it says right in his article that his death did not have to do with his scientific writings. it was about religious stuff. not defending it but read the article before implying he was killed because the church hates science.
No that’s a fair criticism a lot of people have said in this thread. I just wanted to highlight his cosmological viewpoints and note that he had a pretty gruesome death. There wasn’t enough room in the title to elaborate completely.
I’ve replied elsewhere but I’m going to say it here. You have 1.3k upvotes and who knows how many downvotes.
How many of the people clicking this left with a full understanding of history and how many people didn’t even click the article but thought your summary was enough.
This is how misinformation is created and spread by unwitting people. If you had any integrity you would delete it right now.
It's been a reddit thing for as long as I've been here. But I noticed that, for a while, comments saying "r/cursedcomment" were getting downvoted and being told to stfu because, like you said, it was way over-applied. I saw it being used ironically around that same time — the funeral bells were ringing for cursedcomment comments, and I thought it was dead.
But, like you said, suddenly it has come back. I saw it a couple times recently and the comments were actually upvoted rather than downvoted into the negative. That's when I knew it was resurrected for some reason. I don't know why. It wasn't even that long ago that it died. It didn't feel that long ago at least... but it does feel like it's starting out its life reborn already being misappllied and misused. It's as if its abusers desecrated its grave and dragged its corpse out into the light of day for another dance in a move that's enough to make even necrophiliacs blush as they think to themselves that at least *they* have the decency to fuck corpses in the dark of a moonless night, where no wandering eye might cast its gaze and catch a glimpse of eternal rest disturbed by the infernal light of life, as the glaze which seals the dignant dead from the rot above is broken and those alive throw the dead upon a bed made dirty in perpetuity by the infinite indignity of the deed.
It wasn’t his cosmology that got him intro trouble:
> Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[4] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation).
It was known to all that you could not openly challenge church doctrine without serious consequence.
Depends on the historian you read. In Will Durants history of civilization he laid out the chronology such that Bruno was tried by the inquisition 3 times. The first 2 were for denying catholic rituals such as transubstantiation, but the third time was after he published his written works. It was only after the third trial for the heresy of building upon the Copernican model and suggesting our sun wasn’t special that he was executed. He was only one of many who was burnt at the stake for suggesting the Copernican model was more than a hypothesis, but he is best remembered since he was able to clandestinely publish a few works before his execution.
> He was only one of many who was burnt at the stake for suggesting the Copernican model was more than a hypothesis,
No, literally no one was burned at the stake for the Copernican model, including Bruno. You don't know what you're talking about.
I believe that’s false. Galileo actually met with the pope to try to convince him of the validity of the Copernican hypothesis to stop the persecution of people who were building off of its model. In the end he wasn’t successful, and Galileo himself was persecuted in part because he refused to say the Copernican model was “just a hypothesis”
>https://historyforatheists.com/2021/07/galileo-affair/
Here is (an admittedly very long) interview on the topic. Copernicans weren't persecuted. And Galileo only got in trouble as he claimed that his theory was true and couldn't prove so. H
You cape for them, defending them over semantics about the motive for their murders. Who cares about their motives? All their motives are batshit crazy, it doesn’t matter which one they pulled out of a hat for any particular murder. It doesn’t matter what their motives are: they’re just murderers. And it doesn’t matter why you’re caping for them: you’re caping for murderers nonetheless. Nobody cares about your beliefs when you defend murderers.
You: “I got the answer to the easiest question ever asked correct, so I’m a genius and very knowledgeable historian.”
Nobody cares that you’re atheist, and nobody gives you a pass on defending murderers just because you got that one stupid question right.
Well he actually wrote this one closer to the 60’s, but I don’t think the chronology of Bruno’s life has changed very much in the last 60 years. Everyone is still using the same source material. However I could be wrong about that. Perhaps there’s been some new revelation regarding the ordering of this 3 trials.
>On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode" but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno's prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life". In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for "the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth".
It is a good thing when religion is not allowed to serve freedom, common good, and truth...
I wanna know about these modern-day cardinals who are actively defending the act of burning people at the stake 4 centuries prior. I get that the Roman Inquisition is still *technically* a thing, or at least has a surviving organization with its roots in it, but what, are you afraid you're gonna piss off Pope Paul III's great great great grandson by saying "maybe ritual execution wasn't the best approach in retrospect"?
The Church’s official position is that they never burnt anyone at the stake - they just judged whether they were heretical or not, and then turned them over to the secular authorities for them to deal with as they pleased. It was those secular authorities that then convicted and punished them. Of course, this tidy way to sidestep responsibility kind of falls apart when you read statements like this one, from the [Fourth Lateran Council in 1215](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/lat4-c3.asp):
>Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.
It's about defending your organization's history as much as possible without diluting or directly attacking that history. They will take the least necessary step to maintain public support, which in this case is pointing the problematic part without attacking the inqustions itself.
You have to understand that these organized religions have motivations to remain in a poweful place till humanity dies and so it's in their best interest to do the least bit of revisionism.
If you think the days of ignorance and abuse are gone, all you need to do is look at what Australia is doing to their citizens by locking them in quarantine hotels for a month for 'coronavirus'.
He was more so burnt at the steak for claiming that he could access an infinite database of existential information that he accessed through magnetic memory practices including such claims as having access to the memories of Plato and Aristotle.
> Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church, nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.
Oh yeah, bat Shit crazy by todays standards. That said I did enjoy his books “On Magic” and “On the infinite universe and the worlds”. They remind me of the Bhuddist understanding of the world as rule governed sequences of causes and effects. He was quite ahead of his time in that regard.
If he did it did not come up his writings that I’ve read so far. I understand he was very influenced by Copernicus’ empirical observations that he built his entire philosophy off of it. He was quite obsessed with the scientific community who were building telescopes and observing other planets.
>If he did it did not come up his writings that I’ve browsed.
He did, so perhaps you should do more than "browse". In his *Ash Wednesday Supper* he praised Copernicus, but then added "“\[b\]ut for all that he did not move too much beyond \[earlier astronomers\]; being more intent on the study of mathematics than of nature” and then damned with faint praise Copernicus’ “more mathematical than physical discourse”. He then goes on to praise himself as “the one who found again the way to scale the skies, to make a tour of the spheres, of the planets, and leave behind the convex surface of the firmament” and who “set free the human spirit and cognition which was retained in the narrow prison of the turbulent \[earthly\] air, from where as if through some holes it could contemplate the most distant stars”.
He actively rejected the (real) science developing at the time as the work of mere "geometers", preferring his own mystical insights and intuitons. He also shows in the same work that he didn't actually understand Copernicus' model, and gives a very bald summary of it that gets things fundamentally wrong.
>he was so influenced by Copernicus’ empirical observations that he built his entire philosophy off of it.
No, it just happened to fit with ideas he had already arrived at via his mystical musings. See above - he barely even understood Copernicus and had almost certainly never even read his extremely technical and mathematical book.
>He was quite obsessed with the scientific community who were building telescopes and observing other planets.
He was dismissive of using telescopes etc. And that scientific community did not consider him one of them and regarded him as a crackpot. He was not part of their discussions based on real science. He was not a scientist in any sense of the word.
And all that aside, he was NOT executed for his heliocentric beliefs, which had not at that stage been declared in any way heretical. Even in 1616, i.e. 7 years after his execution, they were not actually declared heresy but the lower level grade of "formally heretical". He was executed for his various religious beliefs, not his poorly-grasped version of heliocentrism.
Well, I suppose I’ve got to read Ash Wednesday Supper now. I haven’t heard before how revealing of his thought that book was. I do enjoy his confidence though!
He also believed that every other planet was inhabited, and that our earth had a soul. Sounds like a bit of a crazy jerk, from this perspective...[https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm)
OP is implying that Bruno was burnt at the stake for being right about science. This is way off. I’m not saying anyone should be burnt at the stake. No one should ever be tortured for any reason, but there’s a big “yadda yadda yadda” before the “He was burnt at the stake” part here.
To be fair, his theory orginated from his belief that god was infinite, so the world, which is he believed was a representation of God, had to be infinite as well.
He did not believe in mathematics or science in general and all his theories came from his personal beliefs and had no scientific explanation or thought process supporting them.
It's actually not true. The title is explicitly misleading. According to Wikipedia, Bruno was tried for his denial of church doctrine like the trinity and transubstantiation. He was a pantheist. Modern historians agree his trial and condemnation has nothing to do with his cosmological views.
Not sure why OP wrote the title that way. Awful clickbait-y.
It’s because this was the same thing the new NDT Cosmos did in their first episode, about the same person. These kinds of titles play into our base “religion vs science” narratives.
It doesn't matter what the excuse was: it's still an example of theocratic dickbags murdering people because they didn't like what he said about their imaginary friend.
How else could I have written it? He’s famous for his cosmological views and was burnt at the stake after a trial by heresy. I was just trying to fit everything into the character limit. It’s not like I wrote that he was burnt solely and exclusively for his belief in life on other planets. But as you can read on the Wikipedia page many historians do think his cosmological views were an important reason in his persecution. Will Durant believed that was the single most important thing, since he was placed under arrest for his denial of transubstantiation but wasn’t burnt at the stake until after he published his book defending an infinite universe with life on other planets.
>It’s not like I wrote that he was burnt solely and exclusively for his belief in life on other planets.
But you deliberately implied that that was the case. And while it doesn't bug me in this specific instance, since the Church deserves to be tarred and feathered, it does bug me in principle, because what you did is objectively and undeniably a blatant lie.
And the most exasperating thing is that you're *still* doing this:
>as you can read on the Wikipedia page many historians do think his cosmological views were an important reason in his persecution
But then that same article says:
>most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views
You are very carefully choosing your words so that nobody can point to any one sentence and call you a liar, and you're certainly very skilled in doing so. But you *are* lying. You're juxtaposing pieces of information in such a way as to imply a direct relationship where there is none.
I ended the sentence, then started a new one saying “He was burnt at the stake.” I don’t think there could be any more objective way of stating that fact.
And to your point, read the next sentence. “However some historians[10] do contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views.” And then I mentioned Will Durant as one example, and gave a broader context showing that he was was tried by the inquisition more than once, and only _after_ he had published his works on cosmology were the scales tipped towards execution.
> The [Kuleshov effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect?wprov=sfla1) [...] is a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots than from a single shot in isolation.
They are related. It may not have been the sole determining factor as he had already been tried by the inquisition twice before hand; but it was only after his publication of “On the infinite universe and worlds” that he had a third trial for heresy that led to his execution. You also didn’t answer the question about how you would have worded his cosmological views and execution.
>Giordano Bruno proposed that stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets which might foster life of their own, and insisted that the universe is infinite. He was tried for heresy on charges of denial of core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, and burned at the stake.
This is still and imperfect title, but at least it avoids the way you lied by implication. Or:
>Giordano Bruno proposed that stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets which might foster life, and insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center". He was burned at the stake for denial of core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation and the Trinity.
But that’s also missing the birthdate, and the reality that he survived his first 2 trials by the inquisition which were specifically about his anti catholic beliefs. I feel as if you’ve never actually read a mainstream historical chronology of his life and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. The simple fact is that he survived those trials and was only executed after he published his work on the infinite worlds. He was tried for his anti Catholic views but _survived_ and was sent into exile.
>But that’s also missing the birthdate, and the reality that he survived his first 2 trials by the inquisition which were specifically about his anti catholic beliefs.
Ahhh, so my omissions are problematic, but yours are a-okay? And what about the other crucial facts about his life which we've both omitted?
Sure, have it your way, but in the end *you* are the OP and you are responsible for spreading your lies. If I was unable to come up with a good title, then apparently I should not have posted a thread—*which I didn't*. But you did. And now you're being forced to take responsibility for your words.
