Of course, this is by no means historic evidence, it's more an example of the common notion of his appearance – and, admittedly, a rather extreme one.
(And, as already mentioned, Umberto Eco kind of made fun of the semblance.)
Regarding Ovid's name, I think, there was kind of a joy in circular evidence, more for aesthetic reasons than others. Compare, "artifex generale nomen vocatur quod artem faciat" (Isidore), or the notion that the lion indeed obscures its tracks by wiping its path by its wagging tail, because the lion is thus the example of Christianity preserving its secrets from its pagan enemies. There's a medieval joy, even satisfaction, in closures and folds, like this.
> Chesterton described Aquinas as looking quite like Chesterton.
I was unaware that Chesterton met Aquinas! He must have been quite old at that point.
I can't imagine anything that Chesterton could add to this conversation. He's reading the same texts the rest of us are. TBH this pretty much sums up his entire career.
Yes, he's an amazing writer regardless of his target. I primarily think of his christian apologetic work, though, hence why I was teasing his obsession with western (and particularly christian) text.
I love Chesterton. I was just ribbing him. It's not terribly difficult.
The reasons for war are rarely absurd, and are about groups competing for limited resources. Saying it's anything to do with 'macho-ism' (which is certainly nothing like an ideology, if it is anything at all) is smug feminist nonsense.
I would love to hear a full analysis from your part on the question of "are the reasons of war absurd" because I am not convinced by your argument about "groups competing for limited resources" and honestly it felt like a clumsy generalization of some facts (which could be made-up).
Well, macho-ism is an abstraction constructed/used in order to communicate about some system of ideas or ideals related to "having pride in one masculinity". I am not interested in discussing whether or not this is a cause of war or not (but obviously it is a cause of conflict).
My previous comment was a parody of its parent (even if I tend to agree with what is said in it), the desired effect was to reveal how intensely absurd was the previously evoked " parent".
You mean the next gen jets that cannot fly in harsh weather conditions and are solely designed to make money? You know the ones that are only being used simbolically in patrol missions over europe while the old F-16s fly actual combat missions? Or the US hypersonic missiles which disintegrate on test flights?
So yes, the fact the majority of people on this forum are engineers who seem to support the made up idea that the US can win a nuclear war against Russia, does shed a negative light on them. But then again so do many other things. But it's mainly the fact that the majority seems to read this comment as me propagating the idea that Russia would win. Us vs. them, right?
The F16 is not supposed to fly in thunderstorm just like the F35. These are just precautions and Lockheed cleared the F35 for rain/thunderstorms back in 2015 after checking the inerting systems.
Can't it just be a myth, as it seems to hang on a single anecdote?
For comparison, the medievals thought that Ovid's name, Publius Ovidius Naso, was because he had a good nose for sniffing out the truth.