Rate the last book you read

[YosemiteSam]

Actually, there's a hidden fourth option:

4. I understand a book that incorporates facts (i.e. the existence of the Catholic Church and Freemasonry) is not synonymous with a book that is based on fact -- especially when the author himself admits the narrative is entirely fictitious. Answer this question: Is the story in the film Titanic based on fact simply because it incorporates an actual historical event? Of course not.
​

Now, I propose this list to you:

1) Your status as an "active freemason" gives you no more insight into the workings of Brown's narratives than my status as an "active Christian."

2) I suggest looking up the word "overzealous." In doing so, you'll discover that nothing I've said here even remotely classifies.

3) Context is everything! I suggest revisiting the exchange that led to this.​

I will mark you down for being option 2.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

epistomologically, is fiction really different from fact when fiction is just a belief, after all, doesn't it really just depend on the epistomological framework?



after all if belief can be a fact epistomologically as I have been told, why then can't the writings of Dan Brown regarding these areas also be fact even if the narrative is fictional?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Arguments on the dan brown stuff is interesting and I think most of it is based on semantics in the argument.

The book itself, as both seemed to have stated is a work of fiction...the story line itself is not based in fact.

However there are many facts about the symbols, the origins of the symbols, the rituals and other areas in his books that are factual.

So the argument that seems to go on between people who don't like him or enjoy his books are kind of silly in many ways IMO. Some seem to be threatened by his works for some reason.

You can read the books, you can find factual areas in them, but in the end story line is a work of fiction.

I don't think anyone would argue that the idea of a albino self flagellating murdering monk is real...but that does not mean certain symbols or origins of rituals or holidays are not fact.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Arguments on the dan brown stuff is interesting and I think most of it is based on semantics in the argument.

The book itself, as both seemed to have stated is a work of fiction...the story line itself is not based in fact.

However there are many facts about the symbols, the origins of the symbols, the rituals and other areas in his books that are factual.

So the argument that seems to go on between people who don't like him or enjoy his books are kind of silly in many ways IMO. Some seem to be threatened by his works for some reason.

You can read the books, you can find factual areas in them, but in the end story line is a work of fiction.

I don't think anyone would argue that the idea of a albino self flagellating murdering monk is real...but that does not mean certain symbols or origins of rituals or holidays are not fact.

Exactly. It's a fictitious story that is littered with facts. Which is why I said the argument was more about personal passions about the subject matter, than about the actual book itself.

The argument is actually political in nature! :laugh2:

 

[ScipioCowboy]

epistomologically, is fiction really different from fact when fiction is just a belief, after all, doesn't it really just depend on the epistomological framework?

Epistemology is not the idea that there is no distinction between truth and falsehood or that knowledge of truth is unattainable. Rather, epistemology only acknowledges that there are different ways of discerning truth, and each one may have its own advantages and disadvantages.

Fiction is not a belief. Fiction is a narrative construct that derives from a writer's imagination rather than a recorded set of events.

after all if belief can be a fact epistomologically as I have been told, why then can't the writings of Dan Brown regarding these areas also be fact even if the narrative is fictional?

The simplest explanation is this: Because Dan Brown admits his stories do not recount actual events. If he claimed otherwise, there are methods we could exhaust to determine the veracity of such a claim.

Now, if you're asserting that Dan Brown is presenting some type of epistemological framework through which the world can be analyzed and understood, we would assess the worth of that framework in the same way that we assess the worth of any epistemology: Through its benefits to humankind over a long period of time.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Brain is right, the story about Malak'h trying to get back at Peter Solomon for leaving in prison is false, but the symbols, their meaning etc are true.

Just like symbols in other great literary works

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Brain is right, the story about Malak'h trying to get back at Peter Solomon for leaving in prison is false, but the symbols, their meaning etc are true.

Just like symbols in other great literary works

...which, incidentally, is what I said here:

Brown's books are factual only in the sense that the Catholic Church and Freemasons are real organizations that operate in a certain way; however, the premises upon which his books are based and the narrative situations in which he places the Catholic Church and the Freemasons are, by his own admission, fabricated -- as in, non-factual.

 

[peplaw06]

how then do you explain the life after death belief (it is not a fact)

It's the same as the belief that there is no life after death. Neither side of that debate can claim to be factually correct.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It's the same as the belief that there is no life after death. Neither side of that debate can claim to be factually correct.

Well we could kill someone, do a seance and see what they say from whatever afterlife they are at.

So whom shall we sacrifice in the name of theological/scientific discussions? Yes, whom...

 

[ScipioCowboy]

It's the same as the belief that there is no life after death. Neither side of that debate can claim to be factually correct.

Such a simple and insightful response! Why didn't I think of it? It's not like I'm arguing with Christopher Hichens or Richard Dawkins here.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It's the same as the belief that there is no life after death. Neither side of that debate can claim to be factually correct.

you at least would agree it is a belief, not a fact

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Drop the sneaky religious arguments before I administer some maple syrup enemas...bought from a wal-mart.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

How is that a religious argument? You can believe in life after death and not be religious. Take reincarnationists for instance.

Hell, at one point in the past I was a US marine and Bumfard's drill sargeant

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

How is that a religious argument? You can believe in life after death and not be religious. Take reincarnationists for instance.

Hell, at one point in the past I was a US marine and Bumfard's drill sargeant

Please tell me you are joking with the first part.

If not continue on and see how it plays out for you.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Drop the sneaky religious arguments before I administer some maple syrup enemas...bought from a wal-mart.

Speaking of sneaky religious arguments, what about the intimation that non-fans of Dan Brown dislike his works because they're "zealots" and "fearful"?

Oh, the irony...

 

[vta]

Personally, I think Lovecraft is much more poignant and true to the heart of our existence and true purpose as human beings on this earth. Dan Brown is merely an altar boy compared to the High Priest of factual evidence and lessons of an afterlife.

Genuflect! Bow I say!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Please tell me you are joking with the first part.

If not continue on and see how it plays out for you.

hahaha, BP is only kidding guys haha

 

[DFWJC]

Anyone who is interested in science fiction, philosophy, religion, and interesting stories would be interested in Dan Simmons' Hyperion series. A lot of people think it's long (it's four books of about 700-800 pages), but it's one of the most interesting books I've ever read. It's kind of like a futuristic Canterbury Tales that is much deeper.

So I assume you have read some Frank Herbert in your day?

 

[DFWJC]

Exactly. It's a fictitious story that is littered with facts. Which is why I said the argument was more about personal passions about the subject matter, than about the actual book itself.

The argument is actually political in nature! :laugh2:

Very True.

However, I do think Dan Brown has an agenda....and has some issues with certain very powerful organizations. There is an underlying theme to his books that go beyond the known factual subject matter and the obviously non-factual story-line. It's clever enough to have made him rich.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Speaking of sneaky religious arguments, what about the intimation that non-fans of Dan Brown dislike his works because they're "zealots" and "fearful"?

Oh, the irony...

I just said some seemed to be threatened by his books. I don't know why they are or were. I do know that there was some masons that were worried that he would paint them in a bad light only to find out that he portrayed them in a fair manner in his one book.