(no subject)
So, in my Early Modern Europe class (each week, we read a book from a different historical approach to the period - history of philosophy and identity, economic history, material history, etc), we were having a debate about some random history of science and wonder terms. Based on my response in class, I'm not sure I should be in grad school.
"The way I thought of the difference was by superheroes. 'Natural' would be a John Doe, something totally regular and ordinary that follows all the known laws of nature. A 'supernatural' would be Superman, because he's totally different and out of this world and against everything understood about nature. And 'preternatural' would be Batman, because he's natural, but with some marvelous and mysterious powers that no one could yet fully explain."
That's right. I used superheroes to talk about science in the 16th century. I don't know whether I'm more shocked at that, or more shocked at the fact that it made sense to everyone else in my class.
"The way I thought of the difference was by superheroes. 'Natural' would be a John Doe, something totally regular and ordinary that follows all the known laws of nature. A 'supernatural' would be Superman, because he's totally different and out of this world and against everything understood about nature. And 'preternatural' would be Batman, because he's natural, but with some marvelous and mysterious powers that no one could yet fully explain."
That's right. I used superheroes to talk about science in the 16th century. I don't know whether I'm more shocked at that, or more shocked at the fact that it made sense to everyone else in my class.