Interesting timing soon after a review of a recent book about Cortés: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/05/24/mexico-curse-of-c... The review says that "most estimates of the frequency of human sacrifices in Tenochtitlan come from an unfounded assertion by the Franciscan friar Diego Valadés, who was born twenty-two years after the city fell. Valadés claimed that between 15,000 and 20,000 people were sacrificed in…
That entire review is ridiculous. So much bias and selective use of historical information to suit the writer’s opinion.
Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
311–320 of 322 posts
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#312When I see a bunch of skulls in one place like this, or in the catacombs, it makes me think of the accumulated experience of people. Not because of the brains in the skulls or whatever, but just that each skull represents a single human life. Most of the time these are adult skulls, guessing 30+ years each. That's a lot of living. I just asked google to solve a couple of problems for me. What is the current populatio…
You inspired me to calculate the total amount of human experience, ever. I arrived at a figure of about 2.7 trillion years, ten times as many years as there are stars in the Milky way. In seconds it's 10^20 - 0.1% of all the stars in the entire universe. I can't even comprehend the scale.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to the 'not even comparable' level of atrocity, the scale of the direct victims of the Inquisition also paled in comparison to the full and complete systematic mass murder of the Aztec rituals. At very least the eradication of the craziest death cult in history was a bonus for everyone.
They didn't eradicate the "death cult" so much as they eradicated most of the people in Central America.
Wars of conquest did not kill remotely as many in comparison.
Moreover, were the Aztecs to have a land boundary to Spain, and were they able to defeat them, the Aztecs would have had no problem slicing up Spaniards and eating their beating hearts for dinner as well.
So the better team definitely won in this case.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Logically everything is an emergent property of complex systems including plants, animals, and us." I'm sorry, but I fully disagree, please see my note above. This is a materialist view that presupposes that there is only matter/energy and laws that govern it - and only with that (unproven) presupposition first in place, can anything such as you have described be 'logically inferred'. For example - you mention 'mor…
Although we have been thinking about the matter for at least 12000 years we have no reasonable theory for things that aren't matter or energy that isn't hand waving and nonsense. The most prevalent current theories are extrapolations from what goat herds who believed illnesses and earthquakes were caused by evil spirits. As an example most people would agree that chemistry is just applied physics but most people don'…
Your specific frame of reference is called 'scientific materialism', it's been around since the Enlightenment, and like any metaphysical frame of reference, it requires it's own basic assumptions. For example: "The universe is made of this stuff we call matter and energy and those behave according to a specific set of laws". This is unproven, unverifiable etc.. (By the way, you snuck one in there 'information' - which is an abstraction).
It's a useful tool, but it has some problems.
For example - in the context of scientific materialism - we cannot even be 'alive', let alone have 'intelligence' or have 'morality' if we are merely a bag of randomness. A bag of random particles in the Universe must be random at every level.
Here's a paradox for you: "prove to me that you are alive". Basically, you can't. Life is the most important thing there is, and yet we don't even know what we is. If an alien being made of metal parts landed and 'asked for our leader' we'd have a hard time determining whether it was 'life' or not.
Our entire civilization and existence is framed around the concept of life, and of what is not life.
FYI - this 'gaping hole' in Materialism has given rise to kind of a new field called 'Emergence' which is the beginning of the materialists journey to try to understand how complicated interesting things seem to arise from simpler ones - though the field has no answers, the point is good because it recognizes the 'hole' I mention.
"The logical conclusion is that a soul if it did exist would be made of matter/energy/information like everything else that can possibly exist."
Not really. Humans understood that gravity existed, or how it worked very crudely, and dealt with it ... for thousands of years before we even had a word for it, or were able to characterize it rationally in any way.
We have a rough ways of grasping issues while be develop better tools.
So - I did not indicate anything to validate thousands of years of specific superstitions (chemical processes, or magical cures etc.). But the fact that there are words for 'Spirit' 'Soul' or 'Animus' etc. which have developed independently across cultures over various civilizations is a pretty strong reason to indicate that 'something interesting is going on there'.
It's funny because when one steps back for the very specific and narrow view of Materialism, it's an easy concept, it's just that most people are conditioned to narrowly accept current interpretations of 'energy, matter' etc. as 'Truth' that it's hard to consider another view.
The 'hand waiving' is made by those that simply make up and invent premises such as 'The Universe Is Made Of Matter and Energy and Behaves According to Mathematically Describable Laws" - which is unproven and cannot be proven - and then pass it of as an incontestable fact, and then derive all of their arguments based on this supposition ... especially when this definition of the Universe literally denies the very existence of life.
Scientific Materialism was invented by humans do describe: the material. It should be no surprise that it starts to fail when we apply it to other, more existential concepts.
Science is not Truth. It's just a tool, an interpretation. That's it.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe all other forms of life have souls? I'm curious because you made the vegetarian and vegan argument which I always find interesting. I was raised Hindu (now atheist) and the religion has a belief that all forms of life have a soul and have consciousness. As a consequence of this you accept that in order to live, your life relies on extinguishing other forms of life. I always find it weird that when peop…
" The concept of a soul is an abstract non-scientific belief, so given its an abstract concept with no scientific basis, why do we make a distinction between one form of life and another?" A 'soul' is a rational and scientific concept, it's just not materialist or rather, the kind of science we are used to daily. As far as souls, more complicated, but maybe one simple answer is that more complex and intelligent forms…
But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanimate beings, but neither are plants. Plants are complex, highly evolved multi cellular organisms that are certainly not inanimate.
If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. It's a similar moral argument for why you shouldn't eat humans.
But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't. From any biological perspective plants are just as alive as animals. Plants communicate, respond to touch, many even actively kill other organisms (venus fly traps, bird catcher trees, etc.), they've been experimentally verified to exhibit some type of memory, and they respond to all sorts of stimuli (for example, turning towards the sun). Rationally, isn't that pretty darn alive? It seems shortsighted to think that plants lack a spirit/soul.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
" The concept of a soul is an abstract non-scientific belief, so given its an abstract concept with no scientific basis, why do we make a distinction between one form of life and another?" A 'soul' is a rational and scientific concept, it's just not materialist or rather, the kind of science we are used to daily. As far as souls, more complicated, but maybe one simple answer is that more complex and intelligent forms…
As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer reviewed research utilizing the scientific method to show that a soul exists. But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanim…
But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't"
It's not, it's pretty close to the same thing as we pragmatically view life as something beyond material.
In Scientific Materialism - you are merely a random bag of particles. There literally can be no 'life' in randomness.
By very definition, you cannot exist in those terms.
'Soul/spirit/animus' etc. are crude words we all use to describe that which animates life beyond the pure randomness of our material explanations.
Though you can try to describe life in biological terms, and it's practical ... it's has some major flaws. Surely, after 4 decades of Star Trek we can all cognize forms of life which don't fit our classical biological view. More abstract notions of life would therefore have to be designed and they inch closer and closer to a metaphysical perspective that just doesn't work as Materialism.
So, if you consider the word 'Soul' to mean some concrete idea, but which is totally imaginary, like 'some God' or whatever, then sure - I see your point - but really, the existence of the terminology 'Soul/Spirit' etc. is simply grasping at something more meta, they are used to describe effectively life. Ergo - 'same scale'.
We've used and understood gravity in very crude terms for 1000's of years and yet we did not specifically understand the mechanics of it. It didn't mean we were wrong so much as we just had a crude grasp of it.
Scientific Materialism is a really useful tool, but it's not a Truth. It has it's limits and these issues highlight those limits quite well.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although we have been thinking about the matter for at least 12000 years we have no reasonable theory for things that aren't matter or energy that isn't hand waving and nonsense. The most prevalent current theories are extrapolations from what goat herds who believed illnesses and earthquakes were caused by evil spirits. As an example most people would agree that chemistry is just applied physics but most people don'…
I think you missed my argument. Your specific frame of reference is called 'scientific materialism', it's been around since the Enlightenment, and like any metaphysical frame of reference, it requires it's own basic assumptions. For example: "The universe is made of this stuff we call matter and energy and those behave according to a specific set of laws". This is unproven, unverifiable etc.. (By the way, you snuck o…
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#318They dismiss Cortez and his men as exaggerating the number of skulls when they claimed 130,000, but if you start calculating how many are in the image of the reconstruction in the article, it's easily close to 100,000. This reminds me of how the academic consensus was that child sacrifice in Carthage was merely Roman propaganda, until they dug up the massive infant necropolis near the temple to Moloch (yes, that Molo…
As a literary reader of the bible, I noticed that there are literally one hundred different passages in the bible where God says that he absolutely does not want his followers to sacrifice children to him or condemns other religions for this practice. https://www.openbible.info/topics/human_sacrifice That they had to repeat it over and over again gives me the impression that this practice was disturbingly widespread…
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but that we can't morally judge what they did "through our Western colonial lens" by saying that it was horrific. We can, but it is pointless (the culture is now dead and gone) and it does raise questions about objective and absolute morality, of which many people disagree. It also can easily lead into very messy discussion about modern day actions which in some sub cultures (and other cultures that may one day exis…
Because all those things are very, very different? Its common to blur things and make 'everything ok' by ignoring how different things really are.
For a comparison, murdering someone is very very different than punching them, but we still making punching your toddler illegal even though we agree it isn't nearly as bad as murdering your toddler.
So things that are very very different can still be quite illegal if they are horrible enough, so why doesn't that apply to those cases? It all comes down to subjective and often illogical judgments made by a society.
Re: Hundreds of skulls reveal massive scale of human sacrifice in Aztec capital
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some cultures/ideologies really are better than others. If you need me, I'll be right here in my Western Civilization, happily not vivisecting anyone. Good old western civilization, no blood on our hands.
The genocide of native americans, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill starving million in India because he thought them to be less human, the transatlantic slave trade....all just minor blemishes in an otherwise great culture. Perhaps the whole idea of "culture/ideology" is flawed and progress happens not within a culture but by specifically rejecting cultural and ideological norms.