A thought. Because new Pillar Guardians are chosen at birth and we know that in Nosgoth souls are physically real and tied to the workings of the Pillar and Reaver, would that mean that in the LoK universe a soul enters the body at birth? Maybe at first breath like some real world faiths believe?
That would tie in nicely with Kain's speech in Soul Reaver 2, "As Ariel dies, I am being born to take her place" and how as a result he was corrupted at the moment of his first cry.
31 notes
·
View notes
After watching Good Omens 2, I have a bit of an out-of-the-box theory as to a plot twist that might be coming in s3: Crowley used to be Lucifer and had his pre-fall memory removed.
My evidence:
Crowley was the one who tempted Eve to eat the apple. According to the Bible, this was Lucifer's doing.
I'm pretty sure Crowley is the only entity who we know is able to stop time.
Adam is described as being "human incarnate"… But he was SUPPOSED to be Hell incarnate… what changed? Crowley. Crowley "went native" and so did his son.
[The more compelling pieces of info are from s2 and they are under the "keep reading". I spent a LOT of time on this so please give it a chance.]
Both Saraqael (the new archangel) and Furfur (the demon who made the Nazis zombies) immediately recognized Crowley, but he had no memory of either of them. It seems odd to include both of these instances within 6eps, especially considering the fact that other lines were removed for not being plot-relevant.
The convo with Saraqael: Throughout the conversation, Crowley has his smiling facade, but looks clueless (even surprised she knows him by name), and Muriel looks smug. "Hello Crowley. I didn't expect to ever see each other again." "Do we know each other?" "When you were an angel. We worked together on the Horsehead Nebula." "I meet a lot of people..." She then smirks and immediately changes the topic.
The convo with Furfur: "We have [met], haven't we?" "Have we?" Furfur looks incredulous that Crowley didn't recognize him on sight. "What do you mean 'have we'- you know we have. We were in the same legion... just before the fall...? Doing dubious battle on the plains of Heaven...? Remember?!?" "... Well, I remember going into battle, I don't remember being there with you- sorry." "Wha-? I was right next to you!!! We did loads together!!! You used to jump on my back like a monkey in a waistcoat!!!"
Crowley did not remember a very high-ranking person he collaborated with (on a project he was very passionate about). He also did not recognize someone he was very chummy with, even when he was reminded of specific events, even though Furfur had immediately recognized Crowley by name all these years later.
Crowley was able to open the confidential file on Gabriel. And when he did it, he looked like he was trying to open them... no sarcastic remark beforehand, no bragging about his previous position... just Crowley trying to open it. (As if he doesn't remember his rank.)
Crowley tells Aziraphale "I am NOT the angel you met"... I believe he meant this in the sense that he's truly not the same entity... he's not operating on the same memories that angel!Crowley was, and he isn't going to remember his experiences he had with Aziraphale as an angel,
The miracle that Aziraphale and Crowley did together (masking Gabriel) was described as an archangel-level miracle, enough to raise someone from the dead 25 times over. Now, maybe this was because A&C were working together.... however, they were under the assumption that this would make them less conspicuous.
In the instance of Gabriel being removed from the position of supreme-archangel, his memory was erased. He assumed he would be sent to Hell, and seemed to already have a plan for his memory to be erased- he immediately requested a box, Beelzebub had already gifted him the perfect place to hide his memory, and Gabriel had quickly carried everything out before anyone else was even suspicious. Almost like this had happened before and he knew what to expect. (And according to the Metatron, there was only ever one other "Prince of Heaven" who was removed and cast down to Hell.)
Now, the the Metatron was going to erase Gabriel's memory "as a kindness"... So what was the reasoning for erasing Lucifer's memory? Control. My guess is that Lucifer somehow messed up God's original plan... Just like how Crowley was the reason Armageddon failed (I acknowledge there were many reasons why Armageddon failed, but Crowley was the instigator and Crowley was the one who stopped time to prepare Adam.)
It makes sense that if someone upended your system, it would seem like a safe bet to erase their memories and stick them in a fairly low-level position, where they are barely able to interact with any powerful entities.
Who would now be in charge of Hell and why? My guess is that there's some demonic equivalent of the Metatron, and they are given power over Hell in exchange for pretending like there's still a Satan.
Then what was the Satanic monstrosity in s1e6?? idk man, i just go here. Maybe a paid actor or something. But Adam defeated it by saying "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD! You never were." and then it just... vanished??? into smoke???? That never made sense to me... like did fucking Satan just... die??? (Do not ask me what really happened or how Crowley didn't know he had a son.)
Okay now the big question: WHY????
We all know that Aziraphale still has a lot of unlearning to do when it comes to his ideology of "Heaven/angels= good, Hell/demons= bad". Because, SURE, there's been exceptions to this rule, and Aziraphale has come to understand that human morality is somewhat nuanced.
And sure, there's some "bad apple" angels like Gabriel, who just don't understand God's will. but he still believes that God is unequivocally good and Heaven will be too, as long as it's under good management.
Right now, Aziraphale views Crowley as some kind of exception, an anomaly. In Aziraphale's mind, Crowley should be an angel- there really must've been some mistake that he's supposed to be a demon.
And Aziraphale has believed this for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Since the beginning of existence, Aziraphale has been brainwashed. And I think the only thing that will break it is being presented with irrefutable proof that Crowley is Lucifer and having to figure out which one is false:
Crowley is not evil.
Lucifer is evil.
Crowley is Lucifer.
I think first, Aziraphale will disbelieve #3. He will refuse to believe Crowley is Lucifer until it's undeniably true.
Then, I think he will instinctually disbelieve #1. He will believe Crowley was lying, tempting him, tricking him all along.... until he is confronted by every undeniably nice thing that Crowley has ever done for him.
Then... #2 is the only one left. It must be wrong. Hell must not be inherently evil. Which means Heaven must not be inherently good. Which means everything has been a lie. It means Heaven and Hell are 2 sides of the same coin. It means a full dismantling of the system.
It means a full episode will be dedicated to a 50minute "I was wrong, you were right" dance.
I certainly believe this all lines up with Neil's description of s3 to be "Bigger, Louder, Final."
55 notes
·
View notes
I've always found it a bit disappointing that Linda Hutcheon specifically excluded fanfic from her generally excellent discussion of adaptation in A Theory of Adaptation, because I do think fanfic is more akin to adaptation than probably any other thing it gets compared to.
Like, for me, what makes both really intriguing are questions like:
How does this story function as a story in its own right? How do you experience it if you don't know its source material? Does it work? Do you need certain kinds of background knowledge? Are people likely to experience it separately from its source or other versions of the source even if they are familiar with them?
How is this story engaging with the original or previous version it's working off of? What does it consider essential to keep from its source or canon? What is it willing to change? What assumptions govern both of those things?
How does this particular story take part in wider trends in storytelling that may or may not have anything to do with its source or canon? Where do fads or norms in broader storytelling contexts come into play? (For instance, film adaptations may resemble other contemporary films more than their source materials, fanfic goes through phases of popular structures, premises, and phrasings that cut through different fandoms. Or you can look at both in a broad cultural context beyond their immediate social context of fandom/film/whatever.)
I mean, I'm phrasing the questions in a kind of formal way, but I think the basic questions do factor into a lot of the more localized conversations that spring up around both adaptation and fanfic (whether specific adaptations/fics or general groupings of them). So much general discourse around fanfic revolves around the legitimacy of writing versions of pre-existing stories and it's like!! Adaptation is right there.
44 notes
·
View notes
if i had a nickel for every time i tell someone what my problem is and my problem is im a feminist woman living in a patriarchal world and i hate hate hate its institutions each and every one of them and it makes me really mad to see everyone just accept them forever while the space for me gets gradually smaller and they go have you thought about therapy. and they're a feminist through cultural osmosis. and im too shocked to say. hey. what do you find pathological about getting mad about the nuclear family structure and heteronormativity and rape culture and the ways they are real and true not in theory but fr in real life. and they're always beating you with hammers. quick. what about it is pathological. well i would have some nickels that's for sure. even though i have a big total of 0 suicide attempts ever #successstory
14 notes
·
View notes
Today's witch thought: Sometimes shit just happens, the universe is uncaring because it is governed by math and that fact is neutral. Personifying natural forces is very human and as a hard polytheist the gods are very real and can have opinions, but you're never gonna crack the code if you can't handle basic chaos
6 notes
·
View notes
The pope waiting it out hoping someone dies is kind of a tell. so many times i hear koa stans go so hard on this, that she was right, morally and legally, every step of the way.and we should shut up accept that and be ashamed she was ever put through this. but when you look at it as the pope sitting on the fence, and not immediately finding for her, it doesn't look as clear as koa stans say. And i find that a much more interesting situation and a relief from the "saint koa" line
I mean, he still treated her abysmally, but yeah, if precedent had actually been followed Henry would have certainly won this case. I almost believe how it was won was ultimately the result of geography; Charles V was simply closer.
