- #36
Prometheus
- 346
- 0
Unfortunately, I think that your post does not deserve a serious response. Talk about gobledegook, read your own response for an excellent example of what you are talking about. You make meaningless generalizations, and then lump my statement in with them, when the only thing that is clear is that you have little idea what you are talking about in the context of my posting.vanesch said:Ah, post-modern gobbledegook
Do you really think that the Romans knew a lot about beta-decay (the weak force) or about the strong nuclear force ?
This is a typical pattern of "reasoning" in postmodernism: I guess you're talking about the 4 elements of Aristoteles, and the 4 forces (gravity, strong interaction, and electroweak interaction ; eh, only 3 ?? :shy: ok, before, it was, weak interaction and electromagnetism) in modern physics.
You seem so caught up in your world of hyper-generalizations that I am surprised that you came out of it to notice my post.
You make gradiose claims about beta-decay, as though somehow this has some significant relevance to my point. Do you really think that you understand my point? Do you really think that my point is so shallow that your rebuttal hits it right on the mark? Perhaps you do.
You take the 4 forces, and try to claim that they are now 3. This is a meaningless intermediate step from 4 forces to a unified force, and therefore has no relevance in this conversation, in my opinion.
I claim that the 4 forces of the ancient Greeks are structurally identical with the 4 forces of modern physics. Do you think that I am suggesting that the content is also identical, and that they used the same examples and the same terminology to exemplify these forces?
I suspect that you do not really understand what the ancient forces symbolized, and you do not know what the modern forces symbolize. You take them both at simplistic face value, and therefore see no relationship.
That is fine. Feel free. I would appreciate if you would avoid your fancy yet meaningless catch phrases in stating your point of view that attempt to lump me in with your grandiose generalizations that are superficial and convey nothing of value.
The only thing they have in common is the number 4, so we say that it is the same thing.
Are you this shallow, or are you saying that you think that I am?
You are actually making a point worthy of discussion. However, I supsect that this is just a joke on your part, and that you do not recognize any serious symbolic relationships hereAlso, in christian religion, the unified god is actually 3. Like the 3 little pigs. Or the 3 forces of nature.
Last edited: