>look at his writings. >its all occult schizo rambling

>look at his writings
>it’s all occult schizo rambling

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon discovers the Renaissance and Early Modern period.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >space is the sensorium of God
    what the living frick did Newton mean by this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      is the sensorium of God
      >what the living frick did Newton mean by this?

      I'm guessing he thinks of G_d as a universal mind or universal observer, and the purpose of space is arrange sensation in a way which is orderly and meaningful, rather than being a slurry of everything which could be felt happening at once.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        TKD

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He was probably some sort of pantheist or panpsychist

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Worst, unitarian.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is it that fricking complicated you dumb little fricking computer robot? He encapsulates it perfectly in brevitous manner. I'll say it in robot. God senses through space.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it does you fricking mental midget. How can space sense things? What if matter moves into it? Would it violate the speed of light? These are all valid questions!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think it's like a 3d being looking at a 2d world

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Extra dimensions could probably reduce problems with the speed of light I guess. Like folding over a paper so that the edges are closer to each other. But comparing empty space with matter-filled space is still an issue.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          An all knowing, all powerfull God, permeates the entire universe. The universe is information. Information is Gods mind. Don't ask for some bullshit psuedo proofs. If Newton could not provide, niether can I. Making it more complex or flowery is just vanity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification or discussing the implications. People since Leibniz have been asking for what Newton meant by calling space the "sensorium" of God. It's a fair question.

            >autism

            Nothing wrong with autist on autist violence. Are you perhaps lost? You're in a Newton thread on IQfy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine a sensorium like a garden of every kind of perceivable, and in Newton's mind, probably imperceptible sense. All of it is so incredibly distant and vast, that only God, or a god-like entity, could get to experience all of it.
            tl;dr: It's a commentary on the vastness of the universe, without it being reddit or gay.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its still pretty fricking reddit and gay

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no YOUR gay and reddit…

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >autism

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Space is the perfect intercellular fluid for all sorts of "matter" to travel freely. Also our current understanding of space could be almost trivial to what actually going on in higher dimensions

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Newton was influenced by the Cambridge Platonists, particularly Henry More. Space is understood as an attribute of God. Read From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe by Alexandre Koyré.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No hot without cold
      No light without dark
      God only exists because of what he is not (space)

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Isaac was a fellow mystic and not some cringy redditor

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >look at his writings
    >it’s all occult schizo rambling

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OMG SO TRUE SISTER

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but he's not a scientist

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Psychology is a science derived from psychiatry and vice versa

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Psychology is a science
          "No."

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Isaac’s obsessions with God and getting closer to divine understanding is by definition what you would call ‘mysticism’.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    EVERYTHING about reality is 1,000 times more complex, nuanced, subtle and interesting than we were taught to believe.

    "Occult" literally just refers to all modalities of thought which dissent from materialism without ordering a rational theology that can be compatible with materialism. We know the religions have been compromised because they increasingly dispense with magical rituals, spirits, demons, visions and ecstasies. Instead it is modern man driving to work alone in his car with a Jesus loophole in an otherwise purely material existence.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      morons don’t want to get this peak simplicity. Anything you don’t know is everything else out there, and there is *nothing* more occult than the deep black abyss that is space. Alien.

      That is literally “magic” in the sense that it is a proxy/placeholder. Mysteries. The occult is quite literally synonymous with the arcane, the esoteric, the “eldritch”, or just mysticism, etc. It’s even in the latter’s name.

      If wonder and mystery make magic, then ignorance is the greatest magic of all. At its simplest you had the ancients looking to the stars and considering them gods. Or looking to rocks and trees and rivers thinking they’re alive. The most wizardly/sagely of past natural philosophers were all lacing their limited understanding with the arrogance of the imagination. Many such cases.

      So magic (“magic”) is just cutting edge understanding, and the modern wizard is the mad scientist, hanging off the edges. Magic has always lied within the mind’s eye, and it exists the same way cold or dark, or holes, exist. It is closer to an absence. Magic can’t actually exist, to exist. Its non-existence is a requirement when what is magic to one is definitely not magic to another—“that’s not magic, THIS is Magick!”—just like with the gods and religion in-general (“that’s not a god, THIS is a God!”). Tough. Does God consider Himself a god? Does the human consider themselves a god to an anthill? Does the wizard truly view their magic as magic? You have to consider both positions. You had natural philosophers who considered nature magic, and natural philosophers who did not. “If you don’t consider nature to be magical, then you don’t truly appreciate existence do you?”. That or “n-no, it’s a miracle, not magic, therefore you can’t prosecute me, nooo-“. The whole ‘magic vs miracles’ (or ‘magic vs science’) thing is a good litmus test to see how smart/dumb someone is. Magic IS “magic”.

