and it's our heritage we shouldn't be too proud of. These days would the poor Bruno die in an asylum stuffed with piles of pills every day. That would be a much more humanitarian torture by all means.But there's a gap called universe (finite or infinite) between torturing a madman and calling his raving "important and true."

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalStars are angels and the Earth has a thinking soul. And lots of similar "important and true" stuff. Sorry dude, I'll remain skeptical about all that.You need to judge his contribution in the context of the times he was living in. He lived in an era where superstition ruled (people even believe that Adam and Eve existed as physical persons - a bit like they do today in the USA), so his words in a renaissance Europe were incredibly innovative and a lot less weird than those that were taught by the scientists (e.g. priests) and physicists (e.g. alchemy) of his days (he was very highly regarded in all courts of Europe including the one of Elizabeth I, but in the spirits of the times, even her burned and tortured heretics in similar ways as the catholics did).As example consider even Newton. He came a bit later than him, but if you go back to his writings there is probably more alchemy than physics. At the end it's his ideas from the Principia Mathematica that survived and the middle-age philosophy he wrote, has now been filtered out and only of interest to historians.

OK, OK, dude, the Earth has a soul, I'm not saying anything, calm down. These days we don't torture lunatics as long they aren't aggressive at leat.

"These days would the poor Bruno die in an asylum stuffed with piles of pills every day."What BS. Nobody's putting David Icke in an asylum and he's saying even crazier things. You don't people in asylums for saying crazy things, if it were like that many of my university professors would have problems (esp. the maths guys).I think you treated gc's reply with the ridicule it did not deserve.

Learn a bit about Giordano Bruno, pls.

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalLearn a bit about Giordano Bruno, pls.Am I glad I didn't mention Giambattista Vico, what?

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalLearn a bit about Giordano Bruno, pls.With pleasure, he was an amazing thinker and the historic period he lived in, one of those I find most fascinating; brushing up that topic in philosophy so many years after I last read about it will be good.In the course of his life he probably said:1. something that was silly at his time and now,2. something that was wise and innovative at his time and sounds silly now,3. something that was wise and innovative at his time and still wise now.Newton published both (2)+(3) (you can check his works in alchemy) and still you don't dismiss him as an lunatic because of them.Why do you want to dismiss the part (3) published by Bruno and not (3) by Newton?Mn... and how about other great thinkers? Pythagoras must be a much loved figure in this Quantitative forum, still from some of the fragments of his esoteric teachings he was barking mad.

QuoteOriginally posted by: gcQuoteOriginally posted by: GamalLearn a bit about Giordano Bruno, pls.With pleasure, he was an amazing thinker and the historic period he lived in, one of those I find most fascinating; brushing up that topic in philosophy so many years after I last read about it will be good.In the course of his life he probably said:1. something that was silly at his time and now,2. something that was wise and innovative at his time and sounds silly now,3. something that was wise and innovative at his time and still wise now.Newton published both (2)+(3) (you can check his works in alchemy) and still you don't dismiss him as an lunatic because of them.Why do you want to dismiss the part (3) published by Bruno and not (3) by Newton?Mn... and how about other great thinkers? Pythagoras must be a much loved figure in this Quantitative forum, still from some of the fragments of his esoteric teachings he was barking mad.Well not only that, but Pythagoras was also known for his crudely broadcast clay tablets suggesting that Socrates was a waste of good Hemlock! Had he been alive today I'm sure his opinions on Nassim would not have been reprintable on a forum such as this.Bon weekend all.Königspudel

It's a little surprise for me that you all believe in reincarnation and mental control of objects but... I'm affraid I must respect your religious beliefs.So much from me /runs away in panic/

What a fragile soul.

Only reasonable. Human sacrifice isn't away from that.

There are hundreds of allusions to Bruno in Finnegans Wake, and in general Joyce identifies Bruno with himself as Shem -- speculative, rebellious against authority, and -- in his own eyes -- persecuted. On many pages, however, he is an aspect of Shaun; yet Shem and Shaun are ultimately one, just as the stationery partners on Nassau Street, Browne and Nolan, become one: Bruno of Nola.

Yes. But there's a REAL Bruno. Quite remote from his picture.

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalYes. But there's a REAL Bruno. Quite remote from his picture.Which picture do you not like?

None of them, I don't care about this person. It happened so long time ago, that poor fellow would be dead by now anyway.