"None" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and
violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is
opposition, it's rarely violent.
He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the
truthful things I say.
It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular
with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way
you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow
evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks.
Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully) making
people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You don't think.
It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what Schopenhauer
actually said:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/att...s-of-truth.897
"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
trivial."