"People ask what do you get from spiritualism? The first thing you get is that it absolutely removes all fear of death" 💖 Arthur Conan Doyle's books on the history of spiritualism are the most insightful and fascinating books I've ever read.
It’s a joy to hear an incredibly talented, eloquent man, enunciate a belief with such ease and so clearly. To all doubters I ask, why? Why is it so hard to believe? I also agree with the statement that a closed mind leads to mental death. Thank you for this!:)
"Proved" is a bit of a stretch. Sadly, the otherwise highly intelligent and scientifically-minded Doyle was easily conned by all manner of blatant charlatanism in his eagerness to believe in "the other side". His good friend Harry Houdini (whose work as a celebrated spiritualist debunker later led to a falling-out with Doyle) once organised an illusionism show in Doyle's own house in an effort to demonstrate to his friend how impressive and realistic magic tricks could be (thereby proving to him that the "evidence" Doyle claimed to have encountered could easily have been faked as well). The only thing he achieved was Doyle becoming convinced that Houdini himself had magical powers which he was denying. You can't win with some people, as they say... In the words of AA Campbell Swinton's 1926 article "Science and Psychical Research" (which criticises Doyle's book "History of Spiritualism" published the same year), all of Doyle's investigations were ultimately "most certainly very unscientifically handled."
@@oliverholmes-gunning5372 still, you can't say he might not have been a bit right, at least. Read Pim Van Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life (written by a medical doctor), and inquire about the NDE experiences, etc. You can't rule out a mind such as Conan Doyle's just because you're a firmly believer that something doesn't exist. If it doesn't, then of course you also need proof.
@@lluiscornet9020 Well firstly, I wasn't saying that supernatural or paranormal phenomena definitely don't exist; I was simply saying that Conan Doyle- a man tricked by two preteen girls with cardboard fairies- did not do his side any favours, by being ready to believe in absolutely anything supernatural without ever applying even a shred of the logic that his literary creation was so famous for. His investigations into the supernatural (prompted not by objective interest but by an inability to accept the death of his wife and mother) were extremely sloppy and unscientific, and could not be viewed as evidence of anything. Secondly, the idea that one needs proof to deny the existence of something is a fallacy frequently spouted by believers; to quote Christopher Hitchens, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- ie, if I am claiming something totally irrational that goes against everything we currently understand or know about the world, the onus of proof is on me, not those who doubt me. It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but does that make you believe in Bigfoot, hobbits or the Tooth Fairy? Personally I like to use Dawkins' Scale of Belief when it comes to these kinds of claims: where 1 is certainty of the existence of God/fairies/pixies/ghosts/life after death and 7 is certainty of the lack of existence of said entities and concepts, I- like Dawkins- rate myself a 6- it's impossible to prove for sure, but it's so unlikely that until further evidence comes along we may as well live under the assumption that it's all bullshit. Per cert, ets català? Ho dic pel nom, sona molt català jajaja.
Jovis. In most upper class English accents (Queen's English, etc), usually 'r' is pronounced with a slight roll, different from the Scottish roll. You'll hear the rolled 'r' in the accents of many English actors in films from the early years to the present. You'll hear it also in some American English used by some Hollywood actors, mainly in the '20s into '40s when Hollywood actors were commonly trained to use what's called the Mid-Atlantic accent. (The Mid-Atlantic accent sounds like a mixture of Am. English & Queen's English.) This accent is fairly noticeable in Leslie Howard, William Powell, & others who often played upper class ladies & gentlemen. As another viewer already commented, Doyle's pronunciation of 'r's is typical of Scottish accents, which is very different from the rolled 'r' of the English accent. In England the rolled 'r' is usually heard among genteel or upper class persons & it was part of the standardized accent used by the BBC newscasters through most of the 20th c. I wish I could tell you where this rolled 'r' is from & how it developed, as I've often wondered myself, but this pronunciation is probably of such ancient origin that we may never know. Also, the rolled 'r' isn't heard in classes other than the upper classes (or those aspiring to sound upper class). It might have some connection with the Germanic origins of English & with the shared ancestry of the English & the Germanic aristocracy, but I've no idea where to start with this. Good luck!
The Victorians in England did actually roll their "r"s more than they do today, but Doyle's accent is quite Scottish but probably speaking in a posher voice for the recording. That's what people did back then and speaking on the telephone/radio. Doyle grew up in Edinburgh and attended University in Edinburgh too.
We have not lived through a World war . So many that died during WWI . And this a Amazing testimony to that. RIP Dr. Doyle you will never be forgotten.
Curious how the creator of the most rational-minded empiricist ever to grace our literary heritage was himself a believer in what one of his biographers referred to as "this mumbo jumbo" (an assessment I myself cannot help but agree with, I'm afraid). Of course, he himself addressed the disparity between him and Holmes in a funny little poem he wrote: "But is it not on the verge of inanity To put down to me my creation's true vanity? He, the created, would scoff and sneer, Where I, the creator, would bow and revere. So please grip this fact with your cerebral tentacle: The doll and its maker are never identical" But still, it is strange. For all of Doyle's poetic protestations, the fact remains that most authors do write themselves into their characters- look at Ian Fleming's James Bond, or Dan Brown's Robert Langdon. And yet Doyle and Holmes seem to be at complete odds to each other, personality-wise. Doyle was a sensitive, romantic family man with a past and physical resemblance closer to that of Watson than Holmes, and beliefs that his own creation would have raised an ironic eyebrow at ("I see that you have quite gone over to the supernaturalists" Holmes mockingly says of Dr Mortimer's theories at the start of The Hound of the Baskervilles). Of course, Dr Joseph Bell was the figure who served as primary inspiration for Holmes so the disparity is not quite so unusual as it might be, but given how much time and energy Doyle devoted to fleshing out the character it is still a little odd that he should have made him so utterly different to himself. It is also worth pointing out, however, that according to Michael W Homer in his article "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Spiritualism and New Religions", Doyle "saw no inconsistency between his acceptance of spiritualism and Sherlock Holmes's rationalism and, in fact, believed that his ability to reason had led him to the true religion." Be that as it may, all of Doyle's investigations were ultimately "most certainly very unscientifically handled" (in the words of AA Campbell Swinton's 1926 article "Science and Psychical Research", which criticises Doyle's book "History of Spiritualism" published the same year). This failure to heed his creation's advice and "theorise before... (he had) data" (I am sceptical of any alleged "experiments" that were conducted privately and without proper documentation, as all these "proofs" always seem to be)- "a capital mistake", of course, led to public humiliation for Doyle after he endorsed the blatant scam that were the Cottingley fairies as well as a number of other frauds, not to mention a falling out with his good friend the escapologist and spiritualism debunker Harry Houdini (whom Doyle remained convinced had supernatural powers despite Houdini's insistence that he did not). Personally I think the man of science's conversion to the dubious world of spiritualism in later life may be chalked up to the numerous personal tragedies and losses he suffered*- his first wife in 1906, his son in 1918, and his mother, with whom he was extremely close, in 1920; grief can blind the best of us, after all... Still, a fascinating record of a fascinating man (I highly recommend his 1924 autobiography, Memories and Adventures, which I myself am halfway through right now); I must confess I had never heard his voice before; doing so here gave me chills. I was especially interested to hear the continued presence of a fairly broad Edinburgh accent under the veneer of Received Pronunciation. *though others have attributed it to his Roman Catholic upbringing.
"People ask what do you get from spiritualism? The first thing you get is that it absolutely removes all fear of death" 💖 Arthur Conan Doyle's books on the history of spiritualism are the most insightful and fascinating books I've ever read.
It’s a joy to hear an incredibly talented, eloquent man, enunciate a belief with such ease and so clearly. To all doubters I ask, why? Why is it so hard to believe? I also agree with the statement that a closed mind leads to mental death. Thank you for this!:)
He proved telepathy with a friend. My god of course it would an imagination such as this that created a figure so beloved and embraced by the world.
