![\"\"](\"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/Emil-Pales.jpeg\")
P\u00e1le\u0161 named the hypothesis about certain periods in history “angelology” because it is based on the seven angels written about in the Bible, in the Book of Revelation. Thus, P\u00e1le\u0161’s theory is not some independent and impartial theory, but primarily a Christian theory.<\/p>\r\n
And Christianity is hidden Satanism \u2013 therefore, P\u00e1le\u0161’s pro-Christian bias is by no means something to be praised.<\/p>\r\n
P\u00e1le\u0161 also deals with historical periods (repetitions) in history. So far, no historian has expressed an opinion on P\u00e1le\u0161. And I doubt that his speculations would stand up before historians, who, moreover, consider him such an obscurantist that they don’t even see the point in verifying the truthfulness of his view on history.
\r\n P\u00e1le\u0161 uncritically connects certain objects with symbols: e.g., that the heart is related to cancer \u2013 such things are ordinary uncritical esoteric babble that will never stand up before a person with common sense. Similarly, he connects historical periods with certain symbols.<\/p>\r\n
The controversial P\u00e1le\u0161 often boasts about predicting that the sunflower treats AIDS, because after he predicted a connection between the sunflower and AIDS, scientists discovered some sunflower extract that can partially treat AIDS.
\r\n P\u00e1le\u0161 comes from the communist generation, when his spiritual “sciences” were strongly suppressed. After the liberation in ’89, he threw himself fanatically into an overly “spiritualized” uncritical pseudoscience and has stuck to it until today.<\/p>\r\n
On his own website, P\u00e1le\u0161 even has statements from his ideological opponents. I must admit that his opponents clearly won the argument.<\/p>\r\n
P\u00e1le\u0161 also defends his theories using mathematical statistical correlation. But the fact that it somewhat “fits” and “clicks” is just mere coincidence. The fact that two very simple curves run approximately alongside each other means nothing. Given P\u00e1le\u0161’s level of criticality, everything would have to correlate with everything.<\/p>\r\n
And even if angelology were really true, what would we get out of it? What does such a philosophy bring to the ordinary person? Is it perhaps good advice for life? P\u00e1le\u0161’s philosophizing is just philosophizing over the immortality of a maybug.<\/strong> It is fine that Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 uses a lot of mathematics in his “research.” But great mathematics is no guarantee of truth \u2013 the calculation itself may be correct, but we cannot apply mathematics to nonsense. If mathematics is used to calculate nonsense, it is worthless.<\/p>\r\n I think P\u00e1le\u0161 has already realized that his philosophizing is nonsense. But once a person declares their philosophizing as “infallible truths” before the public, it is hard to retract it.<\/strong> P\u00e1le\u0161 also published a statement on his website by a competent expert, Ladislav Hoho\u0161, on the history of philosophy, who labeled his work as philosophical speculation belonging to the category of “mysticism,” marking it as something extra-scientific. P\u00e1le\u0161, however, claims the label “scientific” for his speculations.<\/p>\r\n I HAVE A FEELING THAT REGARDING HISTORY, P\u00c1LE\u0160 CHOSE ONLY WHAT SUITED HIS THEORY, WHILE IGNORING HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT DID NOT FIT.<\/p>\r\n I’m not saying Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 couldn’t be right about anything; occasionally he surely is right about something. P\u00e1le\u0161 certainly strives for seriousness and tries very hard for the truth, but in reality, his work is on bad foundations, and if we are on bad foundations, we will not reach the truth. I would recommend Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 turn his intellectual potential in a completely different direction: to abandon his bad foundations and start devoting his energy to serious philosophy on good foundations.<\/p>\r\n It is also embarrassing how much hatred Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 has for his ideological opponents!!!<\/strong> In the following article, P\u00e1le\u0161 talks about his discussion with the professional public (the article is actually his monologue). This article is nothing more than taking things out of context from what his opponents said, with practically no literal quoting of opponents<\/strong>; the whole article is filled with hatred toward them. At the end, he spitefully mocks the collapse of the Slovak Skeptics Club. Well, poor Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 ran out of arguments, so he was left only with room for such a disgrace http:\/\/www.sophia.sk\/sites\/default\/files\/Sisyfos_proti_vede.pdf<\/a><\/p>\r\n November 10, 2014, update: In the last two broadcasts on Slobodn\u00fd vysiela\u010d, Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 spoke practically only about himself, which was immensely egocentric, narcissistic, and embarrassing. In the programs, he constantly defended himself against his critics. The funniest part was that P\u00e1le\u0161 said that in the search for truth, discussion is necessary. But when the host asked him if he would be willing to discuss with anyone, he replied that he is not<\/u> willing \u2013 it turned out how cowardly P\u00e1le\u0161 is and that although he speaks about the need for discussion, he himself does not know how to discuss. P\u00e1le\u0161 preaches water and drinks wine. With these last two broadcasts of Adriana\u2019s Thread, Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 has completely finished himself off. Emil P\u00e1le\u0161 draws his basic philosophy mainly from Rudolf Steiner. However, there is verified information (feel free to verify it for yourself) that Rudolf Steiner was a member of the Thule Society, of which Adolf Hitler was also a member. Furthermore, Steiner and Hitler were good friends and associates. So who is Emil P\u00e1le\u0161, who draws his philosophy from a friend of Hitler and a member of the black-magic Thule Society?<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"P\u00e1le\u0161 also deals with historical periods (repetitions) in history. No historian has yet commented on P\u00e1le\u0161. And I doubt that his speculations would stand up to historians, who also consider him such an obscurantist that they do not even see the point in checking the truthfulness of his view of history.","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-meditation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofia.nett.to\/meditacia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\r\n P\u00e1le\u0161 organizes some courses, which somewhat resemble a closed sect where P\u00e1le\u0161 is the boss\/guru and his students are obedient uncritical sheep. Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 should open up to the public a bit; those closed private courses do not make a good impression on me. Also, P\u00e1le\u0161’s sheep in internet discussions cannot tolerate any criticism of their shepherd. It reminds me of how Catholic fanatics cannot tolerate criticism of their Holy Catholic Infallible Church.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n Specifically, I reproach P\u00e1le\u0161 for this: his angelology is, as far as I know, a repetition of certain periodic intervals, according to which we could roughly estimate the future. I think he has a tiny, tiny shred of truth; there is surely something to these periods, but that’s all. When a person strongly, persistently, and above all UNCRITICALLY looks for evidence for their theory, they will find it, and sometimes it can seem very logical and correct even to the creator of such a theory. Serious theories are compiled by several people with multiple differing opinions; there are always supporters and opponents of a given theory. That’s how it works in modern physics as a science. An official theory is declared only after long discussions and rigorous skeptical testing. Since Mr. P\u00e1le\u0161 created the theory himself, there was no one to express a skeptical opinion, and therefore its objectivity is questionable (I personally have discussed opinions even with staunch opponents – professors of theology). Overall, I think P\u00e1le\u0161’s historical periods are a dead end: his theory is just a kind of patchwork of several good coincidences. In reality, the development of humanity is unpredictable, and it is not possible to speak reliably about periods.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n*****************<\/p>\r\n