      What does the physicist say when they confront something new and/or bewildering? “Hmm. That’s weird. I wonder how that works…”. Sound familiar?

      I’m actually of the opinion that magic can’t be used as a hard definition for anything, since anyone can use it to refer to mean anything sufficiently bewildering or horrifying (“I don’t like it and it scares me, I don’t understand it, therefore witchcraft”), and it survives as a soft description for anything sufficiently “magical”, otherwise you isolate “Magic™” from everything else out there that can be described as “magical”. Even math was treated as magic for thousands of years. There is nothing simpler than math.

      If any hocus-pocus sorcery or witchcraft actually worked, I’d immediately assume it to be the games/machinations of alien powers. All myth and religion everywhere comes across as this. A game of some sort. Spells and such function too conveniently arbitrarily for them *not* to be entertained by *something*.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Good post.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That was fun to read. There are definitely some very dark shadows running through this world, which men prefer to deny.

        Everything mysterious displaces man's position within the fake reality he lives within. Men, preferring certainty, avoid all shadows, and so come up with explanations of the world that only describe a portion of it in isolation from the rest.

        I think Mystery (I use this word in the sense you use magic, I think) is the fudnamental cosmological position of man. We do not get to know very much at all, not nearly enough to account for the shadows.

        It irks me to no end how readily men assume a material cosmos, or a bifurcation of Heaven and Earth, or a Cosmos that has two or three realms, or nine, or whatever, as if any of these descriptions could ever come close to capturing the ALL.

        Once you realize nobody actually knows what is going on, at all, your mind is free.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Magick is real, but otherwise good post.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Magick is real
          Only in the headspace

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Interesting read but make it less figurative: put it into an explicit thesis

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > If any hocus-pocus sorcery or witchcraft actually worked, I’d immediately assume it to be the games/machinations of alien powers. All myth and religion everywhere comes across as this. A game of some sort. Spells and such function too conveniently arbitrarily for them *not* to be entertained by *something*.

        This fits with real world conceptions of magic, which was either the domain of man’s own intellect or ingenuity—that of natural “magics”/sciences; the stuff of artifice and metallurgy, natural alchemy/chemistry, astrology/astronomy, math and geometry, etc—or something else’s; an act of petitioning outside intelligences; that of high ritual and ceremonial magic(k)s; theurgic/goetic arts and practices, necromancy and demonology, spiritual alchemy/henosis, shamanism/mediumship, etc.

        The influences of the inhuman contrasting with the human. It’s one or the other.

        One could even argue that the latter is a clear and blatant violation of the “prime directive” if we’re going by Star Trek logic. The equivalent of an alien handing a lesser lifeform incomprehensible physics-advantages, shaped in strange ways. Of course, it's all natural or artificial at the end of the day, as even the inhuman would have their own internal logic to them. It’s merely a dangerous, wondrous gap.

        Magic is more bad, or dangerous, than good, or safe. It isn’t honest as a rule.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is horrifying when you realize that ignorance (the imagination) outnumbers the truth (empiricism) a million fold.
          A sufficiently advanced alien playing at ignorance could pretend to be whatever they damn well wanted to be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A sufficiently advanced alien playing at ignorance could pretend to be whatever they damn well wanted to be.

            Damn, aliens be using the astral plane to shitpost anonymously and spam the noosphere with forced memes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is horrifying when you realize that ignorance (the imagination) outnumbers the truth (empiricism) a million fold.
          A sufficiently advanced alien playing at ignorance could pretend to be whatever they damn well wanted to be.

          >A sufficiently advanced alien playing at ignorance could pretend to be whatever they damn well wanted to be.

          Damn, aliens be using the astral plane to shitpost anonymously and spam the noosphere with forced memes.

          >ALIENS!!!11
          Good lord, you people

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. I find the latter exceedingly more absurd. I also find the notion that we haven’t been observed for thousands of years absurd too. Either they’ve been watching us for a while, or they’ve just shown up now. The latter is, again, the more absurd. It’s one or the other.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that absurd. Even our seemingly perfect planet still needed 4 billion years of relative stability to spit out a single viable species that probably will destroy itself before ever sending a crappy probe to another star system.
            These aliens would need much more ridiculous miracles that may be unlikely to occur inside the current age of the galaxy, let alone the lifespan of a planet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yakub?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Did that image actually happen

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There is nothing simpler than math.
        getting a faux degree in social sciences is much much easier

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/52rpbtE.jpg

          > If any hocus-pocus sorcery or witchcraft actually worked, I’d immediately assume it to be the games/machinations of alien powers. All myth and religion everywhere comes across as this. A game of some sort. Spells and such function too conveniently arbitrarily for them *not* to be entertained by *something*.

          This fits with real world conceptions of magic, which was either the domain of man’s own intellect or ingenuity—that of natural “magics”/sciences; the stuff of artifice and metallurgy, natural alchemy/chemistry, astrology/astronomy, math and geometry, etc—or something else’s; an act of petitioning outside intelligences; that of high ritual and ceremonial magic(k)s; theurgic/goetic arts and practices, necromancy and demonology, spiritual alchemy/henosis, shamanism/mediumship, etc.

          The influences of the inhuman contrasting with the human. It’s one or the other.

          One could even argue that the latter is a clear and blatant violation of the “prime directive” if we’re going by Star Trek logic. The equivalent of an alien handing a lesser lifeform incomprehensible physics-advantages, shaped in strange ways. Of course, it's all natural or artificial at the end of the day, as even the inhuman would have their own internal logic to them. It’s merely a dangerous, wondrous gap.

          Magic is more bad, or dangerous, than good, or safe. It isn’t honest as a rule.

          Interesting read but make it less figurative: put it into an explicit thesis

          Magick is real, but otherwise good post.

          Magick is real, but otherwise good post.

          holy samegay cringe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I’m literally only one of those, you schizophrenic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Psychology will never, EVER be a true/hard science. Maybe to higher dimensional beings it would be, lmao.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Simple =/= easy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reality is also divinely simplex, but atomist metaphysics obfuscates all the wrong things and reduces other things.

      We’ve no evidence that he had any interest in anything that we might think of today as magical or occult.

      We have mountains of evidence, but it's all buried in filing cabinets of random university faculties who refuse to discuss it publicly. And nobody is interested anyway. He considered his scientific work a mere off-shoot of his true investigation. And, yes he hated "magicians" because he was a puritan, but by our standards he was an occultist hermeticist through and through.
      https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5eb8zr

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He was a puritan butthole and hated everybody. Even the average Christian. He was a massive contrarian.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So a IQfy poster?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
          Contrarians built your world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ye and it sucks so we should kill them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sounds contrarian

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He was a puritan butthole and hated everybody. Even the average Christian. He was a massive contrarian.

        There are multiple credible historians who believe him to have been a closet Catholic. Calling him a Puritan is silly.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Newton loved to call people he hated "Papists" and things he found evil "popery." You sure he was a secret Catholic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >closet catholic
          >closet puritan
          those were just the two main sides opposing the mainstream anglican church. most likely he was just very independent and had his own more logical beliefs, e.g. unitarianism, which would've got him in trouble with everyone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            unitarianism is patently moronic, nothing logical about it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Quantum mechanics seem so absurd and unintuitive that I'd consider it occult, even though it's demonstrable

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cutting edge, "mad" science, science is always "demonstrably occult".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Its not demonstrable but ok

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not demonstrably "I don't know..." ???

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder why newton never studied philosophy like leibniz or descartes. He is able to do theoretical work but only if it has practical applications which is why he was so into uncovering the nature of matter with alchemy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He did though. Newton was quite an accomplished philosopher in his own right. He was the real brains behind Samuel Clarke's answers in his polemic with Leibniz and essentially provided him with all the rejoinders which Clarke then redressed in his own fashion. Read Voltaire's Elements of Newton's Philosophy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, good post, I had no idea Leibniz read Newton as a philosopher, once again I feel misled by my modern """education""" which clearly intended to make Newton a model of rational thought rather than a complex man with a lot to say about a lot.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Leibniz and Newton were rivals in a way.

