User info
|
Hello, I'm Apaugasma. Welcome to my user page!
I am a devoted student of the history of ancient and medieval philosophy. My day-to-day activities largely consist of doing original research, in which I work with ancient Greek, Latin, and Arabic sources.
I have also spent a lot of time contributing to Wikipedia, where the task is rather to summarize and present the research of others. To me, this was a way to fulfill one of my scholarly duties, i.e., to make sure that the specialist knowledge produced by the academic community reaches as broad an audience as possible.
However, the fact that incompetent Wikipedia editors are left unchecked means that anyone who wishes to keep articles up to a scholarly standard will be forced to spend an unacceptable amount of time in discussions with ignorant, clueless editors. These editors are often trying to push some ethnic, political, or (anti-)religious point of view. Even worse is that the point pushed almost invariably involves something incredibly petty. Regular participation in such discussions has a very real effect of shrinking the mind.
Editing Wikipedia in these conditions not only wastes much time (in the order of several days to several weeks almost full-time distraction), it is also mentally exhausting up to the point of becoming unhealthy. I therefore will not be working on article content again until Wikipedia has been taken over by scholars and academics. I expect (okay, I'm wishfully thinking) this to happen somewhere c. 2040. Until then! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉)
Wikipedia is not always a toxic place. Here are some nice things Wikipedia editors have said to me.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Just wanted to say thankseditHey, just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to make Wikipedia better. You're the type of person that makes this site better. Thank you, friend! Much appreciate your help with the article. Rusdo (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC) ThankseditI appreciate you spending time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitchens's razor, my AN/I concern, and my talk page a while back when you helped me to understand policy better. You seem very professional and kind, and I appreciate that you have pointed out my mistakes in a professional and kind way. MarshallKe (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Another thank-youeditI have long appreciated your good edits on a number of articles, so: thank you! You are careful and knowledgeable, you respect good scholarship, and you tactfully revert inappropriate edits. If you make changes to Pseudo-Democritus, please read Martelli first. I think his monograph on the subject concludes about as much as is reasonable to conclude from the available sources, and successfully dates this writer's work to ca. 60 AD. I know Martelli, and can vouch for his conscientious professional scholarship. Ajrocke (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much!editHi, Apaugasma! Thank you very much for your kindness for how to contribute to Wikipedia. It was the first edit of Wikipedia for me, and I seem to have made a mistake, editing it. If you made a correction for my edit, I thank you so much! I have some things to do now, and would like to read about Pneuma (Stoic) and Stoic Physics later. I will not discuss it on the talk pages. Take care!Ruby2021 (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!edit Sorry for all the crap you've been through lately. Kittens are always adorable; editors, less so. Levivich 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Brill and Encyclopaedia of IslameditAs a sometime follower of the ANI page I wanted to say thanks for the ANI explanation about Brill and the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It was a useful perspective to read. Gusfriend (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A kitten for you!editI'm giving you this kitten for your nice works in reverting bad-moves done by stupid-idiot-sockpuppets... ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Απαυγασμα της δοχηςeditHi, nice to have met you recently at MOS:ARABIC. Today I saw this, thought of you, and learned a word! Hilf al FudhuleditThank you for the corrections and demands that you provided for this page. I tried to answer all your questions, and clarify what was requested. I do sincerly appreciate the way you contributed. RigOLuche (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Alchemy and beauty productseditSorry, I meant to say beauty products, not beauty hopes. Thank you for catching that! :) Patissiereyumeiro (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Weird questionedit...ever considered running? I believe you have handled the Theguywholearnhistory-Wareno case quite admirably. I've witnessed many disputes and conflicts on WP but I've scarcely seen an editor responding so concisely and skilfully before; in this case, I could not have responded better. You seem to have all the knowledge, experience and prowess to carry the mob, so why not give it a shot? Colonestarrice (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Explanation of my username
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα) is an ancient Greek word derived from apō (ἀπό, meaning "from") and augē (αὐγή, meaning, a.o., "sunlight", "bright light", "brightness", "gleam"; also, "dawn") or augazō (αὐγάζω, meaning, a.o., "illumine", "shine", "reflect"), combined with the suffix -ma (-μα, denoting the result or the product of something). Thus, it means something like 'what results from bright light', i.e., "a portion of bright light", "a gleam of light" (cf. LSJ: "radiance", "effulgence", "light beaming from a luminous body"), or "a reflection". It is perhaps most famous for its appearance in the New Testament book Hebrews (second half of first century CE) 1:3 "He [sc. Christ] is the reflection [apaugasma] of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word [...]" (tr. NRSV). However, it was first used in the apocryphal Bible book Wisdom of Solomon (c. 100 BCE – 100 CE) 7:26 "For she [sc. the world-creating Wisdom, Greek sophia] is a reflection [apaugasma] of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness" (tr. NRSV). It was also used several times by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE). See De specialibus legibus 4:123 "as for that which was breathed in [i.e., the breath of life in Genesis 2:7, which Philo identified with the rational soul], it is clear that it was an ethereal spirit [aitherion pneuma], or if there is something better than an ethereal spirit, a portion of light [apaugasma] from the blessed and thrice-blessed nature" (my tr.). See also Philo, De opificio mundi 146 "[...] in what concerns the mind, every human being is intimately related to the divine Word [logos], having come into being as an impression, a detached particle [apospasma], a portion of light [apaugasma] from the blessed nature [...]" (my tr.). See also Philo, De plantatione 50. While some Platonizing elements are clearly present (i.e., the identification of the divine with an eternal light, of which all other things are only reflections, images, or impressions), these seem to be understood within the materialist theoretical framework of Stoic physics, in which both the light and the reflections become corporeal substances. What appears to be at play here is the Stoic idea that the human soul is a detached particle (Gr. apospasma) of the world-creating (i.e., demiurgical or craftsman-like), divine, all-pervading, ethereal (i.e., very thin and fine, like the aithēr or "upper air") but still corporeal, active cause or "nature" (phusis), which was fire according to Zeno of Citium, heat or flame (flox) according to Cleanthes, pneuma ("breath", "spirit") or augē ("gleam") according to Chrysippus, and a corporeal logos (a.o., "proportion", "ratio", "rational discourse", "reason", "word") according to all Stoic philosophers. In the scriptural sources (Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews), this Stoic conceptualization was assimilated to the pre-existing Biblical notion of the divine spirit. However, in the Biblical view, the divine spirit is not identical to God (as it is in the Stoic view), but rather proceeds from God as His word or breath, and is granted only to the pious (see, e.g., Isaiah 11:2). As a consequence, the world-creating principle of the scriptural sources (Lady Wisdom, or the Spirit of Christ) has itself become an apaugasma (from the eternal light of God Himself), and is not an individual soul but rather a kind of 'super-soul' which would descend only on devout believers. Philo, by contrast, in a way stayed closer to the Stoic concept by identifying the divine spirit directly with the rational soul which God has breathed into every human being, though for him this divine in-breathed spirit was not a portion of the light of God Himself, but rather from His creative Word. The Stoic concept of a subtle but corporeal world-creating principle which is the active cause informing and holding together all material things (and also, though much less often, the idea that the human soul is itself an apaugasma of that luminous active principle) was picked up by some Church Fathers and a range of late antique and medieval philosophers. It would be especially influential among those interested in alchemy and magical properties (see, e.g., the Emerald Tablet). Its persistence as a physical theory may be gauged from the fact that a version of it was still cited by Isaac Newton (1642–1726/27), who in the concluding paragraph of the third (1726) edition of his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy added a brief note "concerning a certain very subtle spirit pervading gross bodies and lying hidden in them", by whose "force and actions, the particles of bodies attract one another at very small distances and cohere when they become contiguous" (tr. Cohen, Whitman, and Budenz 1999).
|