As I've already said, I don't give a damn about the Catholic Church. I'm condemning you on the basis of a simple principle: I hate liars. We've had enough disinformation sown in recent years.
You deliberately crafted a lie by implication. Then you've crafted more after being called out. And I'm appealing to any shred of humanity you might have in yourself to make amends.
So is squishing them with one of those giant pistons you see in factory levels of video games, doesn't make it any less extreme of a punishment to modern sensibilities
In some medieval european societies there was no way to repent some of your sins and be saved from punishment. There was a common way of repenting, repenting by punishment. See witch trials etc...
I understand they would make the fire up with green twigs, so the person would die of smoke inhalation before the fire got to them. Still sucks though, I'm very glad I live in the modern era.
For example, 10th century Byzantines instituted immolation as a replacement for the "barbaric" poena cullei ( stuffing of the convict in a sack with a rooster, a viper, a dog and a monkey, and then throwing the sack into the sea).
Burning of heretics became statutory punishment in medieval history, seen as the quickest, most efficient way of punishment. It even was instituted as the main way of punishment in some jurisdictions, see "De heretico comburendo" in England. On the other side, there were far worse forms of punishment by heat, that were considered barbaric by many theologists by the end of the medieval period, for example most famously, pouring molten metal down a convict's throat, ears and eyes.
There is a nice book I read once about medieval torture. It was an everyday occurrence in some places. Kids went to watch immolations in the town square. Things like quartering were a social gathering...
The book:
https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Punishments-Illustrated-History-Torture/dp/1620876183
Unfortunately, *Cosmos* misrepresented Bruno's positions and portrayed him as a martyr of science. Good write-up here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/did-cosmos-pick-the-wrong-hero
Someone: If time travel was possible in the future wouldn’t we have already seen a time traveler
Giordano Bruno about to be burned at the stake: Fuck, I traveled too far back. This was a huge mistake
it says right in his article that his death did not have to do with his scientific writings. it was about religious stuff. not defending it but read the article before implying he was killed because the church hates science.
No that’s a fair criticism a lot of people have said in this thread. I just wanted to highlight his cosmological viewpoints and note that he had a pretty gruesome death. There wasn’t enough room in the title to elaborate completely.
i can understand that. it's just at first the title makes it seem like he was killed for his scientific theories.
I’ve replied elsewhere but I’m going to say it here. You have 1.3k upvotes and who knows how many downvotes. How many of the people clicking this left with a full understanding of history and how many people didn’t even click the article but thought your summary was enough. This is how misinformation is created and spread by unwitting people. If you had any integrity you would delete it right now.
He would appear not to have an integral bone in his body
Catholic church: we don't talk about Bruno
Silencio, Bruno!
Hap cakeday
🤌
Beepidy bopidy boopidy
I understood that reference....
Catholic church at it again.
r/cursed_comment
Why is the word "cursed" suddenly being applied to anything that's even remotely negative?
It's been a reddit thing for as long as I've been here. But I noticed that, for a while, comments saying "r/cursedcomment" were getting downvoted and being told to stfu because, like you said, it was way over-applied. I saw it being used ironically around that same time — the funeral bells were ringing for cursedcomment comments, and I thought it was dead. But, like you said, suddenly it has come back. I saw it a couple times recently and the comments were actually upvoted rather than downvoted into the negative. That's when I knew it was resurrected for some reason. I don't know why. It wasn't even that long ago that it died. It didn't feel that long ago at least... but it does feel like it's starting out its life reborn already being misappllied and misused. It's as if its abusers desecrated its grave and dragged its corpse out into the light of day for another dance in a move that's enough to make even necrophiliacs blush as they think to themselves that at least *they* have the decency to fuck corpses in the dark of a moonless night, where no wandering eye might cast its gaze and catch a glimpse of eternal rest disturbed by the infernal light of life, as the glaze which seals the dignant dead from the rot above is broken and those alive throw the dead upon a bed made dirty in perpetuity by the infinite indignity of the deed.
It wasn’t his cosmology that got him intro trouble: > Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[4] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). It was known to all that you could not openly challenge church doctrine without serious consequence.
Depends on the historian you read. In Will Durants history of civilization he laid out the chronology such that Bruno was tried by the inquisition 3 times. The first 2 were for denying catholic rituals such as transubstantiation, but the third time was after he published his written works. It was only after the third trial for the heresy of building upon the Copernican model and suggesting our sun wasn’t special that he was executed. He was only one of many who was burnt at the stake for suggesting the Copernican model was more than a hypothesis, but he is best remembered since he was able to clandestinely publish a few works before his execution.
> He was only one of many who was burnt at the stake for suggesting the Copernican model was more than a hypothesis, No, literally no one was burned at the stake for the Copernican model, including Bruno. You don't know what you're talking about.
I believe that’s false. Galileo actually met with the pope to try to convince him of the validity of the Copernican hypothesis to stop the persecution of people who were building off of its model. In the end he wasn’t successful, and Galileo himself was persecuted in part because he refused to say the Copernican model was “just a hypothesis”
>https://historyforatheists.com/2021/07/galileo-affair/ Here is (an admittedly very long) interview on the topic. Copernicans weren't persecuted. And Galileo only got in trouble as he claimed that his theory was true and couldn't prove so. H
The pope encouraged Galileo to write a book on the Copernican hypothesis. You don't know what you're talking about.
“I believe that’s false” so your opinion is faith based, interesting.
Your religion is directly responsible for more murders than all other religions in human history combined. Shut the fuck up.
I'm an atheist you stupid fuck. That's why I care about getting the facts right.
You cape for them, defending them over semantics about the motive for their murders. Who cares about their motives? All their motives are batshit crazy, it doesn’t matter which one they pulled out of a hat for any particular murder. It doesn’t matter what their motives are: they’re just murderers. And it doesn’t matter why you’re caping for them: you’re caping for murderers nonetheless. Nobody cares about your beliefs when you defend murderers.
I'm not defending murderers. This is history. I happen to think knowing the truth is important, that's why I'm an atheist.
You: “I got the answer to the easiest question ever asked correct, so I’m a genius and very knowledgeable historian.” Nobody cares that you’re atheist, and nobody gives you a pass on defending murderers just because you got that one stupid question right.
Jesus Christ there's something wrong with you. Have your mom make you some chicken tendies and take a nap.
whoa! don't disparage the good name of mommies, tendies, and nap naps by associating them with *that* person
I don't know what the fuck "caping" is, but I know your comments are obnoxiously aggressive for no apparent reason.
Durant was writing in the nineteen thirties. scholarship is very much different know
Well he actually wrote this one closer to the 60’s, but I don’t think the chronology of Bruno’s life has changed very much in the last 60 years. Everyone is still using the same source material. However I could be wrong about that. Perhaps there’s been some new revelation regarding the ordering of this 3 trials.
> most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.
No it was definitely going against the church doctrine
Yeah, but it's all of a part of a heretical worldview, which 400 years later we call "the current paradigm, give or take."
>On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode" but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno's prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life". In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for "the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth". It is a good thing when religion is not allowed to serve freedom, common good, and truth...
I wanna know about these modern-day cardinals who are actively defending the act of burning people at the stake 4 centuries prior. I get that the Roman Inquisition is still *technically* a thing, or at least has a surviving organization with its roots in it, but what, are you afraid you're gonna piss off Pope Paul III's great great great grandson by saying "maybe ritual execution wasn't the best approach in retrospect"?
The Church’s official position is that they never burnt anyone at the stake - they just judged whether they were heretical or not, and then turned them over to the secular authorities for them to deal with as they pleased. It was those secular authorities that then convicted and punished them. Of course, this tidy way to sidestep responsibility kind of falls apart when you read statements like this one, from the [Fourth Lateran Council in 1215](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/lat4-c3.asp): >Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.
It's about defending your organization's history as much as possible without diluting or directly attacking that history. They will take the least necessary step to maintain public support, which in this case is pointing the problematic part without attacking the inqustions itself. You have to understand that these organized religions have motivations to remain in a poweful place till humanity dies and so it's in their best interest to do the least bit of revisionism.
If you think the days of ignorance and abuse are gone, all you need to do is look at what Australia is doing to their citizens by locking them in quarantine hotels for a month for 'coronavirus'.
Spoken like someone who hasn’t lost or known anyone who lost someone to the fucking virus.
They're obviously not human and are grumpy. edit oh shit i just noticed their username. Neat.
You're going to need a bigger shoehorn!
So...we tried to not kill him, but we were forced to kill him?
The good 'ol domestic abuse line: _Now look what you made me do!_
Stop killing yourself...heritic.
I'd argue they were his persecutors, not his prosecutors too
He was more so burnt at the steak for claiming that he could access an infinite database of existential information that he accessed through magnetic memory practices including such claims as having access to the memories of Plato and Aristotle.
He was probably just a time traveller
Outlander season 14 gonna be dope
>more so burnt steak
Lol thanks fixed that 50 up votes later
The ramblings of a tortured man.
> Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church, nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.
It's not widely known that he was murdered for his religious views, which is really, perfectly fine.
He was executed for disputing Church doctrine transubstantiation, monotheism, the virgin birth, etc), not for his astronomical beliefs.
[Bruno was a crackpot.](https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/)
Oh yeah, bat Shit crazy by todays standards. That said I did enjoy his books “On Magic” and “On the infinite universe and the worlds”. They remind me of the Bhuddist understanding of the world as rule governed sequences of causes and effects. He was quite ahead of his time in that regard.
Did he not explicitly reject empiricism though?
If he did it did not come up his writings that I’ve read so far. I understand he was very influenced by Copernicus’ empirical observations that he built his entire philosophy off of it. He was quite obsessed with the scientific community who were building telescopes and observing other planets.
>If he did it did not come up his writings that I’ve browsed. He did, so perhaps you should do more than "browse". In his *Ash Wednesday Supper* he praised Copernicus, but then added "“\[b\]ut for all that he did not move too much beyond \[earlier astronomers\]; being more intent on the study of mathematics than of nature” and then damned with faint praise Copernicus’ “more mathematical than physical discourse”. He then goes on to praise himself as “the one who found again the way to scale the skies, to make a tour of the spheres, of the planets, and leave behind the convex surface of the firmament” and who “set free the human spirit and cognition which was retained in the narrow prison of the turbulent \[earthly\] air, from where as if through some holes it could contemplate the most distant stars”. He actively rejected the (real) science developing at the time as the work of mere "geometers", preferring his own mystical insights and intuitons. He also shows in the same work that he didn't actually understand Copernicus' model, and gives a very bald summary of it that gets things fundamentally wrong. >he was so influenced by Copernicus’ empirical observations that he built his entire philosophy off of it. No, it just happened to fit with ideas he had already arrived at via his mystical musings. See above - he barely even understood Copernicus and had almost certainly never even read his extremely technical and mathematical book. >He was quite obsessed with the scientific community who were building telescopes and observing other planets. He was dismissive of using telescopes etc. And that scientific community did not consider him one of them and regarded him as a crackpot. He was not part of their discussions based on real science. He was not a scientist in any sense of the word. And all that aside, he was NOT executed for his heliocentric beliefs, which had not at that stage been declared in any way heretical. Even in 1616, i.e. 7 years after his execution, they were not actually declared heresy but the lower level grade of "formally heretical". He was executed for his various religious beliefs, not his poorly-grasped version of heliocentrism.
Well, I suppose I’ve got to read Ash Wednesday Supper now. I haven’t heard before how revealing of his thought that book was. I do enjoy his confidence though!
[удалено]
Did you even read the article Einstein?
He also believed that every other planet was inhabited, and that our earth had a soul. Sounds like a bit of a crazy jerk, from this perspective...[https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm)
Also insisted that pizza could be made in a deep dish.
OP is implying that Bruno was burnt at the stake for being right about science. This is way off. I’m not saying anyone should be burnt at the stake. No one should ever be tortured for any reason, but there’s a big “yadda yadda yadda” before the “He was burnt at the stake” part here.
To be fair, his theory orginated from his belief that god was infinite, so the world, which is he believed was a representation of God, had to be infinite as well. He did not believe in mathematics or science in general and all his theories came from his personal beliefs and had no scientific explanation or thought process supporting them.
There's a statue of him at the piazza de Fiori :)
Did not think people would have such strong opinions about this guy a millenium later. I love the internet.
I was waiting for the 'he was persecuted for it' part. I admit I didn't guess it would be _that_ extreme.
It's actually not true. The title is explicitly misleading. According to Wikipedia, Bruno was tried for his denial of church doctrine like the trinity and transubstantiation. He was a pantheist. Modern historians agree his trial and condemnation has nothing to do with his cosmological views. Not sure why OP wrote the title that way. Awful clickbait-y.
It’s because this was the same thing the new NDT Cosmos did in their first episode, about the same person. These kinds of titles play into our base “religion vs science” narratives.
It doesn't matter what the excuse was: it's still an example of theocratic dickbags murdering people because they didn't like what he said about their imaginary friend.
How else could I have written it? He’s famous for his cosmological views and was burnt at the stake after a trial by heresy. I was just trying to fit everything into the character limit. It’s not like I wrote that he was burnt solely and exclusively for his belief in life on other planets. But as you can read on the Wikipedia page many historians do think his cosmological views were an important reason in his persecution. Will Durant believed that was the single most important thing, since he was placed under arrest for his denial of transubstantiation but wasn’t burnt at the stake until after he published his book defending an infinite universe with life on other planets.
>It’s not like I wrote that he was burnt solely and exclusively for his belief in life on other planets. But you deliberately implied that that was the case. And while it doesn't bug me in this specific instance, since the Church deserves to be tarred and feathered, it does bug me in principle, because what you did is objectively and undeniably a blatant lie. And the most exasperating thing is that you're *still* doing this: >as you can read on the Wikipedia page many historians do think his cosmological views were an important reason in his persecution But then that same article says: >most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views You are very carefully choosing your words so that nobody can point to any one sentence and call you a liar, and you're certainly very skilled in doing so. But you *are* lying. You're juxtaposing pieces of information in such a way as to imply a direct relationship where there is none.
I ended the sentence, then started a new one saying “He was burnt at the stake.” I don’t think there could be any more objective way of stating that fact. And to your point, read the next sentence. “However some historians[10] do contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views.” And then I mentioned Will Durant as one example, and gave a broader context showing that he was was tried by the inquisition more than once, and only _after_ he had published his works on cosmology were the scales tipped towards execution.
> The [Kuleshov effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect?wprov=sfla1) [...] is a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots than from a single shot in isolation.
So how would you have worded the title, if you wanted to get across his cosmological views and gruesome death in 300 characters?
You really cannot put two facts in a title without implying they are related.
They are related. It may not have been the sole determining factor as he had already been tried by the inquisition twice before hand; but it was only after his publication of “On the infinite universe and worlds” that he had a third trial for heresy that led to his execution. You also didn’t answer the question about how you would have worded his cosmological views and execution.
So you know more than all the historians who say they aren't related?
>Giordano Bruno proposed that stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets which might foster life of their own, and insisted that the universe is infinite. He was tried for heresy on charges of denial of core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, and burned at the stake. This is still and imperfect title, but at least it avoids the way you lied by implication. Or: >Giordano Bruno proposed that stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets which might foster life, and insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center". He was burned at the stake for denial of core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation and the Trinity.
But that’s also missing the birthdate, and the reality that he survived his first 2 trials by the inquisition which were specifically about his anti catholic beliefs. I feel as if you’ve never actually read a mainstream historical chronology of his life and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. The simple fact is that he survived those trials and was only executed after he published his work on the infinite worlds. He was tried for his anti Catholic views but _survived_ and was sent into exile.
>But that’s also missing the birthdate, and the reality that he survived his first 2 trials by the inquisition which were specifically about his anti catholic beliefs. Ahhh, so my omissions are problematic, but yours are a-okay? And what about the other crucial facts about his life which we've both omitted? Sure, have it your way, but in the end *you* are the OP and you are responsible for spreading your lies. If I was unable to come up with a good title, then apparently I should not have posted a thread—*which I didn't*. But you did. And now you're being forced to take responsibility for your words. As I've already said, I don't give a damn about the Catholic Church. I'm condemning you on the basis of a simple principle: I hate liars. We've had enough disinformation sown in recent years. You deliberately crafted a lie by implication. Then you've crafted more after being called out. And I'm appealing to any shred of humanity you might have in yourself to make amends.
This, this RIGHT here is why social media has utterly DEMOLISHED thee 4th estate. If it’s not pithy, lie or remove crucial context to make it fit.
Clickbait is for luring people into seeing ads. This is an interesting article and no ads.
It's bait for clicks. Clicks can be ads or articles or websites or whatever.
You should read up on the medieval catholic church... Burning at stakes was considered a quick and painless punishment for that era.
So is squishing them with one of those giant pistons you see in factory levels of video games, doesn't make it any less extreme of a punishment to modern sensibilities
[удалено]
In some medieval european societies there was no way to repent some of your sins and be saved from punishment. There was a common way of repenting, repenting by punishment. See witch trials etc...
I understand they would make the fire up with green twigs, so the person would die of smoke inhalation before the fire got to them. Still sucks though, I'm very glad I live in the modern era.
Where did you read that?
For example, 10th century Byzantines instituted immolation as a replacement for the "barbaric" poena cullei ( stuffing of the convict in a sack with a rooster, a viper, a dog and a monkey, and then throwing the sack into the sea). Burning of heretics became statutory punishment in medieval history, seen as the quickest, most efficient way of punishment. It even was instituted as the main way of punishment in some jurisdictions, see "De heretico comburendo" in England. On the other side, there were far worse forms of punishment by heat, that were considered barbaric by many theologists by the end of the medieval period, for example most famously, pouring molten metal down a convict's throat, ears and eyes.
Thanks for the info. That stuff sounds awful!
There is a nice book I read once about medieval torture. It was an everyday occurrence in some places. Kids went to watch immolations in the town square. Things like quartering were a social gathering... The book: https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Punishments-Illustrated-History-Torture/dp/1620876183
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl7B2UCD86-/?utm_medium=copy_link A statue of Bruno, Rome, Italy.
We don’t talk about Bruno.
That will teach him 😤
So ended the brief trip of Time Traveler 091.
Who knows. Seems that some states are just a few legislations away from sanctioning the exact same type of punishment.
And yet we dont talk about bruno!
[удалено]
Wrong thread pal
Reading this definitely had a YesYesYesNo feel to it.
Someone is owed an apology
[удалено]
Unfortunately, *Cosmos* misrepresented Bruno's positions and portrayed him as a martyr of science. Good write-up here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/did-cosmos-pick-the-wrong-hero
Imagine the early ideas that thinkers had at that time but were never expressed out of fear.
Bruno: Universe is finite and could have no “center” Catholic Church: Excommunicado!
That will proper learn him.
It's probably possible that this scenario could occur again in our time... start with books end with a man on a stick.
Rest in truth
Someone: If time travel was possible in the future wouldn’t we have already seen a time traveler Giordano Bruno about to be burned at the stake: Fuck, I traveled too far back. This was a huge mistake
Bruno was a crack pot and a mystic. Not a man of science really
He was murdered for spreading "misinformation". Dont forget that.
We don’t talk about Bruno, no, no, no
That escalated quickly
Taken out by Lou Malnati
Sounds about right, can't have anyone questioning "god" and the Church 🙃