          Have to keep in mind when they were active only like 10 people in the world understood them. So you’re high school teacher wouldn’t have a fricking cloud

          Imagine actually thinking that Christianity hampered the sciences

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Leibniz and Newton were rivals in a way
            Yeah bro I can read Wikipedia too, and learn that Leibnez approched calculus via differentiation and Newton approached it via integration. Neat. Do you have any of your own thoughts? What have you read by Leibnez or Newton?

            Stop kidding yourself, idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's sort of sad that such intelligent people can never be friends and are forced to correspond in such a juvenile manner. You get the same sense with michelangelo and da vinci.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who do you think won the debate, now that the smoke was settled? To me, it's clear that Leibniz was running laps around Clarke, in terms of both clarity of thought and the arguments made. But Clarke said what people wanted to hear, and so he won.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Leibniz was sort of proven with Einstein in a way. Newton did his own prooving and now we’re stuck and you’ll have to choose

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The smoke is never settled in the realm of philosophy.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We’ve no evidence that he had any interest in anything that we might think of today as magical or occult.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He was literally a Christian

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        “Inchanters, Magicians, Sorcerers, Necromancers & Witches signified deceivers and cheats who by certain forms of words & ceremonies & other juggling tricks pretended to supernatural powers & arts of prognosticating for magnifying themselves among the people.” — Bodleian Library, New College MSS. 361, II, fol. 133

        “To believe that men or women can really divine, charm, inchant, bewitch or converse with spirits is a superstition of the same nature with believing that the idols of the gentiles were not vanities but had spirits really seated in them.” — Bodmer MS, 5A, fol. 8v

        Newton categorically rejected the possibility of communicating with spirits, and he even disbelieved in the immortality of human souls. And what’s left of magic if one takes away all of the spirits?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So you think the occult only has to do with ghosts? You think magic only has to do with the nebulous? Not artifice?

          Sometimes I am blown away by people and their failure to grasp the weight and meaning of words.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He was quite literally the heretical Christian-type, one of the hallmarks of being an occultist in that time. He delved into Hermetic/Alchemical lore. By default he was an occultist. He hid his views, but sometimes not.

          [...]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hey I posted in that thread

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Those descriptions don't fit Jesus because...they just don't okay!!!?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            “Inchanters, Magicians, Sorcerers, Necromancers & Witches signified deceivers and cheats who by certain forms of words & ceremonies & other juggling tricks pretended to supernatural powers & arts of prognosticating for magnifying themselves among the people.” — Bodleian Library, New College MSS. 361, II, fol. 133

            “To believe that men or women can really divine, charm, inchant, bewitch or converse with spirits is a superstition of the same nature with believing that the idols of the gentiles were not vanities but had spirits really seated in them.” — Bodmer MS, 5A, fol. 8v

            Newton categorically rejected the possibility of communicating with spirits, and he even disbelieved in the immortality of human souls. And what’s left of magic if one takes away all of the spirits?

            you are unironically fricking moronic. not believing in soothsaying and witchcraft was an orthodox christian stance since augsutine. bede himself said anyone who thinks they can speak to spirits has a christian faith worth nothing. the guy was a christian, you can die seething about it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just 44 million words. Nothing major.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moron, Newton's primary interest was religion and alchemy. Physics was his side job.

      This sounds crazy until you look at his actual output and how he viewed the importance of his work in the context of his life.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You could argue either way. He did alchemy to understand matter's essential form, hence physics. He was sort of frustrated with how easy it was to do math and not physics or experimentation.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well yes he was a homosexual narcotics producers funded so the king could justify genocide and economic terror

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go on

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine actually thinking that Christianity hampered the sciences

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thank Family Gay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Disgusting meme.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seth MacFarlane has been an absolute disaster on the human species.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Modern scientism is also occult schizo ramblings - only of the shallow materialist tripe sort. The difference is you're actually initiated by society into being able to make sense of it, or at the very least it's normalised enough for you to not ring your instinctive alarm bells.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's more like adherents of science consciously reject the domain of the occult and in doing so unconsciously invoke a spirituality called scientism. But without any occult understanding, those engaged in scientism can't understand how this is the case.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That would be his (Neil's) first question? Really?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Understandable if you recognize that lefties are dogmatic and religious atheists, like a christian intending to ask god about degenerates at the pearly gates

