I don't get this passage from "On Heresies" by Francis Bacon:
>The second degree is of them to whom the majesty of God seems too much wronged, in setting up and erecting against him another adverse and oppose principle, namely, such a principle as should be active and affirmative, that is to say, cause or fountain of any essence or being; therefore rejecting all such presumption, they do nevertheless bring in against God a principal negative and privative, that is a cause of not being and subsisting, for they will have it to be an inbred proper work, and nature of the matter and creature itself, of itself to turn again and resolve into confusion and nothing, not knowing that it is an effect of one and the same omnipotency to make nothing of somewhat as to make somewhat of nothing.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditationes_sacrae#11
I get to about "oppose principle" and my comprehension starts to stall further in. I interpret from "namely" to "being;" as meaning that there is a principle or mechanism which enables the reproduction of life, and that this principle is seen as detracting from God. Honestly, I'm really confused after "oppose principle".
every frick who let magic be secret while this shithole got worse every hour deserves to burn in hell
Ooo, based Bacon reader. RARE.
Here's what I think he is saying:
There are people who are against the notions of active elements in nature which could be regarded as causal, thus opposing God, in that these active forces, physical or metaphysical, are nonetheless generating things of themselves and therefore godlike in some way, but who attribute degradations and destructions to some sort of negative force or principle without realizing that one and the same God makes and unmakes and both are His work. "Both blessing and cursing are from the Lord."
Black anon out.
I meant to add, the bit about it being inbred and of the creature is likely suggesting these people are imagining these negative forces to be some kind of feature which inheres within the being that is being made to nothing.
Okay, yeah, the second degree are people who see two causes that act (seemingly) independently of each other and God, one generative and positive and the other privative and negative, but in reality they are guided by the hand of God.
Yes, that's what I think he means. It was a difficult passage. Glad to see someone else enjoys Bacon.
Circling back with this, the reason why it's an "inbred proper work" is that because these people deny the generative principle (whilst raising the privative) operating in nature, everything created originates singularly from God.
Yes, I think that the people he's talking about are probably thinking in line with Ezekiel 28 or something, "you were perfect in all your ways until corruption was found in you (quoted loosely from memory)," and Bacon is thinking more in line with Exodus where the Lord hardens Pharoah's heart or Romans 1, when the idolatrous are to be "given over to a depraved mind," and that depravity is their own punishment which yet stemmed from a sin which one could say was already inherent, or even when God tells Abraham they must wait because the iniquity of the Canaans had not reached the proper limit. Or, for instance, God says that authorities come from Him, but when Christ comes the authorities were nearly all corrupt, so one might presume this was some sort of necessary scene setting for revelatory purposes. I'm speaking casually and speculatively, but hopefully you see what I mean. One and the same God blesses Solomon with wisdom and permits Saul to be afflicted of a tormenting spirit. All of nature, including the metaphysically entropic, is the work of God. Sorry if I'm not making much sense. I'm being overly casual, I think.
>Sorry if I'm not making much sense. I'm being overly casual, I think.
No not all.
>Or, for instance, God says that authorities come from Him, but when Christ comes the authorities were nearly all corrupt, so one might presume this was some sort of necessary scene setting for revelatory purposes.
I think Milton answered with the idea that sin is the source of dissolution and depravity in man and of calamities into nature.
I wonder if that would be a second degree heresy to Bacon, but I've always thought the same.
>Bacon as Shakespeare
Interesting, is that a running theory?
I don't make the rules, bro. The prevailing statistics say the higher your IQ the less sex you're having.
>Statistics
Ah yes, the quitter's cope.
Why do you keep saying sex? Artists make love. Why don't you have a girlfriend? What do philosophers say about love? That there should be mutual understanding and respect? Let me tell you something, bud. It's all a crock of shit. Women are wild mares and they have to be broken in. Once you've done that she'll be yours forever. And she'll be grateful that you brought order into her chaotic life. Cite me one philosopher who shared any such insight.
If you want to know love, read poetry. And then groom a girl into being your ideal mate.
