Medieval times - A enlightened era…

[skakos]

So, the "dark ages" is a definition, really. In answer to the OP. It's not, the "bad ages". as you say, enlightenment is not purely on a plus and minus scale.

Nietsche, and the death of God, is worth mentioning. The question is, is the focus on this life diminished by having a religion? And were people really better off, having a state religion to adhere to?

I think it depends on what kind of situation you're in.
For the rich and powerful (like the Di Medici and Borgia Popes) there was no difference, really. They don't care and go about their business regardless of religion, politics or whatever. Religion might be a tool to oppress people (in my used-to-be Protestant country, It was. Even into the 20th century.)

For an enlightened and well-fed person, well, religion will hamper you in your seek of truth if there are religious dogmas hindering you. Booze and sex seem to be less available in a religious country, unclear why. But religion can give you reconciliation in the big questions of life and death. And if you like it, the religion will give you a package of rules and buddys, which will make life less complicated.

For the poor guys, religion can be a light in the dark. And something that straightens up poor lifestyles an low morals. But undeniably, the mean lifetime has increased with God a bit sidelined, and life is more comfy.

Let's face it - it's not bad for religion with poor people. English is not my maiden language but if I translate from my uncouth northern language I think you recognize this one : Alas, how hard it is for a rich man to reach heaven.

Religion can be the light in the dark for the rich people as well.
Most rich people die alone or with great personal problems.
Money do not bring happiness...

[Arising_uk]

Religion can be the light in the dark for the rich people as well.

True.

Most rich people die alone or with great personal problems.

Any evidence for this? But by this light so do most poor people and they do it more uncomfortable surroundings.

Money do not bring happiness...

Maybe but having it doesn't exclude one being happy.

"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."
Sophie Tucker.

"They say money can't buy you happiness but it sure makes misery a lot more bearable."
Anon.

[skakos]

Religion can be the light in the dark for the rich people as well.

True.

Most rich people die alone or with great personal problems.

Any evidence for this? But by this light so do most poor people and they do it more uncomfortable surroundings.

Money do not bring happiness...

Maybe but having it doesn't exclude one being happy.

"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."
Sophie Tucker.

"They say money can't buy you happiness but it sure makes misery a lot more bearable."
Anon.

Take a look at Holywood for example. Most "successful" and rich people there die in their early years out of drugs or something similar...

Today we have lost the true source of happiness, which lies within us. We do not need money to be happy.

[Wyman]

Religion can be the light in the dark for the rich people as well.

True.

Most rich people die alone or with great personal problems.

Any evidence for this? But by this light so do most poor people and they do it more uncomfortable surroundings.

Money do not bring happiness...

Maybe but having it doesn't exclude one being happy.

"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."
Sophie Tucker.

"They say money can't buy you happiness but it sure makes misery a lot more bearable."
Anon.

Take a look at Holywood for example. Most "successful" and rich people there die in their early years out of drugs or something similar...

Today we have lost the true source of happiness, which lies within us. We do not need money to be happy.

OK, so what is the true source of happiness?

[Arising_uk]

Take a look at Holywood for example. Most "successful" and rich people there die in their early years out of drugs or something similar...

Nope, most don't.

Today we have lost the true source of happiness, which lies within us. We do not need money to be happy.

True but having it doesn't necessarily make one unhappy.

[skakos]

The true source of happiness lies within you.

[thedoc]

Take a look at Holywood for example. Most "successful" and rich people there die in their early years out of drugs or something similar...

Nope, most don't.

Today we have lost the true source of happiness, which lies within us. We do not need money to be happy.

True but having it doesn't necessarily make one unhappy.

Hollywood is an aberration and not representative of the human population. There are many rich, old people who don't seem to be very unhappy. With Hollywood, it's more the fame that brings unhappiness, not the wealth.

[thedoc]

The true source of happiness lies within you.

And those with money, don't need to worry about how they will pay the bills, and can take the time to find the happiness within themselves. When you are living from day to day, you can't take the time to look within yourself, your responsibilities tend to take over your life.

[uwot]

The true source of happiness lies within you.

If this report is anything to go on, it's mostly to do with relationships:
http://www.intropsych.com/ch09_motivati ... iness.html

[NielsBohr]

Many people refer to the Middle Ages as a “dark” era. But why do they say that?

The main reason is that during these ages research in sciences like mathematics, geometry, astronomy et cetera was not so intense as, e.g., in the era before Christ. But is that really bad? Do we need cold geometry more than divine inspiration? Do we need raw mathematics more than the acknowledgement of our higher essence? Do we need astronomy more than a reason to look at the stars?

Why is research in more humanistic issues “bad” and does not constitute “progress”? Why is the Enlightenment… “light”? Don’t forget that history is written by the winners. And the winners in this case were crude enough to verify their win by naming their era with a name which is synonym to Light!

Any thoughts are more than welcome!

Hi Skakos!

Interesting your antinomic title. I think as you suggest.

The multifactorial parameters among several centuries do not allow me to resume all in a post. -We could invoque the diseases in the ages in question as a problem of (knowledge of) medicine and salubrity, to remain basical...

But more generally, I think also a thing:
Believing in a way totally separated form the world or "reality" is as bad as nowadays making science without faith in spirit.

We have several recuperations of quantic physics on the net to underline a caducity of materialism, and I believe that some of them are founded in thoughts. (I refer more to quotations of know physicists as Oppenheimer to underline this idea than to some particular topic.)

N.B.:
If your avatar is Sigmund Freud, why ? I find he reduced all to sexuality schemas, what sound not really with a high spirit, at least I think.

[NielsBohr]

Moreover,

I think that modern (more or less quantic) physics clearly overtake most of physicist.

-There is a classical experiment in thought (gedankenexperiment), which consist of minding what happen, if I shot a particle and if we take the middle of the distance before the target.

Then, we re-take the middle distance (since the last middle) before the target, and again, and again...

FInally, we wonder why the time is finite.

In the occurrence, it is resolved with the integral computing.

-But we have nowadays not totally overtaken the example. In the instant of an interaction, physicist explain some of the interactions as consisting of an swap of some gluons or "virtual" photons (the interaction can continue more or less longer)...

In this case, what does initialize the departure of the gluon (photon) ? Another (even smaller) particle ?

This is why I think the subnuclear physics are not an answer, or at least as far as it is understood trough an attempt of human comprehension of the phenomenons, knowing: in a material way (consisting in particles).

For me, an answer was given since the discover of magnetism. Magnetic fields seems to be more concrete or understandable than a mathematical wave-function being the root of a probability.

(The unity of magnetism, the Tesla, equals a [kilogram per (Coulomb and second)] - what is very intuitive.)

I know nevertheless that fields concern also relativity (space-time fields), what could lead or justify a more general theory about fields...

But, to remain brief, - I have heard about waves of space-time to "explain" its self evolution - in this way, I have a doubt that science could ever lead to a definitive answer.

There is a book about if it is concevable.

To resume, the purpose is if the Nature has an analogy in physics, and transitively in mathematics, we can have a big doubt. A mathematical theorem of Goedel tells that a theory (or more precisely: a formal language) consistent in itself, cannot prove the truth in himself (the same language).

What seem as a very intuitive result.

That don't mean that the universe is necessarily an analogy to a formal language.


-For all what precede and to go back on the topic, I am faithful in the alchemy, which did not separate the diverse knowledges. For material reality, there was some chemical experiments, and for less material phenomenons, there was more spirit.

[skakos]

It is really interesting that some people still believe money is the solution to happiness.
If that is so, then you should concentrate all your time and effort on earning more money at once!
Leave this forum, go past philosophy, stop sleeping, start doing things to earn money!
Isn't that what you would do if this was indeed the key to happiness?
For me, even ONE person with money that is unhappy proves I am right.
But I do not have just one to show. I have MANY!
Isn't that something to think about?
There are people living poor lives in small villages and yet their life is full of happiness.
I guess they have not heard the news yet, that only money bring that...

[NielsBohr]

There are people living poor lives in small villages and yet their life is full of happiness.

Okay, not to be depressive, think about the above quotation.

Try no to mind too much about rich-and-deperate people... If they are so, they most probably chose their life. Or if they appear to you as unhappy - I also think most of people are to be honest - don't wonder about them.

In reality, although unhappy, most people are able to live so. Maybe a mourning of their past dreams in which they were indeed successful.

So don't worry about them.

[Arising_uk]

It is really interesting that some people still believe money is the solution to happiness. ...

Not what I said, what I said was that your assertion that money necessarily brings you unhappiness is wrong.

If that is so, then you should concentrate all your time and effort on earning more money at once!

Are you saying you don't?

Leave this forum, go past philosophy, stop sleeping, start doing things to earn money!

Not sure what you do but I have to work for a living, I philosophise because working allows me to.

Isn't that what you would do if this was indeed the key to happiness?

In this world one needs to live.

For me, even ONE person with money that is unhappy proves I am right.
But I do not have just one to show. I have MANY!
Isn't that something to think about?

By this light I can point you towards millions of unhappy poor people?

There are people living poor lives in small villages and yet their life is full of happiness.
I guess they have not heard the news yet, that only money bring that...

And yet there are also people who live a life of luxury in comparison who also appear full of happiness?

[skakos]

Many people refer to the Middle Ages as a “dark” era. But why do they say that?

The main reason is that during these ages research in sciences like mathematics, geometry, astronomy et cetera was not so intense as, e.g., in the era before Christ. But is that really bad? Do we need cold geometry more than divine inspiration? Do we need raw mathematics more than the acknowledgement of our higher essence? Do we need astronomy more than a reason to look at the stars?

Why is research in more humanistic issues “bad” and does not constitute “progress”? Why is the Enlightenment… “light”? Don’t forget that history is written by the winners. And the winners in this case were crude enough to verify their win by naming their era with a name which is synonym to Light!

Any thoughts are more than welcome!

Hi Skakos!

Interesting your antinomic title. I think as you suggest.

The multifactorial parameters among several centuries do not allow me to resume all in a post. -We could invoque the diseases in the ages in question as a problem of (knowledge of) medicine and salubrity, to remain basical...

But more generally, I think also a thing:
Believing in a way totally separated form the world or "reality" is as bad as nowadays making science without faith in spirit.

We have several recuperations of quantic physics on the net to underline a caducity of materialism, and I believe that some of them are founded in thoughts. (I refer more to quotations of know physicists as Oppenheimer to underline this idea than to some particular topic.)

N.B.:
If your avatar is Sigmund Freud, why ? I find he reduced all to sexuality schemas, what sound not really with a high spirit, at least I think.

Hi.

Indeed we have separated the cosmos into a lifeless set of "things" and us on the other side. People in the "dark ages" knew that we are all part of the creation of God. I see this as a regression not as progress.

My avatar is Shestov.

He spoke a lot about the illogical and how it can be more logical than the "logical"...