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Except that is a charicature of Christianity you just invented, while leftards are admittedly united by their opposition to Christianity and whites.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At this point I'm certain that he revels in being a smarmy smart-ass.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This Black personman should be made the first pope, of fedora tippers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I am in awe of this man's refusal to not be a prick.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The difference is actually practical advancement in qol

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and now you know what all true intellectuals strive toward.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He literally believed in the Philosopher’s Stone.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      philosopher's stone is just stored and dried pee crystals

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I got philosopher stones all over my pee pee after I railed your mom and she liked it

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you believe in God but don’t believe in magic, then I question your sanity, or inward thinking skills.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      magic =|= miracles

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You sound so moronic right now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >smartest man around that pushed science centuries ahead years was into the gay magic fantasy???
        >how could this be???
        >REDDIT! DEBUNK THIS

        You sound so moronic right now.

        There are differences. Miracles are angel-led and they know what they're doing. Mortal men are usually clueless, so their first choice when it comes to power is to bust the metaphysical door down, and nobody likes that.
        I have time for questions today.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >there are differences
          No.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And that shows that….

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not at all. Monks were literally practicing black magic “in the name of God”. Magic and miracles are downright synonymous.

            The “wizards” of Egypt Moses faced were just priests of their own respective deities. It was a matter of scale, not class.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            With respect to Christianity, it really comes down to what you think "the call to be like Jesus" means. I prefer to argue with actions instead of words. I would post a fairy picture but I just made this here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thaumaturgy (miracle work) is only a branch/type of magic.

            >So, as in, there is unlimited space and that there will always be space beyond the "horizons" of the universe?
            Yes but this should not be understood as "infinite only with respect to us" but finite in reality, which was the position of Descartes. He understands it to be absolutely unlimited and infinite.

            >Extension always seemed like a weasel word to describe the dimensionality and "limits/boundaries/etc." that material things seem to have.
            What you described is what More calls "corporeal extension". But More argues extension can be both corporeal and incorporeal. Incorporeal extension is how space "pervades" the whole universe, and thus allows material bodies to exist in it.

            >Incorporeal extension is how space "pervades" the whole universe, and thus allows material bodies to exist in it
            Does he ever talk about his interpretation of Plato's Receptacle in The Republic? I've always likened these two notions, but I'm not sure if this is entirely sound.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Moses would be as much a theurge as he is a thaumaturge. Although I'm not sure why you are trying to apply such designations here.

            https://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2009/01/moses-magician.html

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for the graph, clears some things up.

            >https://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2009/01/moses-magician.html
            Is that you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Is that you
            No. But he did help me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Less than you would think. The Middle Age clerics are correct in their argument.
            FYI the only difference between demons and angels is their code of conduct and consequently where their power is derived from. Well that and there's different classifications of angels a la israeli Kabbalah (among other sources) and they informally segregate a little bit among type and faction.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/PetHhzx.jpg

          Less than you would think. The Middle Age clerics are correct in their argument.
          FYI the only difference between demons and angels is their code of conduct and consequently where their power is derived from. Well that and there's different classifications of angels a la israeli Kabbalah (among other sources) and they informally segregate a little bit among type and faction.

          https://i.imgur.com/OA0U3wE.jpg

          Most demons aren't even that evil. If you were an immortal, intelligent entity (odds are you're neither) would you subscribe to the Catholic tier litany and watch over the frickers, or would you just frick with humans all day? There are a few that like being a demon and play into the role.
          >DIABOLUS, ACCUSER, SLANDERER!

          https://i.imgur.com/PoPT74T.jpg

          Moses did begin his great adventure at 80, or so it was written.
          Official Christen lore takes the values at face value. Neighboring Sumeria has some similarly named figures in their Sumerian Kings List (kingship descended from heaven, ten kings, then the flood) but the numbers are even more inflated. David Rohl has very quality research in "The Lost Testament" and he thinks the names might be family names or ruling dynasties. The longest-lived figures are always from before the Flood and the Bible has only vague statements that "the spirit of God was with them" before the Flood. Noah lives long afterwards.
          In Atrahasis/Gilgamesh XI, Uta-(Naish)tim (Noah) is the only man from before the Flood. The Flood was intended to wipe out immortal people because of overpopulation. The gods recreate men to be mortal (you're welcome) but let Utnaishtim retain his longevity because he might as well be a god himself, or well Utnaishtim saved the gods because he was the only person making sacrifices while everyone was dying of famine, then plague, then the flood.
          In pre-flood Genealogies the Nephilim and Annunaki will creep up. The Book of Enoch is the best corrupted lore you'll find about that and "giants came from the union of angels and women" is your second hint.