This is one of the most infamous and generally misunderstood divorce cases, though, I learned about most of its misconceptions in JF Hadwin's papers about the case. I will post more quotes if there's interest, one example was that bona fides did not apply in England legally although it did on the continent (since often Henry declaring his eldest illegitimate is characterized as merely 'petty' and 'cruel', I think that's actually pretty important).
Also the decree against Henry sort of made Clement look like an ass (well, not exactly, because he died 1st...those that maintained and upheld it, at any rate) because it combined with the others meant that the expectation was that it would be enforced, if not by Henry's own subjects than by another Catholic kingdom. Really the closest this ever came to was Kildare Rebellion and the Pilgrimage of Grace. And although Henry was not officially excommunicated until December 1538, this too was never actually carried out (not even when Edward VI, far more Protestant than Anne Boleyn, was on the throne). Unless we view the excommunication of Elizabeth I as an extension of Henry's to some extent, this expectation was never answered until 1588, and when it finally was, it failed. Little wonder there were so many tones of providentialism and 'triumphal Protestantism' in Whig historiography of Tudor history.
3 notes
·
View notes
My dear K. A. Applegate, you can't say in one sentence that the Venber are not carbon based and then mere paragraphs later say that a specific carbon based species is somehow more compatible with them for artificial hybridization than other carbon based species. Not carbon based = no DNA, DNA is a carbon based molecule, a non-carbon-based species would not have DNA or be able to use DNA or be hybridizable by gluing bits of DNA together. That's. An. Organic. Compound.
Eh, maybe it's like the Kessel run in whatever number of parsecs thing and it's just meant to show that Ax is BS'ing a lot and the kids don't know enough science to call him out on it.
2 notes
·
View notes
ntn bingo
the only spoilers i’ve been exposed to are the officially pre released chapters and that one early goodreads arc review (if you know you know...) so, it’s all fake baseless & made up. we ride at dawn
1 note
·
View note
sorry ik this is an obnoxious take but re my last rb my biggest 3h discourse pet peeve is anyone bringing up marxism or calling any fe character a marxist or a protomarxist or just like any sort of oblique reference to marx literally nothing screams i don’t actually read the theory more than like. someone not understanding marxism’s basis in historical materialism
4 notes
·
View notes
I always figured the Imperials were the good guys.
Nnnnnngh… no. Imperials are the better of two bad options, and it's really muddied because Bethesda lost its good writers years before Skyrim came out. I can feel a hyperfixation coming on, so a quick TL;DR: the Empire is an Empire so it's still bad, the Stormcloaks are just racist saboteurs led by a Manchurian agent and Tiber Septim is a gigantic piece of shit who ruined everything.
Okay, so the Empire functionally lost its equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven when Martin Septim died heirless at the end of Oblivion. His sacrifice forged a new compact to end the Daedric incursions, but by that point Imperial infrastructure throughout Tamriel had been so badly damaged that it could no longer maintain order. By the time the Mede dynasty got its feet under it, several provinces had either risen in revolt against the Empire or and were busy violently settling bitter generational rivalries with each other.
Most notably, this included the Thalmor, who are openly and proudly an Altmer supremacist movement. Their primary goal is to end the dominion of Men on Tamriel and institute a second Merethic Era dominated by them. This is the most obvious reason for why they want to ban Talos worship - the idea that a Man could become Divine is grossly incompatible with their worldview. (I must note that there's also a much-discussed fan theory stating that they intend to unmake creation in its current form and destroying Talos worship is part of that, but it's partially based on sources whose canonicity is in doubt, so I'm not going to discuss it further at this time.) The Thalmor are pretty much explicitly Elf Nazis, right down to invading foreign countries and rounding up their religious minorities.
It should be considered, however, that Tiber Septim was an UNBELIEVABLY MASSIVE PIECE OF SHIT. There's credible evidence that during his mortal life he assassinated the Cyrodillian monarch to whom he had sworn fealty and then seized his throne. He had a dalliance with Berenziah that ended up getting her pregnant, then forcibly abducted her and had the child aborted without her consent. After gaining Numidium from a treaty with the Tribunal of Morrowind, he discovered that they hadn't given them its power source (Lorkhan's Heart - understandable, since it was the source of their false divinity), and so he created a new one, the Mantella, by tearing the souls out of Ysmir and Zurin Arctus, two of his most loyal companions. He used Numidium to brutally conquer the rest of Tamriel and then turned it on all the noble families in Cyrodil who hadn't supported him. His empire - as all empires are - was built entirely on murder, pillage and rape. And - as all emperors do - he rewrote his own history because nobody dared openly oppose it. If the Aedra truly did award him a seat amongst them after this (and the fact that his bloody armor counts as "the blood of a divine" in Oblivion suggests that they did), it's questionable whether any of them are worthy of worship.
Nonetheless, worship of Talos was of extreme cultural importance to the Nords, because he was considered by history to have been a Nord, and indeed born in Atmora, the mythic first homeland of the Nords (although, again, it's likely he was just fucking lying - heterodox historical accounts suggest he was born in High Rock and never saw Atmora in his life). The White-Gold Concordat was formulated specifically to provoke division between the remaining provinces of the Empire - the Thalmor correctly predicted that the Nords would never tolerate being stripped of their right to worship Talos, and would rise in revolt against an Empire that mandated it.
The specific cause of the Stormcloak Rebellion is also… dubious. During the war with the Thalmor, the Imperial Legion had all but pulled out of Skyrim. This allowed an uprising by the Reachmen, an ethnic minority within southwestern Skyrim who, notably, had been brutally disenfranchised and stripped of their land by… Tiber Septim! Thanks, Talos, you continue to be a gigantic piece of shit! Anyway, they seized control of Markarth and held it for two years, during which by most accounts they ruled it as an independent kingdom that was making overtures towards being recognised by the Empire. After the signing of the White-Gold Concordat, Ulfric Stormcloak raised an army to retake it, and was promised by the Jarl of the Reach (and, allegedly, the Empire itself) that worship of Talos would be freely allowed in Markarth. Ulfric Stormcloak then proceeded to lay siege to the city and butcher it, ethnically cleansing the city of every last Reachman down to the women and children, slaughtering any Nord who had collaborated with them and allegedly even killing those citizens of Markarth who hadn't answered his call to arms.
Inevitably, the Thalmor found out about the Talos worship anyway and the Jarl was forced to sell out Ulfric and his men. This is generally considered to be the betrayal that sparked the civil war, but at this point we must examine who Ulfric is.
Ulfric was trained in the Thu'um from an early age by the Greybeards, but abandoned his tutelage to fight in the Great War. We know little of his performance other than that he was captured by the Thalmor, tortured extensively, and falsely made to believe that the information he had given under torture was instrumental in the fall of the Imperial City. His father, the Jarl of Windhelm, died while he was in prison, and he was forced to deliver a eulogy via a letter that he had smuggled out of the prison. He claims he escaped from captivity, while Thalmor records claim that they let him go intentionally; neither source is particularly reliable.
From a sociopolitical standpoint, Ulfric is a staunch Nordic traditionalist who openly states that he doesn't believe Skyrim has had a "true" High King for centuries, considering recent monarchs to simply be puppets installed by the Empire. He also seems to be deeply racist: in contrast to his father, he banned Argonians from entering Windhelm proper, confining them to the Assemblage on the docks, and he's allowed racist sentiments towards the Dunmer residents of the Grey Quarter to worsen. Even citizens of Windhelm who support the rebellion comment that isn't doing very much governing, since the civil war eats up most of his attention.
One point I will give to Ulfric is that establishing Skyrim as an independent kingdom that can actively resist the Thalmor isn't actually as far-fetched as it seems. After the White-Gold Concordat ceded half of Hammerfell to the Thalmor, Hammefell said "how about fuck you," broke from the Empire entirely, and smacked the Thalmor down so hard they had to sign the Second Treaty of Stros M'Kai and retreat from Hammerfell entirely. This rendered the nation a haven for those opposed to the Thalmor, and they're in such a strong position that the Alik'r can actively hunt Thalmor collaborators like Saadia in other nations. Hammerfell is in a better position than Skyrim, and it did it without any Imperial aid.
(A hilarious fact about the Hammerfell situation is that the Thalmor tried the exact same thing there - inciting a civil war between the Crowns and the Forebears, two factions that have hated one another for generations. Unfortunately, they fucked it up so badly that it actually managed to end the rivalry and unite both of them against the Thalmor.)
But this is where Bethesda's inability to actually capitalize on the good parts of their writing really gets to me.
The Empire in Skyrim… sucks. Like, from your perspective as a player, the first experience you have of the Empire is "okay, so you were at the border alongside this guy and we're executing him today so I guess you get to die too." The only decent Imperial you meet is Hadvar, who makes a lukewarm plea for your life but doesn't press the issue.
All of the Imperial Jarls except for Balgruuf and Idgrod Ravencrone are dogshit. Elisif is a naive, incompetent teenager. Siddgeir is an arrogant, incompetent ponce. Igmund is a spineless Thalmor toady reigning over stolen land, having broken a promise he made to Ulfric and thus being partially responsible for the civil war. The replacement Jarls you get if you side with the Empire and conquer territories the Stormcloaks hold at the start of the game fall into two categories: "who?" and "oh fuck not you." If I say the names Brina Merilis or Kraldar, I bet you won't even remember who I'm talking about. Brunwulf Free-Winter, the replacement for Ulfric Stormcloak, has ONE personality feature and it's "I'm slightly less racist than Ulfric." But when you capture Riften for the Empire, the new Jarl is MAVEN FUCKING BLACK-BRIAR, THE SECOND-WORST PERSON IN SKYRIM.
But the Stormcloaks suck worse. Laila-Law Giver is a puppet for the Black-Briar crime family. Skald the Elder is a grumpy, hidebound old man. Korir might as well not be ruling anything at all. If you side with them, you have to sell out Balgruuf when the matter of Whiterun comes up - a man who has never been anything but helpful, supportive, trusting and forthright with you. Oh, and let's not forget that if you take the Reach for the Stormcloaks, the new Jarl is THONGVOR SILVER-BLOOD, LITERAL SLAVEOWNER AND WORST PERSON IN SKYRIM.
(There is an absolutely cursed timeline wherein during the "territory trade" at the peace talks you can hold during the main quest if you haven't finished the civil war quest yet where Maven gets the Rift and Thongor gets the Reach, meaning you have just installed the two most powerful crime families in the country into positions of executive power.)
This isn't just a case of "of course both sides aren't perfect and have issues." This is just "both sides fucking suck." A better game would allow you to make some headway in resolving the massive issues that face Skyrim, but I've already written like nine billion words here so maybe I should go into that at a different time.
841 notes
·
View notes
Somewhere out there is an essay about superhero movies where villains co-opt, misuse, or even just misunderstand the language of the left to push methods and goals that are incompatible with the actual theory of the left, but that sound Right And Good to viewers who aren't thinking it through entirely. And the essay is not just about how they compare to each other, but how they are a litmus test for viewers to know how susceptible they are to propaganda.
Co-opt: Most obvious example and the inspiration for this post is the Riddler in Batman (2020, the one with RPatt). The Riddler recites leftist rhetoric about corruption, wealth hoarding, and redistribution, but his actual actions and goals are unrelated. He's an accelerationist who's more interested in tearing down a system that didn't benefit HIM than in actually rectifying the problems, and who cares if a few kids get traumatized or even killed along the way?
Misuse: Easy mode, this one's Thanos. He talks about ensuring there's enough for everyone to eat, but like. Bro.
Misunderstand: Erik Killmonger, who has the benefit of both some incredibly legitimate grievances and a pretty face, but also kind of fails at the idea of intersectionality, proportionality, or Start With Words Before You Escalate. He's the easiest to sympathize with, because he has some really good points and ultimately does appear to be legitimately pursuing those goals... but he's also a misogynist, jumped to international terrorism before "call up my cousin who doesn't know I exist," and there's something in there about the role played by his time in the US military, which gave him emotional trauma, head trauma, and a sincere belief in the validity of US-style insurgency operations based on hostile takeovers of inconvenient countries. He's charming and pretty and sincere... he's just also, in many ways, wrong. And the parts where he's right makes it easy to try to ignore the bits where he's wrong if you're predisposed to like him and prefer some absolutism.
Anyway, yeah, there are definitely other examples, but the ones that were suggested to me didn't quite vibe with the base idea (Mysterio and Vulture both had disgruntled union moments in the MCU, but they left those roots so quickly that I don't think the concept of using leftist rhetoric as cover/justification for the crimes really applies since, they very quickly shift gears into revenge and greed respectively).
Someone's probably done this better orz.
372 notes
·
View notes
You can't call yourself a Marxist and be ideologically opposed to trans people, those are incompatible modes of thought.
gender identity theory is incompatible with the Marxist scientific method.
believing your thoughts determine your reality is a product of subjective idealism. Marxism is not idealism but dialectical materialism, there is an objective reality and objective material conditions from which human consciousness stems. we exist as material, physical beings rather than immaterial conscious spirits. subjective consciousness is subordinate to and dependent upon the material world.
the correct Marxist position is not "i feel i'm a woman therefore i am a woman" but "i am objectively female, and this makes me a woman".
695 notes
·
View notes
Hi, i just learned about the scientific revolution in europe at school. Can you tell me why you dont think scientific revolutions exist? im curious!
So I feel like I have to lead with the fact that I'm kind of arguing two different points when I say scientific revolutions aren't really a thing
One is that I'm objecting to a specific, extremely foundational theory of scientific revolutions that was put forth by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which I think really misrepresents how science is actually practiced in the name of fitting things to a nice model. The other is that I think the fundamental problem with the idea is that it's too vague to effectively describe an actual process that happens.
It's certainly true that there are important advances in science that get referred to as "revolutions" that fundamentally changed their fields -- the shift from the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System to the Copernican one, Darwin's theory of evolution, etc. But there are historians of science (who I tend to agree with) that feel that terming these advances "revolutions" ignores the fact that science is an continuous, accretional process, and somewhat sensationalizes the process of scientific change in the name of celebrating particular scientists or theories over others.
Kuhn's model that he put forth in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (which is one of those books that itself stirred a great deal of activity in a number of fields) suggests science evolves via what he called "paradigm shifts," where new ideas become fundamentally incompatible with the old model or way of doing things, causing a total overturn in the way scientists see the world, and establishing a new paradigm -- which will eventually cave to another when it, too, ceases to function effectively as a model. This theory became extraordinarily popular when it was published, but it's somewhat telling who it's remained popular with. Economists, political scientists, and literary theorists still use Kuhn, but historians of science, in my experience at least, see his work as historically significant but incompatible with how history is actually studied.
Kuhn posits that between paradigm shifts there are periods of "normal science" where paradigms are unquestioned and anomalies in the current model are largely ignored, until they reach a critical mass and cause a scientific revolution. In reality though, there is often real discussion of those anomalies, and I think the scientific process is not nearly so content to ignore them as Kuhn thinks. Throughout history, we see people expressing a real discontent with unsolved mysteries the current scientific model fails to explain, and glossing over those simply because the individuals in question didn't manage to formulate breakthrough theories to "solve" those problems props up the somewhat infamous "great men" model of history of science, where we focus only on the most famous people in the field as significant instead of acknowledging that science is a social enterprise and no research happens in a vacuum!
Beyond disagreeing with Kuhn specifically though, I think the idea of scientific revolutions vastly simplifies how science evolves and changes, and is ultimately a really ahistorical way of thinking about shifts in thinking. Take the example of the shift from Ptolemaic, geocentric thought to the heliocentric Copernican model of the solar system. When does this supposed "revolution" in thought actually start, and when does it "end" by becoming firmly established? You could argue that the publication of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 was the beginning of the shift in thinking -- but of course, then you have the problem of asking where Copernicus' ideas came from in the first place.
The "great men" model of history would suggest Copernicus was a uniquely talented individual who managed to suggest something no one else had ever put forth, but realistically, he was influenced by the scientists who came before him, just like anyone else. There were real objections to the Ptolemaic model during the medieval era! One of the most famous problems in medieval astronomy was the fact that assuming a geocentric model makes the behavior of the planets seem really weird to an observer on Earth, referred to as retrograde motion, which had to be solved with a complicated system of epicycles that people knew wasn't quite working, even if they weren't able to put together exactly why. There were even ancient Greek astronomers who suggested that the sun was at the center of the solar system, going all the way back to Aristarchus of Samos who lived from around 310-230 BCE!
Putting an end point to the Copernican revolution poses similar challenges. Some people opt to suggest that what Copernicus started, either Galileo or Newton finished (which in and of itself means the "revolution" lasted around 100-150 years), but are we defining the shift in terms of new theories, or the consensus of the scientific community? The latter is much harder to pinpoint, and in my opinion as an aspiring historian of science, also much more important. Again, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton may be more famous than their peers, but that doesn't mean the rest of the Renaissance scientific community didn't matter.
Ultimately it's a matter of simple models like Kuhn's (or other definitions of scientific revolutions) being insufficient to explain the complexity of history. Both because science is a complex endeavor, and because it isn't independent from the rest of history. Sure, it's genuinely amazing to consider that Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and the anatomist Andreas Vesalius' similarly influential De humani corporis fabrica were published the same year, and it says something about the intellectual climate of the time. But does it say something about science only, or is it also worth remembering that the introduction of typographic printing a century prior drastically changed how scientists communicated and whose ideas stuck and were remembered? On a similar note, we credit Darwin with suggesting the theory of evolution (and I could write a similarly long response just on the many, many influences in geology and biology both that went into his formulation of said theory), but what does it say that Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of natural selection around the same time? Is it sheer coincidence, or does it have more to do with conversations that were already happening in the scientific community both men belonged to that predated the publication of the Origin?
I think that the concept of scientific revolutions is an important part of the history of the history of science, and has its place when talking about how we conceive of certain periods of history. But I'm a skeptic of it being a particularly accurate model, largely on the grounds of objecting to the "great men" model of history and the idea that shifts in thinking can be boiled down to a few important names and dates.
There's a famous Isaac Newton quote (which, fittingly, did not originate with Newton himself, but can be traced back even further to several medieval thinkers) in which he states "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." I would argue that science, as an endeavor, is far more like standing on the shoulder of several hundred thousand other people in a trenchcoat. This social element of research is exactly why it's so hard to pull apart any one particular revolution, even when fairly revolutionary theories change the direction of the research that's happening. Ideas belong to a long evolutionary chain, and even if it occasionally goes through periods of punctuated equilibrium, dividing that history into periods of revolution and stagnancy ignores the rich scientific tradition of the "in-between" periods, and the contributions of scientists who never became famous for their work.
364 notes
·
View notes
I hope Moriarty is in Sherlock and co but in a completely normal way. Like, he ends up as a neighbor or is an associate of Mariana or Lestrade by some way, and he's Sherlock's worst nightmare. An enemy of the neurodivergent. He always buttons his shirts uneven. His outfits don't follow basic color theory. He pronounces certain words wrong no matter how much you tell him the right way. Sherlock hates him. HATES him. He can't stand this stain on his conscience. But John? Oh he's a pretty okay guy, silly quirks aside. You have silly quirks too, Sherlock, so why do you dislike him so much? Why are you staring at me like I committed some grave sin?
Sherlock is just incensed that his friend would get along with this MONSTER. This FIEND to the human experience.
And to make things worse, there comes a time where he's forced to spend time with Moriarty or they accidentally lose John and Sherlock has no choice but to have Moriarty help him and he hates it. He achieves a breakthrough through Moriarty's useless ramblings and he refuses to ever mention it or admit it if Moriarty realizes. He would rather bite his tongue off and choke on his own blood.
I need Sherlock and Moriarty being the funniest fucking duo due to their incompatibility that is so bad it circles back into compatibility once a blue moon because a broken clock is still right twice a day.
267 notes
·
View notes
Transandrophobia theory is not incompatible with transmisogyny theory. Look into my eyes and understand this, I’m begging you.
Quote from Julia Serano’s 2021 article “What is Transmisogyny”: “For others (e.g., certain nonbinary people, trans male/masculine-spectrum people), misogyny may intersect with transphobia in different ways that aren’t adequately articulated by transmisogyny. This doesn’t necessarily make transmisogyny ‘wrong’; it may simply mean that we need additional language.”
From her 2016 article “Articulating Transmisogyny”: “I have observed people using ‘trans-misogyny’ as shorthand to suggest that ‘trans men are privileged, and trans women oppressed, end of story.’ I reject such oversimplifications.”
We are not on opposite sides. There are large misunderstandings at work here. Transmascs are as capable of (trans)misogyny just as much as anyone else, AND they have experiences with the intersection of transphobia and misogyny. These things can both be true.
168 notes
·
View notes
astrology notes: 6 🐉
quick note: i'm absolutely not an astrologer. these are just a collection of some observations, thoughts, theories, and personal experiences. above all this is just for fun.
lastly, these may or may not apply to you but you might find something to be true about your friends, family, or lover. enjoy!
🗡 sag mercury: “be careful what you wish for cause you just might get it.”
🗡 @elysiansparadise had mentioned that people with sun square moon may have parents who have a strained relationship with each other or they may be very incompatible. my friend has this aspect and long before checking her parents’ synastry chart i thought they worked better as friends.
her parents were childhood friends- her mom has an aquarius venus which can be a “friends to lovers” type of placement. they have an 11th house stellium in their synastry chart.
they have been married for a long time- her dad’s venus aspects her mom’s saturn. with that being said, venus represents aphrodite, love, femininity, women, love & mars represents ares, masculinity, men, sex. her dad has venus opposite mars in his natal chart and her mom has mars square venus in her natal chart.
they’re different in the way that moon and the sun are night and day. her dad is more logical & reserved/introverted. her mom is more emotional & social/extroverted. they share the same faith but they also have some important differences regarding their religious beliefs. she’s loud, he’s quiet. etc.
🗡 how many of you with scorpio, mars, or a fire sign in the 8th house have red as your favorite color?
🗡 taurus/libra/venus in the 2nd house: these natives are so naturally beautiful & radiant. they don’t have to try hard at all. they have a personal sense of style. jewelry was made for their bodies.
🗡 libra rising: libra rising is known for having beautiful symmetrical faces. i’ve noticed some people with this placement who don’t have symmetrical faces might wonder why.
#1 you’re human so it’s normal to have an asymmetrical face, most humans do.
#2 you may have have one of your dominant planets in the 1st house. remember that different planets rule different body parts and are associated with different physical features. for example, if you’re moon dominant and it’s in the first house you may have a fuller/rounder & cherub like face. mars dominant 1st house- strong/defined face & forehead, could be androgynous, lusty eyes. saturn dominant 1st house- intimidating smaller eyes, mature face, sharp facial structure/features.
or you may have harsh aspects to your rising sign. for example venus relates to beauty so having venus opposite rising may have an influence on your appearance or how symmetrical your face is.
#3 with that being said having harsh aspects to your rising doesn’t make you unattractive. you're gorg/handsome regardless so who cares.
& if you’re not a libra rising, you can also apply this logic if you don’t have much of your rising sign’s physical traits.
🗡 neptune-venus aspects: wanting to “fix or save him/her” fall in love during the process and live happily ever after.
🗡 leo mars: might not like when people touch their hair, certain people like hairstylists may be excepted.
🗡 the house your venus is in can show what you like or love about yourself, what others like/love about you. some of your attractive traits & qualities. and what you like about others.
venus in the 1st house: you might really love your self and be an advocate for self love. others may love your personality, your perspective of life, and think you have a beautiful body. you could be attracted to confidence, the way a person carries themselves.
venus in the 10th house: you may like your work ethic, how independent & disciplined you are. others may like the way you take initiative, your ambition, your honesty. you could be attracted to those who possess fame and success.
venus in the 3rd house: you may like the way you think/your way of applying logic and processing information. others may love talking to you, how you have a way with words, your accent. you could be attracted to well kept or veiny hands, people with vehicles like luxurious cars or motorcycles.
venus in the 4th: you may love your mom a lot. like being at home & could be into interior design. others may like your family/being around them, the idea of starting a family with you, your warm and nurturing personality. could be attracted to those who are family-oriented and possess emotional intelligence.
🗡 fixed signs in the 9th house: may be religious. their faith is important to them. they take their spiritual life seriously. a firm believer in whichever doctrine they subscribe to. very devoted individuals. might speak about religion and their beliefs often. often going to a place of worship like church, the mosque, a temple, synagogue, etc.
these aren’t fixed signs but cancer in the 9th gives me mother mary vibes lol. virgo here would probably be quite pedantic and technical regarding things like details about sacred text and spiritual practices/rituals.
🗡 having both gemini and scorpio placements in a chart can make one sneaky, stealthy, ninja, fbi son of a gun. scorpios know how to be secretive, source information, remain in the dark and disguising themselves as your shadow as they observe. able to move around quietly. geminis are fast, agile, also able to source information, devious, double agent like, quick thinkers. they both just know things. always a step ahead.
🗡 jupiter in the 5th or positively aspecting your ascendant or inner planets in the 5th house: winning games, contests, bets, money, prizes without much effort. i remember winning bingo like 5 times in one round and people started getting annoyed lol.
if you read this until the end i hope you enjoyed it & thank you so much for reading. ♥︎♥︎♥︎, those hearts are for you.
1K notes
·
View notes