Conspiracy Theory: Phantom time hypothesis

[public hermit]

Oh man, so many just picking what to believe because it only makes them more comfortable or feeling to be special or in the in-group? ah, man...

Well, when you put it that way it doesn't sound like a great hypothesis.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, when you put it that way it doesn't sound like a great hypothesis.

But I worry that it may be largely correct, or correct for many instead of just a few. How many are just choosing to believe a story because it makes them feel special or in the know.

See, I was surprised that so many fell for Trump's salesmanship, where he trumps up stuff he does, and discounts what others do, and so on, creating illusion. That so many buy his illusions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The guy who came up with it is into revisionist history according to that wiki link. I mean, what a boon to have discovered that so many people had been fooled by the supposed existence of the Carolingian period! The practical benefits, assuming many people came on board, would be enormous! One's ego would benefit. It would be like discovering that Kierkegaard's writings were really authored by his brother Peter! Even if it weren't true, having tens of followers would feel great! Lol

Yeah, I saw that little bit about Heribert Illig's theoretical proposition mentioned in the article you linked in the OP.

While I'm not much on calling him a 'revisionist' since all attempts at writing or presenting 'history' are revisionistic and subject to a person's perspective and process of thematic selection to some degree, I think we all know that novel interpretations about the past tend to sell better, especially if they overturn some earlier, very cherished claim by this or that group.

In the article, the problem isn't revisionism so much as it is negationism. And with this in mind, this is one reason it's important for Hermeneutics (and Historiography and Philosophy of History) to play a part in how we approach any report, old or new, when evaluating what it is we think we're being handed.

I don't know enough about Illig's mindset yet in order to evaluate his motives, but y'know... I hear that those Bavarians can be quite innovative!

 

[Halbhh]

podcast cited here was enjoyable and covers a bit of that

Ong's Hat, anyone?

That was a pretty long audio, and I listened in the back ground but wasn't always paying attention, because I like to read (more fast), so how would you yourself summarize what makes people believe conspiracy theories?

 

[Petros2015]

so how would you yourself summarize what makes people believe conspiracy theories?

I think at first its a fun entertaining thought presented as reality
But as more pieces are presented a couple of things happen
The mind likes the 'whoa this could be true' moments
And if it's not really all that happy about the reality it is in
It might like them better than the 'Stop: this is true' moments.
It likes solving puzzles and riddles
And making connections
So the theory allows it to go into this mode
While the propagators can submit other little dots every now and then
As well, it forms a clique
Because minds like like-minds
So it's a bit like shunting someone into an addictive alternate reality
Than then becomes self propagating
And if you add political emotional incentives to all of these things
(emotion and "the need to be right" can be *quite* addictive)
(Most Conspiracy theories present an 'Enemy' of a sort)
It can really turn into a one-way street
Even when the creator of Ong's Hat fessed up
There was a subsection that wouldn't believe him
And then thought he was part of the conspiracy
He accidentally created something that went beyond his control

I find them extraordinarily dangerous. It's a subtle disassociation from Truth, (at first entertained largely for entertainment sake) but it continues to the point where Truth is no longer recognized or even recognizable.

Also, one of the nice things about fighting a vast conspiracy is that it leaves you no time for self-reflection. Which is exactly the sort of thing you would need, to escape this kind of entrapment in a conspiracy theory.

 

[d taylor]

If you like the study of time, a book All Past Time by J.M. Dimbleby 1894 may be of interest to you. It may be hard to find a copy though.

https://www.amazon.com/All-Past-Time-J-Dimbleby/dp/B001NXWAZ6

 

[Halbhh]

I think at first its a fun entertaining thought presented as reality
But as more pieces are presented a couple of things happen
The mind likes the 'whoa this could be true' moments
And if it's not really all that happy about the reality it is in
It might like them better than the 'Stop: this is true' moments.
It likes solving puzzles and riddles
And making connections
So the theory allows it to go into this mode
While the propagators can submit other little dots every now and then
As well, it forms a clique
Because minds like like-minds
So it's a bit like shunting someone into an addictive alternate reality
Than then becomes self propagating
And if you add political emotional incentives to all of these things
(emotion and "the need to be right" can be *quite* addictive)
(Most Conspiracy theories present an 'Enemy' of a sort)
It can really turn into a one-way street
Even when the creator of Ong's Hat fessed up
There was a subsection that wouldn't believe him
And then thought he was part of the conspiracy
He accidentally created something that went beyond his control

I find them extraordinarily dangerous. It's a subtle disassociation from Truth, (at first entertained for largely for entertainment sake) but it continues to the point where Truth is no longer recognized or even recognizable.

Also, one of the nice things about fighting a vast conspiracy is that it leaves you no time for self-reflection. Which is exactly the sort of thing you would need, to escape this kind of entrapment in a conspiracy theory.

Very interesting and makes sense. At first a mix of some actual things woven in a way that is entertaining.... but hooks come along and pull people in deeper.

 

[Sunshinee777]

I just "learned" about this conspiracy theory:

"The phantom time hypothesis is a historical conspiracy theory asserted by Heribert Illig. First published in 1991, it hypothesizes a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retroactively, in order to place them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history[1] to legitimize Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence.[2] According to this scenario, the entire Carolingian period, including the figure of Charlemagne, is a fabrication, with a "phantom time" of 297 years (AD 614–911) added to the Early Middle Ages.

The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians."

I know it's a risk to post one more conspiracy theory for folks to waste their time on, but I'm curious if any Christians believe this. If so, doesn't Nicaea explain it? "Illig's "three missing centuries" thus correspond to the 369 years between the institution of the Julian calendar in 45 BC, and the fixing of the Easter Date at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."

Phantom time hypothesis - Wikipedia

I haven’t been reading about this so I don’t know but I do know that we are lied about true history. For example we are lied about giants, that they never existed but there is tons of proof that they did. Also there is lot of lies about wars and such.

 

[Petros2015]

For example we are lied about giants

How big were the giants?

 

[Petros2015]

I haven’t been reading about this so I don’t know but I do know that we are lied about true history. For example we are lied about giants, that they never existed but there is tons of proof that they did. Also there is lot of lies about wars and such.

Wait a minute.

You're from Finland...