Dude...enough. What is wrong with you? Haven't you realized I'm talking to you without even a shred of seriousness? Get a life. I don't need your dating advice. You can't even find your way through this conversation. For the record, I'm entirely celibate until marriage--like every real Christian, and I'm better read in poetry than you'll ever be.
What does Jesus say about divorce and those
who remarry?
How does a guy break in a woman. Asking for a
friend. As we post he's looking for a fetching misses.
Like a dog or any other animal, you need to reward good behavior and punish bad. Punishment desn't need to be physical violence, it can just be not giving her attention when she's being a c**t, for example.
Literally watch dog training videos on YouTube and it will ask start making sense.
You are the straw man I needed to get my point across. Nothing personnel. If you manage to get a wife she'll run circles around you before you can even realize what the frick hit you and she'll be out the door being non-celibate with another fella. Enjoy reading philosophy.
It would definitely be second degree because it’s imputing the negative effects to a cause not of God. Bacon runs into the problem of evil in a similar way as Calvinism/Puritanism does with predestination. God is the cause of sin and thus not omnibenrvolent.
No, it’s not Manichaeism because that’s the first degree:
>The first degree is of those who make and suppose two principles contrary and fighting one against the other, the one of good, the other of evil.
In addition to being a very cogent paraphrasing (thank you) it also appears to be extremely obvious. He's just pointing out that Christianity isn't Manichean, which I didn't think was a common enough misconception to require refutation, anyone who knows anything about Christianity has to know that God has no evil opposite.
In this passage, Bacon discusses the second degree of heresies. He explains that some people feel that attributing another principle or essence against God's majesty is wrong. Instead of introducing an active and affirmative principle against God, they introduce a negative and privative principle, suggesting that matter and creatures inherently tend towards dissolution and nothingness. However, Bacon argues that this perspective fails to recognize that it is equally within God's omnipotence to create something from nothing as it is to reduce something back to nothing.
In simpler terms, Bacon is saying that some people believe it's wrong to suggest there's a force opposing God. Instead, they argue that everything naturally tends towards chaos and nothingness. However, Bacon points out that just as God can create something from nothing, He can also turn something back into nothing.
Bacon is explaining that some people think everything falls apart on its own, but he says that's not true because God can both create and destroy.
^^^GPT wrote this btw
Impressive that it can do that much, but use your own brain.
I never read philosophy, anyway, because it's mental masturbation by incels for incels
Not on OP but is Bacon worth reading? I've seen him mentioned quite a lot with the Tudors and I'm wondering what he's actually about
Yeah, he is. He was also influential on the United States' Founding Fathers. If I'm not mistaken in remembering, New Atlantis was in particular influential on them. The third section, which was on possible scientific innovations, was a bit outdated, but still fascinating.
Thanks. Well said.
It's more like mental investigation which becomes a sort of exercise and psychic integration. As for inceldom, comes with the territory I'm afraid. Whether you're a man or a woman, high IQ means less sex.
>high IQ means less sex
What good is your high IQ and all the philosophical blabber you've accumulated in your cerebrum if you can't even charm and manipulate women, who famously possess an inferior intellect, into becoming obsessed with you?
I have six b***hes, I don't think you're smarter than me. I'm also writing a historical fiction novel.
And before you start raving about "ethics", they were all miserable before I found them and now they have love and hope, so essentially I saved six souls.
Do not fret. I would never have so wasted my time.
He authored the king james bible.
https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon-and-the-kjv-bible/
It might be an era thing. Some of Donne's prose works are similarly mentally fatiguing because of how long the sentences go on and the fact there was so little paragraph separation (a paragraph often went on for pages). This could, however, be the result of poor editing from my book, which was the modern library classics.
Manicheanism/dualism, that there is a god of being and a separate and opposing god of non-being.
Can you imagine this White man strutting around in 16th century England wearing that garb like an absolute gangster? I swear the upper class took their peawienering a great deal more seriously compared with the merchant caste homosexuals running the show now.