          https://i.imgur.com/zcZHSus.jpg

          >you can only discuss the sacred mysteries if you have been ordained into the priesthood
          frick off homie

          >anime images
          You need to have a nice day.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            gb2rddt

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, I was here first.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So we all get that he communicated with Demons to come up with the fake math stuff, right?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most demons aren't even that evil. If you were an immortal, intelligent entity (odds are you're neither) would you subscribe to the Catholic tier litany and watch over the frickers, or would you just frick with humans all day? There are a few that like being a demon and play into the role.
    >DIABOLUS, ACCUSER, SLANDERER!

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    on that there moron juice today

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what's this chart all about?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Heresy!!!11

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          by who? I don't really get the power ranking. why is moses stronger than abraham?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yahveh mostly guided Abraham and told him to go forth. While strong in faith there is very little actually known about him. Moses managed no end of miracles during a time that was creeping into widely-recorded history

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't the early patriarchs live a lot longer than Moses though? Like idk, Moses parted the Red Sea, but does that compare to living for 800+ years?

            Newton was influenced by the Cambridge Platonists, particularly Henry More. Space is understood as an attribute of God. Read From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe by Alexandre Koyré.

            Did they also understand space as a potency, an emptiness, etc.? It sounds weird to consider something of the material world to be an attribute of God, especially since it clashes so much with some older metaphysicians like Aquinas (I'm thinking about how he infamously argued about the "spatiality" of angels).

            I'll look more into Koyré (already read some of his papers), but already I'm intrigued (if not gunning to critique what seems to be a completely alien position).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Moses did begin his great adventure at 80, or so it was written.
            Official Christen lore takes the values at face value. Neighboring Sumeria has some similarly named figures in their Sumerian Kings List (kingship descended from heaven, ten kings, then the flood) but the numbers are even more inflated. David Rohl has very quality research in "The Lost Testament" and he thinks the names might be family names or ruling dynasties. The longest-lived figures are always from before the Flood and the Bible has only vague statements that "the spirit of God was with them" before the Flood. Noah lives long afterwards.
            In Atrahasis/Gilgamesh XI, Uta-(Naish)tim (Noah) is the only man from before the Flood. The Flood was intended to wipe out immortal people because of overpopulation. The gods recreate men to be mortal (you're welcome) but let Utnaishtim retain his longevity because he might as well be a god himself, or well Utnaishtim saved the gods because he was the only person making sacrifices while everyone was dying of famine, then plague, then the flood.
            In pre-flood Genealogies the Nephilim and Annunaki will creep up. The Book of Enoch is the best corrupted lore you'll find about that and "giants came from the union of angels and women" is your second hint.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Book of Enoch is the best corrupted lore you'll find about that and "giants came from the union of angels and women" is your second hint.
            My favorite take on this came from a flat earth documentary (Ewaranon?). I don't believe in it, but damn is that specific video cozy and gives plenty of food for thought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Half of Newton's writings are important science and the other half are Aleister Crowley-tier schizo shit. He's an odd figure and there's a huge disconnect between how he gets remembered and what he actually was.

            >flesh fang
            into the trash it goes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Henry More breaks away from the scholastic/Aristotelian conception of space. On the one hand, he rejects the finititude of space that the earlier metaphysicians believed in, and on the other hand he believes space to be absolute, meaning that space is not simply the relation of the position of bodies, as the earlier metaphysicians believed, but space itself has a spiritual reality. He defines space as the absolute and infinite divine extension. That is how he considers it an attribute of God. So space itself is something spiritual, but material bodies are located within this spiritual extension. This is also what Newton means by "the sensorium of God".

            Koyré's book is very much about how this evolution in the meaning of space took place. He first looks at how the finitude of space was dispensed with through the "Scienfic Revolution" (ie Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes), then he shows how space became absolute and divinized by Henry More, and how this influenced Newton. The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence that anons mentioned is also covered in depth. So I would very much recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A few questions, if you don't mind.
            >rejects the finititude of space
            So, as in, there is unlimited space and that there will always be space beyond the "horizons" of the universe?
            >He defines space as the absolute and infinite divine extension. That is how he considers it an attribute of God. So space itself is something spiritual, but material bodies are located within this spiritual extension. This is also what Newton means by "the sensorium of God".
            This sounds strongly Spinozist to me, at least in language. I wouldn't know enough Spinoza to critique it though. One thing that has always bothered me though is this idea of "extension." Extension... of what? Extension always seemed like a weasel word to describe the dimensionality and "limits/boundaries/etc." that material things seem to have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So, as in, there is unlimited space and that there will always be space beyond the "horizons" of the universe?
            Yes but this should not be understood as "infinite only with respect to us" but finite in reality, which was the position of Descartes. He understands it to be absolutely unlimited and infinite.

            >Extension always seemed like a weasel word to describe the dimensionality and "limits/boundaries/etc." that material things seem to have.
            What you described is what More calls "corporeal extension". But More argues extension can be both corporeal and incorporeal. Incorporeal extension is how space "pervades" the whole universe, and thus allows material bodies to exist in it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around incorporeal extension. What is it exactly?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around incorporeal extension. What is it exactly?

            Incorporeal extension sounds like spiritual body, which sounds like a contradiction or a placeholder. The dark matter of philosophy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy is allowed to have dark matter, unlike physics. There's nothing self-contradictory there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            why

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would philosophy have to stick to strictly physicalist reductivism? Of course, physics doesn't either, but it decided to die on that hill at some point along the line.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            philosophy isn't synonymous for "let's just make shit up that doesn't make any sense for shits and giggles." being rigorous isn't solely for physicalists or whatever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            neither is dark matter?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So why isn't physics allowed to have dark matter then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dark matter is mostly just plugging holes to keep the foundational theory of physics from falling apart. While it is mathematically rigorous, it's only derived from the asinine first principles of physicalism that don't hold up to pure logical deduction or *physical observation*. The Newtonian worldview isn't very newtonian (Newton the man) at all.

            ?si=DxD-ju0LtbkrmijQ

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Dark matter is mostly just plugging holes to keep the foundational theory of physics from falling apart.
            Do you really have the mathematical foundation and empirical knowledge to even make that claim or are you just repeating the meme you heard?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is easy to answer in the negative since maybe 10 or so people in the world have.

            But this is a discussion board, we can share our thinking and intuition here. One can say dark matter is entirely reasonable as a mysterious missing constant X keeps appearing everywhere in calculations, things being off just by X amount

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >One can say dark matter is entirely reasonable as a mysterious missing constant X keeps appearing everywhere in calculations, things being off just by X amount
            if it were just that then it wouldn't be such a problem

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you can only discuss the sacred mysteries if you have been ordained into the priesthood
            frick off homie

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >philosophy isn't synonymous for "let's just make shit up that doesn't make any sense for shits and giggles."
            a lot of it actually is

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just like most of physics is explained by concepts like “dark matter” and other made up nonsense lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The great undertaking of my life is trying to understand humans. I've come to the conclusion that having their beliefs reaffirmed is far more important to the overwhelming majority of people than finding the truth. People would rather feel right than be right.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Many such cases

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Many

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it true that Isaac Newton was a homosexual

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it is a fact that everyone in recorded history was a homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just a little bit gayer than today in fact

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Newton was NOT gay. The good doctor confirmed his virginity at death. He knew having a woman around would impede his work and was too pure for hoes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Newton was NOT gay.
        Care to prove your theory?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          His note books are filled with sketches of anime girls and boobs

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did he even know of or bother about Japan?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, he said he wanted to move there after college cause the chicks are more feminine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          can you prove your theory that he was?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How do you confirm virginity of a 70 yr old dead man?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The doctor was good. Also he was uncircumsized.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >work of a genius looks like nonsense to a normal man
    Sounds legit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Believing in God is surely nonsense though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you’ve been btfo the entire thread and still ritualistically spout this. i’m sorry, but theism is too high iq for you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Theism and atheism are both surely moronic though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Only to fools.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ISAACVS NEWTONVS
    anglos are so cringe

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >learn how to speak english
    >consider all verbal and written language to be schizo rambling
    I am le based redditor guise

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >listen to Kurt Cobain demo tapes
    >its all skit based jokes humor thats really bad, invovling a high pitched fred voice and beans
    Fricking Daniel Johnston rip off ass motherfricker

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You guys are dumb. I refuse to listen to you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And yet there are a couple of good posts in among the morons and schizo-babble
      Makes you miss old IQfy even more

