"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"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.
If I opposed you violently, you'd know about it. But unlike you, I
have no intention of taking anything to real life with you. People who
try to go RL with Usenet disagreements (as you seem to want to do) are
frequently unhinged.
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."
Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just
parroting other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway.