Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4598778" data-attributes="member: 30001">Maybe you're defining magic in a way that's not obvious to me, but I think there are tons of counter-examples to what you're claiming here.  The first two that come to mind:1.  Aladdin and the magic lamp2.  Tristan, Iseult, and the love potion.These two are examples of people using magic not "meant" for them. The entire field of alchemy of pseudo-scientific and mechanistic in a way that contradicts what you're saying.  In fact, I'm able to say that I'm "skeptical" about your claims in a fundemental psychological difference in this area, thanks to Greek philosophy that is firmly grounded in the time period that I think we're talking about.  There are plenty of examples of magical thinking in the modern period and scientific thinking in ancient times - though it can come down to definitions. The One Ring was used by Bilbo, Frodo and other people - and on top of that was sought by pretty much everyone else because it was what you're saying magic isn't.  In fact, in one episode Excalibur was stolen by Morgan LeFey and I don't recall that it was said to be unusable by anyone else. Speaking of Arthurian legends - I wonder (and I don't think I'm the only one) how much of those stories are influenced by forgotten religious beliefs and practices.  The notion that Merlin's powers are unique to him has some basis, but is also contradicted by the story of his eventual imprisonment. Religion can tend to focus more on the soul/spirit of the practitioner, and yet even in this it is not exclusive.  Sacrifices, signs against the evil eye, and various other talismans seem very mechanistic in their description - you kill an animal in the temple of a god and you get a good harvest - what you're thinking at the time doesn't seem to be an issue.</blockquote>

Verification