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't want to study for a degree or trade and find a job like my mom tells me to
    >I want to jerk off to traps online and shitpost about meme magic and semen retention
    >See the Big Man that redditors worship was also shitposting about meme magic and probably semen retention
    >therefore I am like the Big Man and the dumb wagies like my mom are not like the Big Man that redditors like her worship
    >I am based for my semen retention practices and my mom is cringe for bullying me into attenting a community college full of Black folk
    The most sane /x/ poster.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sigh. You’re probably right.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have an argument or just an effeminate attempt at social shaming? Were you BTFO earlier in the thread and just had to get a parting shot?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s almost as if the foundation of our reality understanding is occult schizophrenia and not muh science

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      LARP

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I know it hurts to find out that your knowledge is based on fairy tales but welcome to life.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *tips fedora*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is he wrong? We’re just narrowing everything down to an assessable level.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We have no proof that Isaac Newton ever jerk offd. None.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In today's thread: /x/ but it's retro.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is it really /x/ though?
      Is logical thinking magical thinking?
      I guess to a simpleton, it would be

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Umm my professor told me only SCIENCE is real and mysticism is for chuds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Isn’t mysticism literally just an attempt at understanding anything that can’t be understood the traditional scientific way? It is personal?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Believing in aliens is /x/ and it isn’t even crazy to believe in them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you keep making samegay drive-by posts?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody's trying to summon a succubus here.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        speak for yourself

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Newton was a mad lad

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    there's just something so very right about the scrawny Anglo guy physiognomy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Physiognomy check: failed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >"The way things are in nature, there's a natural law what guides it, and it binds everyone, see? And if you use your noggin, that's reason, that law tells all of us, if we bother to listen, that since we're all on the same level, and no one's better than another, no one should go around causing harm to someone else in their life, health, freedom, or what they own."

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    really fricking sucks that this thread has been kept afloat by 100+ replies and none of them have anything of substance to offer. not about Newton the man, not about the things he wrote, not about the issues he dealt with within his terms and time period, or even a general apprehension of the issues in general. just nothing but dogshit.

    the frick is your fricking problem people? do you really have to blueball me like this? why can't you go pollute some other thread and leave this one to die a dignified death?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No one cares about some meme character created by the Royal Society

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and none of them have anything of substance to offer
      Well that's just not true.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's entirely true.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I am seeing numerous helpful, and intelligent, posts up above, anon. You just don’t read, or absorb or assimilate information properly.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the last 80-100 posts? Absolutely not. They're all moronic and have nothing to do with Newton, early modern philosophy, or the issues they raised. Just
            >this is gay
            >Newton is gay
            >Newton is reddit
            >actually Newton was magical and magic is based
            >ALIENS!!!
            and other troglodyte thoughts. If you think any of these posts were insightful then you have legitimate brain damage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What an idiotic post
      You should be ashamed

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kys moron. you can't shame me for saying the truth. nothing after the first 80-100 posts had anything of substance to say, and if you think differently, then you were clearly dropped on your head as a baby, raised eating lead paint chips, and looked up to the Paul brothers as model intellectuals. seriously, the frick are you talking about? you should be ashamed for even trying to shame me for telling the truth.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you got filtered hard bro lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is acknowledging a based man’s high quality madness getting filtered?

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    an odd thread to be sure

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >665
      phew

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nice

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At the end of the day nobody knows what the frick is going on and just tries feebly to grasp at what they surely can’t understand. It makes sense that people who want to “know” very badly end up going into “forbidden” zones of occult, magic, and all this other shit. It’s almost like there’s no other route. Newton was obsessed with hidden meaning in the Bible, he thought it was code from god that we had to decipher. He loved to save dates and numbers he thought had special meaning. Honestly sounds like a comfy hobby for the time, the Church would have not been happy about this.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any past great who wasn't also a wacko?

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being Neil deGrasse Tyson, meeting his idol (yes, Isaac Newton), and quickly realizing how much of a prick he is/was. Probably racist too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He would be astonished that the Black can be so well informed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Would Newton have ever encountered a black man before this point?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sure the Royal Society kept a few on hand for experimental subjects.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a lot of mentally unwell people here i can tell

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would Newton snort crack cocaine if offered?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He stuck a rod into his eyeball what do you think

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *