I wonder whether Montaigne had anything to say about a government that is deliberately trying to destroy its nation? I doubt he could even imagine such villainy. So maybe there is something new under the sun.
Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept
That one sounds perfectly dreadful on its face. It implies that there is some higher truth--known perhaps to priests or some dirigiste--and the little people are fated with ignorance. What I don't like about it is that it discourages the truly curious. Niels Bohr for example might have scoffed at Montaigne.
Volunteering is for suckers. Did you know that volunteers don't even get paid for the stuff they do?
If the Bible has taught us anything—which it hasn't—it's that girls should stick to girl's sports like hot oil wrestling, foxy boxing and such and such.
“What a stupid nation we are. We are not content with letting the world know of our vices and follies by repute, we go to foreign nations in order to show them to them by our presence!”
"Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept."
"That one sounds perfectly dreadful on its face. It implies that there is some higher truth--known perhaps to priests or some dirigiste--and the little people are fated with ignorance. What I don't like about it is that it discourages the truly curious. Niels Bohr for example might have scoffed at Montaigne."
Not at all; you're reading it with blinders on. He's saying that people can be brought to believe lies even where facts are in evidence. He's saying that "truth" is whatever persuasive frauds can convince others to believe is the truth, rather than what is plainly evident to the contrary.
The truth of this axiom is proved everyday.
Oh, and there are not very many "truly curious" people in the world at any given time.
The reality is those aphorisms could all fit easily on one page and yet we were made to click through, if we were sufficiently curious, but it seems after two or three of those it becomes more clear our curiosity is easily satisfied that they're only interesting because they're so obvious and so old.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
१९ टिप्पण्या:
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Is that the new motto of the NY Times?
Is that why French is the traditional language of diplomacy?
"Yeah, but whattaya gonna do?"
-- Homer Simpson
I wonder whether Montaigne had anything to say about a government that is deliberately trying to destroy its nation? I doubt he could even imagine such villainy. So maybe there is something new under the sun.
Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept
That one sounds perfectly dreadful on its face. It implies that there is some higher truth--known perhaps to priests or some dirigiste--and the little people are fated with ignorance. What I don't like about it is that it discourages the truly curious. Niels Bohr for example might have scoffed at Montaigne.
The Wit and Wisdom of Homer Simpson.
Samples:
Volunteering is for suckers. Did you know that volunteers don't even get paid for the stuff they do?
If the Bible has taught us anything—which it hasn't—it's that girls should stick to girl's sports like hot oil wrestling, foxy boxing and such and such.
Now trust to your philosophy; boast that you have found the bean in the cake, when you consider the clatter of so many philosophical brains!
Montaigne is frequently called the first blogger.
Wasn't he the guy who said, "The beakless penguin chews no ice?"
"If you tell a lie often enough, you can get anybody to believe anything"
- Josef Goebbels, PhD
That man's many aphorisms are a true world treasure.
Here's a good one from him:
“What a stupid nation we are. We are not content with letting the world know of our vices and follies by repute, we go to foreign nations in order to show them to them by our presence!”
"Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept."
"That one sounds perfectly dreadful on its face. It implies that there is some higher truth--known perhaps to priests or some dirigiste--and the little people are fated with ignorance. What I don't like about it is that it discourages the truly curious. Niels Bohr for example might have scoffed at Montaigne."
Not at all; you're reading it with blinders on. He's saying that people can be brought to believe lies even where facts are in evidence. He's saying that "truth" is whatever persuasive frauds can convince others to believe is the truth, rather than what is plainly evident to the contrary.
The truth of this axiom is proved everyday.
Oh, and there are not very many "truly curious" people in the world at any given time.
The truth of this axiom is proved everyday.
Benghazi, Benjamin
Oh, and there are not very many "truly curious" people in the world at any given time.
So you're saying the aphorism doesn't apply to the truly curious--they don't matter because their numbers are so few?
The reality is those aphorisms could all fit easily on one page and yet we were made to click through, if we were sufficiently curious, but it seems after two or three of those it becomes more clear our curiosity is easily satisfied that they're only interesting because they're so obvious and so old.
"So you're saying the aphorism doesn't apply to the truly curious--they don't matter because their numbers are so few?"
Oy vey!
No reason to get derisive, Robert Cook. A simple yes no would have sufficed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा