Post: #1

This guy was Attorney General to Queen Elizabeth I, and one of the first essayists in English. This book brings together all his essays on various day-to-day topics, and is one of the most interesting anthologies of the Renaissance, for the style of writing and the breadth of topic, as well as the conclusions he draws.

It's not unlike Machiavelli, Montaigne and others of the time who were political realists, and had seen how people behave. He is surprisingly well-informed, and lots of passages jump out at me as aligned with the consensus of views here.
On controlling your emotions:
"Anger must be limited and confined, both in race and in time....Whosoever is out of patience is out of possession of his soul...Anger is certainly a kind of baseness; as it appears well in the weakness of those subjects in whom it reigns: children, women, old folks, sick folks. Only men must beware that they carry their anger rather with scorn than with fear" -Of Anger.

on marrying and remaining single:
" It is often seen that bad husbands, have very good wives; whether it be, that it raiseth the price of their husband's kindness, when it comes; or that the wives take a pride in their patience... But the most ordinary cause of a single life, is liberty...Wives are young men's mistresses; companions for middle age; and old men's nurses" -Of Marriage and Single Life

on relationships:
"It had been hard for him that spake it to have put more truth and untruth together in few words, than in that speech, Whatsoever is delighted in solitude, is either a wild beast or a god." -Of Friendship

on learning from experience and taking opportunities:
"A man that is young in years, may be old in hours, if he have lost no time. But that happeneth rarely. Generally, youth is like the first cogitations, not so wise as the second. For there is a youth in thoughts, as well as in ages...
The errors of young men, are the ruin of business; but the errors of aged men, amount but to this, that more might have been done, or sooner. Young men, in the conduct and manage of actions, embrace more than they can hold; stir more than they can quiet; fly to the end, without consideration of the means and degrees; pursue some few principles, which they have chanced upon absurdly; care not to innovate, which draws unknown inconveniences; use extreme remedies at first; and, that which doubleth all errors, will not acknowledge or retract them; like an unready horse, that will neither stop nor turn. Men of age object too much, consult too long, adventure too little, repent too soon, and seldom drive business home to the full period, but content themselves with a mediocrity of success." -Of Youth and Age.

He's the product of a time when many people in similar situations wrote not to sell books or to convince, but to clearly understand their own thoughts and their own reactions to issues better.

It's thought-provoking in many different areas, and the style dates well -the edition linked has more explanatory notes than necessary, but still a good read from the man who set out the scientific method and coined "knowledge is power" .

Post: #2

Thanks for sharing those quotes. I appreciate the wisdom of such writers and hadn't read much of Bacon's actual writings vs. hearing about him. When you apply science or scientific method to people's actions you start to predict outcomes. Observation can stimulate a hypothesis - connecting the dots - which, when tested repeatedly, may uncover a natural law. The unilateral philosophic statements of Bacon, Schopenhauer, Weininger, etc. offend, say, more feminine minds who don't want to see strings of causation leading to logical conclusions (Hamsters gonna ham!).

I've found Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character" a powerful work and Julius Evola's 'Ride the Tiger' very compelling (though lacking in areas of deep spiritual insights). I have engaged in meditation practice and silent retreats for a number of years with the intention to know myself and Truth deeply. Through grace not of my own making (I do feel it's a gift from the greater wisdom of the cosmos) there have been some significant shifts of perception to see things more clearly. At one point I also (per some of Terence McKenna's recommendations to set and setting) took a very small amount of a psychedelic substance for a visionary experience. That also brought gifts - one of which is a tremendous respect for the mind-and-soul altering effects of those naturally occurring substances!

Combinining left and right brain activities is the kind of synthesis needed to create a whole person, without over-emphasizing pure Western scientific method / Descartian thinking. Science combined with inner shamanism, holding oneself to a rigorous standard of self-examination to prevent self-deception.

What other philosophers/authors have you found thought-provoking, shameus?

Post: #3

Francis Bacon's "Essays" are considered classics of English prose. I recommend them highly.

Post: #4

(07-17-2014 02:58 PM)Truth Tiger Wrote:  Thanks for sharing those quotes. I appreciate the wisdom of such writers and hadn't read much of Bacon's actual writings vs. hearing about him. When you apply science or scientific method to people's actions you start to predict outcomes. Observation can stimulate a hypothesis - connecting the dots - which, when tested repeatedly, may uncover a natural law. The unilateral philosophic statements of Bacon, Schopenhauer, Weininger, etc. offend, say, more feminine minds who don't want to see strings of causation leading to logical conclusions (Hamsters gonna ham!).

I've found Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character" a powerful work and Julius Evola's 'Ride the Tiger' very compelling (though lacking in areas of deep spiritual insights). I have engaged in meditation practice and silent retreats for a number of years with the intention to know myself and Truth deeply. Through grace not of my own making (I do feel it's a gift from the greater wisdom of the cosmos) there have been some significant shifts of perception to see things more clearly. At one point I also (per some of Terence McKenna's recommendations to set and setting) took a very small amount of a psychedelic substance for a visionary experience. That also brought gifts - one of which is a tremendous respect for the mind-and-soul altering effects of those naturally occurring substances!

Combinining left and right brain activities is the kind of synthesis needed to create a whole person, without over-emphasizing pure Western scientific method / Descartian thinking. Science combined with inner shamanism, holding oneself to a rigorous standard of self-examination to prevent self-deception.

What other philosophers/authors have you found thought-provoking, shameus?

McKenna I've always found interesting too; I used to really dig books on psychedelics in history, like "Food of the Gods". It provoked an argument in an undergraduate class about whether humans made beer or bread first.

Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings is in a similar vein to McKenna. He's a really insightful anthropologist who talks over the historical development of farming and industry as response to pressure of population, explaining polygamy, the origin of warfare and male leadership, and why Jews never eat pork.

Montaigne's not thought of as a philosopher, but he's very philosophical and thought-provoking, and his essays-the first written- are broader in scope and longer than Bacon's-Bacon quotes him in a couple.
George Orwell's non-fiction rarely gets read because his novels overshadow them, but they're all pretty interesting.


Hobbes and Hume are some of the greatest English philosophical writers, for much the same reason as Bacon-they're realistic about political power and our reason. Hume, especially the "Enquiry concerning human understanding" should be more widely read-it's not just feminine minds who shy away from causation

And yes, as Quintus says, Bacon's an excellent prose author. His scientific works-The Advancement of Learning and the Novum Organon- are pretty on point, although they date less well.

Post: #5

(07-17-2014 06:30 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  McKenna I've always found interesting too; I used to really dig books on psychedelics in history, like "Food of the Gods". It provoked an argument in an undergraduate class about whether humans made beer or bread first.

Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings is in a similar vein to McKenna. He's a really insightful anthropologist who talks over the historical development of farming and industry as response to pressure of population, explaining polygamy, the origin of warfare and male leadership, and why Jews never eat pork.

Montaigne's not thought of as a philosopher, but he's very philosophical and thought-provoking, and his essays-the first written- are broader in scope and longer than Bacon's-Bacon quotes him in a couple.
George Orwell's non-fiction rarely gets read because his novels overshadow them, but they're all pretty interesting.


Hobbes and Hume are some of the greatest English philosophical writers, for much the same reason as Bacon-they're realistic about political power and our reason. Hume, especially the "Enquiry concerning human understanding" should be more widely read-it's not just feminine minds who shy away from causation

And yes, as Quintus says, Bacon's an excellent prose author. His scientific works-The Advancement of Learning and the Novum Organon- are pretty on point, although they date less well.

I can imagine what that debate must have gone like! Good dinner party conversation too

McKenna is a fascinating character to me. At first I thought him a prophet and wondered why the PTB didn't silence him. Then I started to realize that while the psychedelic experience could be highly revelatory and transformative, it's a personal journey not a collective one. In all his dialgoues, my recollection is he essentially argues for a mythical 'female-deifying' culture that would have existed before men had the impetus to invent / create (which is what patriarchy promotes). A return to what he advocates would be impossible and undesirable to any rational person. I had to grapple with this and then realize the PTB would see him as a useless threat that only encouraged the masses to 'experiment' without understanding the essential need of governance via wise masculine decision-making. This is my current take and am still fleshing it all out. I believe men and women are meant to cooperate but only when there are constraints esp. on female behavior (as these wise philosophers discuss).

Oh, I meant to mention Graham Hancock as another strong influence on my thought as it relates to ancient civilizations. I believe the spiritual potential of every human being is immense but there are forces at work (e.g. the gnostic demi-urge as McKenna describes being the root poison of the judeo christian islamic religions) that serve to distract and divide. Contemplating what the ancients could accomplish vs. what most humans take pride in now (bigger shopping centers or super-cruise boats) is saddening. We can all only do our part which is what truly matters.

The works you quoted by Harris and Hume I will check out, plus Bacon himself as you and brother Quintus have recommended.

Post: #6

In addition to Graham Hancock, I'd add Joseph P. Farrell to the recommendations list.

Post: #7

Brian, excellent recommendation - thanks. Listening to interviews on YT. Then there's Forbidden Archaeology / Michael Cremo...

Post: #8

Glad to help, he has a whole series on an internet radio program called "the Byte Show", most of them can be found on YT. Disclaimer: there is a lot of fundamentalist Christian stuff on there too from earlier days, but there are plenty of diamonds in the ruff.

Post: #9

Concerning Francis Bacon, there was an academic debate about his claim that only science supported by the state was possible. Yes or no?

This pro- and con- occurred during the 1990s and into the last decade.

Terence Kealey held up the critical rejection of Bacon's thesis, amasing much data and historical statistics.

For example, US rate of economic growth was 3% before the Manhattan Project during WWII became the world-wide model for state-led economic growth.

After WWII, the US rate of economic growth? Still 3%. Therefore, it makes no difference, or - as in the case of France versus Britain, and the US versus the Soviet Union - a negative drag on economic growth ( in France and the Soviet Union).

Therefore, Bacon was wrong in his policy prescription.

Terence Kealey's last book in the debate is the poorly named "Sex, Science & Profits: How People Evolved to Make Money" (2009) - which is a much more riveting book than the name implies. It's simply a wide-ranging romp through all the arguments he's advanced in the more scholarly tome, "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research" from 1997.

Bacon is also an empiricist. People observe nature, and then devise explanations, and then experimental tests bearing on them.

This isn't how science actually works. Naive empiricism is misleading, as Karl Popper showed during his long 20th century life. See "On Popper" by Mark Notturno, or "What is this thing called science?" (3rd edition recommended) by Alan Chalmers, THE bestselling introductory book on the philosophy of science.

Chalmers will walk you through exactly why the naive empiricism of Bacon is pretty weak. Basically, it is because our vision often deceives us. Things we want to know about are often too small or too distant for simple perceptions to be the basis of knowledge.

Real testing comes from precision measurements. Real theory comes from imaginative leaps, not simple, dull observations ala Bacon.

Thus, while Bacon is appealing, his philosophy of science has much to recommend against it. It cannot meet many important objections.

Post: #10

(08-12-2014 06:55 AM)Orson Wrote:  Concerning Francis Bacon, there was an academic debate about his claim that only science supported by the state was possible. Yes or no?

This pro- and con- occurred during the 1990s and into the last decade.

Terence Kealey held up the critical rejection of Bacon's thesis, amasing much data and historical statistics.

For example, US rate of economic growth was 3% before the Manhattan Project during WWII became the world-wide model for state-led economic growth.

After WWII, the US rate of economic growth? Still 3%. Therefore, it makes no difference, or - as in the case of France versus Britain, and the US versus the Soviet Union - a negative drag on economic growth ( in France and the Soviet Union).

Therefore, Bacon was wrong in his policy prescription.

Terence Kealey's last book in the debate is the poorly named "Sex, Science & Profits: How People Evolved to Make Money" (2009) - which is a much more riveting book than the name implies. It's simply a wide-ranging romp through all the arguments he's advanced in the more scholarly tome, "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research" from 1997.

Bacon is also an empiricist. People observe nature, and then devise explanations, and then experimental tests bearing on them.

This isn't how science actually works. Naive empiricism is misleading, as Karl Popper showed during his long 20th century life. See "On Popper" by Mark Notturno, or "What is this thing called science?" (3rd edition recommended) by Alan Chalmers, THE bestselling introductory book on the philosophy of science.

Chalmers will walk you through exactly why the naive empiricism of Bacon is pretty weak. Basically, it is because our vision often deceives us. Things we want to know about are often too small or too distant for simple perceptions to be the basis of knowledge.

Real testing comes from precision measurements. Real theory comes from imaginative leaps, not simple, dull observations ala Bacon.

Thus, while Bacon is appealing, his philosophy of science has much to recommend against it. It cannot meet many important objections.

I'm guessing you mean The New Atlantis? Yes, it was narrow-minded to insist that experimental science should be purely a state institution, but he does accurately assess where people's minds go awry in drawing conclusions. In the Novuum Organon, he makes a careful analysis of the "idols" that affect our observations-even in the infancy of experimentation, he knew the dangers of bringing our own conclusions ready-made. Bacon's outline is definitely not the last word in scientific method or the best way to conduct large-scale investigations, but not a bad place to start either, even if only so people understand and guard against their biases when working on a hypothesis