do you agree with Russel Means here
do you agree with Russel Means
""The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the sacredity of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say--and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and sacredity from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer! "
http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/russelmeans.html here's the full text
>>9735725
Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Frankfurt School, Weber, etc. made this point long ago.
And yes, I agree.
>>9735734
lol and they are incredibly wrong as well
what the hell does "desacredize" even mean, how could you even quantify something like that
and Newton did more than just write a linear equation, if you actually read the principia which you didn't
usually people that make these claims often have a poor understanding of science and the scientific method, as those people you mentioned
That's what I thought until I started probing more and more into science, after you've familiarized yourself through popsci with it and start digging into papers and heavier books, you'll find out that reality is much more sacred and miraculous as any mythology or religion has come up with
>>9735741
>muh anthropomorphic 'truths'
>>9735725
the whole article seems sophmoric to be honest
>>9735780
lol
The world has only been "desacredized" to people who have allowed it to happen to them. There are plenty of us who still easily perceive the sacredness of creation. I'll bet that author reads Popular Science.
>>9735761
Yeah texts themselves are more surprising and careful than the meme thinking regarding the texts. The author of the OP text is probably conflating the work of Newton et al with the people who used these ideas as their own means.