"Proved" is a bit of a stretch. Sadly, the otherwise highly intelligent and scientifically-minded Doyle was easily conned by all manner of blatant charlatanism in his eagerness to believe in "the other side". His good friend Harry Houdini (whose work as a celebrated spiritualist debunker later led to a falling-out with Doyle) once organised an illusionism show in Doyle's own house in an effort to demonstrate to his friend how impressive and realistic magic tricks could be (thereby proving to him that the "evidence" Doyle claimed to have encountered could easily have been faked as well). The only thing he achieved was Doyle becoming convinced that Houdini himself had magical powers which he was denying. You can't win with some people, as they say...
In the words of AA Campbell Swinton's 1926 article "Science and Psychical Research" (which criticises Doyle's book "History of Spiritualism" published the same year), all of Doyle's investigations were ultimately "most
certainly very unscientifically handled."
@@oliverholmes-gunning5372 still, you can't say he might not have been a bit right, at least. Read Pim Van Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life (written by a medical doctor), and inquire about the NDE experiences, etc. You can't rule out a mind such as Conan Doyle's just because you're a firmly believer that something doesn't exist. If it doesn't, then of course you also need proof.
@@lluiscornet9020 Well firstly, I wasn't saying that supernatural or paranormal phenomena definitely don't exist; I was simply saying that Conan Doyle- a man tricked by two preteen girls with cardboard fairies- did not do his side any favours, by being ready to believe in absolutely anything supernatural without ever applying even a shred of the logic that his literary creation was so famous for. His investigations into the supernatural (prompted not by objective interest but by an inability to accept the death of his wife and mother) were extremely sloppy and unscientific, and could not be viewed as evidence of anything.
Secondly, the idea that one needs proof to deny the existence of something is a fallacy frequently spouted by believers; to quote Christopher Hitchens, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- ie, if I am claiming something totally irrational that goes against everything we currently understand or know about the world, the onus of proof is on me, not those who doubt me. It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but does that make you believe in Bigfoot, hobbits or the Tooth Fairy?
Personally I like to use Dawkins' Scale of Belief when it comes to these kinds of claims: where 1 is certainty of the existence of God/fairies/pixies/ghosts/life after death and 7 is certainty of the lack of existence of said entities and concepts, I- like Dawkins- rate myself a 6- it's impossible to prove for sure, but it's so unlikely that until further evidence comes along we may as well live under the assumption that it's all bullshit.
Per cert, ets català? Ho dic pel nom, sona molt català jajaja.
Where can I learn about the rolled "r" sounds, and why did they pronounce it like this back in the day?
Hello, the accent probably come from his scottish accent (born in Edinburgh).
Jovis. In most upper class English accents (Queen's English, etc), usually 'r' is pronounced with a slight roll, different from the Scottish roll. You'll hear the rolled 'r' in the accents of many English actors in films from the early years to the present. You'll hear it also in some American English used by some Hollywood actors, mainly in the '20s into '40s when Hollywood actors were commonly trained to use what's called the Mid-Atlantic accent. (The Mid-Atlantic accent sounds like a mixture of Am. English & Queen's English.) This accent is fairly noticeable in Leslie Howard, William Powell, & others who often played upper class ladies & gentlemen.
As another viewer already commented, Doyle's pronunciation of 'r's is typical of Scottish accents, which is very different from the rolled 'r' of the English accent. In England the rolled 'r' is usually heard among genteel or upper class persons & it was part of the standardized accent used by the BBC newscasters through most of the 20th c.
I wish I could tell you where this rolled 'r' is from & how it developed, as I've often wondered myself, but this pronunciation is probably of such ancient origin that we may never know. Also, the rolled 'r' isn't heard in classes other than the upper classes (or those aspiring to sound upper class). It might have some connection with the Germanic origins of English & with the shared ancestry of the English & the Germanic aristocracy, but I've no idea where to start with this.
Good luck!
Cause he was Scottish
The Victorians in England did actually roll their "r"s more than they do today, but Doyle's accent is quite Scottish but probably speaking in a posher voice for the recording. That's what people did back then and speaking on the telephone/radio. Doyle grew up in Edinburgh and attended University in Edinburgh too.
Sadly he passed away less than 2 months after this
What a true Gentlemen and genius. There will never be another like him. Hope he found what he was looking for
so did i
Happily we recorded his voice for posterity in the nick of time.
Did he come back as a spirit?
Is this real?
Why not?
Yes very real.
Yes. Doyle was also featured in an early film (shot in 1927) in which he makes a very similar speech.
We have not lived through a World war . So many that died during WWI . And this a Amazing testimony to that. RIP Dr. Doyle you will never be forgotten.
Curious how the creator of the most rational-minded empiricist ever to grace our literary heritage was himself a believer in what one of his biographers referred to as "this mumbo jumbo" (an assessment I myself cannot help but agree with, I'm afraid). Of course, he himself addressed the disparity between him and Holmes in a funny little poem he wrote:
"But is it not on the verge of inanity
To put down to me my creation's true vanity?
He, the created, would scoff and sneer,
Where I, the creator, would bow and revere.
So please grip this fact with your cerebral tentacle:
The doll and its maker are never identical"
But still, it is strange. For all of Doyle's poetic protestations, the fact remains that most authors do write themselves into their characters- look at Ian Fleming's James Bond, or Dan Brown's Robert Langdon. And yet Doyle and Holmes seem to be at complete odds to each other, personality-wise. Doyle was a sensitive, romantic family man with a past and physical resemblance closer to that of Watson than Holmes, and beliefs that his own creation would have raised an ironic eyebrow at ("I see that you have quite gone over to the supernaturalists" Holmes mockingly says of Dr Mortimer's theories at the start of The Hound of the Baskervilles). Of course, Dr Joseph Bell was the figure who served as primary inspiration for Holmes so the disparity is not quite so unusual as it might be, but given how much time and energy Doyle devoted to fleshing out the character it is still a little odd that he should have made him so utterly different to himself. It is also worth pointing out, however, that according to Michael W Homer in his article "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Spiritualism and New Religions", Doyle "saw no inconsistency between his acceptance of spiritualism and
Sherlock Holmes's rationalism and, in fact, believed that his ability to reason had led him to the true religion."
Be that as it may, all of Doyle's investigations were ultimately "most
certainly very unscientifically handled" (in the words of AA Campbell Swinton's 1926 article "Science and Psychical Research", which criticises Doyle's book "History of Spiritualism" published the same year). This failure to heed his creation's advice and "theorise before... (he had) data" (I am sceptical of any alleged "experiments" that were conducted privately and without proper documentation, as all these "proofs" always seem to be)- "a capital mistake", of course, led to public humiliation for Doyle after he endorsed the blatant scam that were the Cottingley fairies as well as a number of other frauds, not to mention a falling out with his good friend the escapologist and spiritualism debunker Harry Houdini (whom Doyle remained convinced had supernatural powers despite Houdini's insistence that he did not).
Personally I think the man of science's conversion to the dubious world of spiritualism in later life may be chalked up to the numerous personal tragedies and losses he suffered*- his first wife in 1906, his son in 1918, and his mother, with whom he was extremely close, in 1920; grief can blind the best of us, after all...
Still, a fascinating record of a fascinating man (I highly recommend his 1924 autobiography, Memories and Adventures, which I myself am halfway through right now); I must confess I had never heard his voice before; doing so here gave me chills. I was especially interested to hear the continued presence of a fairly broad Edinburgh accent under the veneer of Received Pronunciation.
*though others have attributed it to his Roman Catholic upbringing.
The "mumbo-jumbo" will become reality once you're dead.
Can you put the link to AA Campbell Swinton's 1926 article? I did a quick search and could not come up with it.
4:44, 5:08
Houdini code