Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"
- Thread starter d.a.s.h
- Start date
Might pain you to find out this is a "flat" = one dimensional medium, so... But brains like you... Echhhhhhh...
Flat = 2 dimensional. What the hell are you talking about anyway? Nice teenage ellipses,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,uhhhhhhhhh unfinished sentence weird spasm
I agree, but then is Baconian empiricism really "to blame" as you said earlier?
revol68
what, fucking what?
see this is exactly what i'm talking about, utter idealist wank, an 'analysis' that broadly brushes over complex and layered history in favour of a vague 'instrumental reason'. And no I would never be so absurd to blame Baconian empiricism for the 'sins of the west', it's just a nonsense claim, based on a percieved relation of casaulity ironically cruder than any Barconian could muster. One would have more of a case of making christianity culpable for the 'sins of the west' and even then i'd reject it on the grounds of being idealist wank.
So you don't think that Bacon's destruction of teleological morality had anything to do with the relaxation of the usury laws, for example?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Don't you have that the wrong way round? As I see it, religious morality has always existed to serve the interests of society, not the other way round. As
a society moves towards a different economic organisation, it takes its morality with it.
I'd say that the causality worked both ways. Economics determine ideas, and also vice versa. Showing of course that the distinction is artificial, and that society is best conceived as a totality, in which changes to one part inevitably affect the whole.
revol68
what, fucking what?
teleological morality was concretely being made a mockery of by merchants well before then, at best Bacon could be seen as simply articulating it. And if Bacon was as influential as such an idealist reading of history suggested I still wouldn't think it comes close to making him responsible for the usury of capitalism or anything much less.
tell me Phil you don't actually think the destruction of teleological morality was a bad thing in itself?
Also like I said earlier if one was to hold Baconian empiricism guilty for the sins of the west one would have to hold Christianity as even more so, what say you?
revol68
what, fucking what?
and open ended totality.
and yes this is true but the ideas that effect society are not the simple abstracted 'great thinkers of history' but those of billions of people around the world and our bound up in their social relations.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok, good. I agree with this.
I would say, however, that it is hugely difficult to disentangle what has caused what. The best we can do is to look at an event and see what the necessary conditions were for that event to occur as it did. I have a great deal of sympathy for Marxism here, although it is simplistic to simply say that economic conditions determine consciousness (and hence ideas). Where Marx is useful, I think, is in the idea that first you should look at the economic conditions. I don't think the ideas of the time make sense without this context.
People = all too frequently - do have this weird idea that they know everything and they don't need to ask questions, like presume who started it etc.
Ace!
You're interested in answering questions? Good, answer mine - I'll ask it again, because I don't know much about the Praxis Group and I'm interested in what you have to say about it:
Gorski, can you answer me a simple question? Can you name a critical theorist or a praxis school theorist who has anything similar to your line on Darwinism and its relation to social Darwinism?
Its a pitty Bacon would have agreed with every word you say with respect to Darwinism and "crude materialism".
"They that deny a God desroy man's nobility; for certainly manis of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destoys likewise magnamity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on when he finds himself maintained by a man; who to him is instead of a god, or melior natura; which courage is manifestly such as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain." Bacon - Of Atheism
gorski
customised free radical
Yes and then Bacon sends Man running around "things" to get "an idea"... Some "spirit" of a creature "akin to God" that is, as beautifully explained by Hegel in his History of Philosophy...
Besides, the developments before him, from Scotland and Germany to Italy [thanx to Arabs and Jews, preserving Aristotle's works for us], made it possible - no one is saying it somehow doesn't have anything to do with other developments.
But to say it didn't influence the developments of Philosophy and society as a whole - and deeply!!! - is equally ridiculous! In a sense, "someone else would have invented it all in the same manner" is sheer nonsense, when utterly unqualified like this! Besides, in some ways it's scholastic and hence futile. But deterministic stuff never was for me, thanx!
Knotted, from Marx onwards there are criticisms of Darwin of the kind I am writing about. He, like me, praises the man for his achievements - but not uncritically, like most sheep on here do, seeing quite clearly:
Marx to Lassale, 16 Jan. 1862:
...but also...
Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862:
Since, amongst other things, a "materialist position" would be theoretically and intellectually decent and honest enough to search for its roots/origins, as CT does show where it got its notions from [a position of a dog chasing its own tail, as one critic pointed out], rather than never problematise it at all, including a whole method of its research, I would endeavour to think critically of just how such a [social] root/origin of an allegedly "natural" theory" might affect its categorical apparatus as well as its methodology, thence its outcomes, rather than just mindlessly [never thinking about this aspect of the "theory"] run around trying to find evidence to fit the framework, which then comes back as "remarkably similar to our own society and nature", and then, mutatis mutandis, it becomes the basis from which to judge anything and everything and moreover - even create policies and legislate from.
Such normative content becomes dangerous, in my opinion, to such an extent, especially when we have an onslaught of neo-liberal/neo-conservative kind, pushing a very specific agenda of precisely this sort worldwide, that one must keep insisting on it. Hence, if you see Dawkins's critics from within science itself, one should point out exactly where and why lies the danger of such an uncritical position.
And many have noted this, it's not as if I'm inventing it all from thin air. Especially the usual "strenuous" accent on one part of Darwin's theory [struggle for existence in a competitive manner] and completely neglecting others [the co-operative elements]. The whole left critique agrees with that point, whomever thought and wrote about it.
Habermas - if that is what you are alluding to, trying to "trap me" [as if I unthinkingly and uncritically side with him, in a fan-like manner, on anything] - is not quite one-dimensional about it, leaving the gap between nature and Reason, on the one hand, and then seeing the continuity from one to the other via learning processes... But I don't agree with him in a variety of ways, as I can't see him or anyone showing anything of the sort definitively or even when it comes "only" to the "transition" itself [at least for now] - which "little problem" we have with archaeology and onwards, too.
Some "spirit" of a creature "akin to God" that is, as beautifully explained by Hegel in his History of Philosophy...Besides, the developments before him, from Scotland and Germany to Italy [thanx to Arabs and Jews, preserving Aristotle's works for us], made it possible - no one is saying it somehow doesn't have anything to do with other developments.
But to say it didn't influence the developments of Philosophy and society as a whole - and deeply!!! - is equally ridiculous! In a sense, "someone else would have invented it all in the same manner" is sheer nonsense, when utterly unqualified like this! Besides, in some ways it's scholastic and hence futile. But deterministic stuff never was for me, thanx!
Knotted, from Marx onwards there are criticisms of Darwin of the kind I am writing about. He, like me, praises the man for his achievements - but not uncritically, like most sheep on here do, seeing quite clearly:
Marx to Lassale, 16 Jan. 1862:
...but also...
Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862:
Since, amongst other things, a "materialist position" would be theoretically and intellectually decent and honest enough to search for its roots/origins, as CT does show where it got its notions from [a position of a dog chasing its own tail, as one critic pointed out], rather than never problematise it at all, including a whole method of its research, I would endeavour to think critically of just how such a [social] root/origin of an allegedly "natural" theory" might affect its categorical apparatus as well as its methodology, thence its outcomes, rather than just mindlessly [never thinking about this aspect of the "theory"] run around trying to find evidence to fit the framework, which then comes back as "remarkably similar to our own society and nature", and then, mutatis mutandis, it becomes the basis from which to judge anything and everything and moreover - even create policies and legislate from.
Such normative content becomes dangerous, in my opinion, to such an extent, especially when we have an onslaught of neo-liberal/neo-conservative kind, pushing a very specific agenda of precisely this sort worldwide, that one must keep insisting on it. Hence, if you see Dawkins's critics from within science itself, one should point out exactly where and why lies the danger of such an uncritical position.
And many have noted this, it's not as if I'm inventing it all from thin air. Especially the usual "strenuous" accent on one part of Darwin's theory [struggle for existence in a competitive manner] and completely neglecting others [the co-operative elements]. The whole left critique agrees with that point, whomever thought and wrote about it.
Habermas - if that is what you are alluding to, trying to "trap me" [as if I unthinkingly and uncritically side with him, in a fan-like manner, on anything] - is not quite one-dimensional about it, leaving the gap between nature and Reason, on the one hand, and then seeing the continuity from one to the other via learning processes... But I don't agree with him in a variety of ways, as I can't see him or anyone showing anything of the sort definitively or even when it comes "only" to the "transition" itself [at least for now] - which "little problem" we have with archaeology and onwards, too.
Re Marx,
Marx was making the point that Darwin was mistaken to think that his reasoning was Malthusian, not that Darwin's "Malthusianism" was flawed. Indeed he thought that Darwin had unwittingly refuted Malthus. This does not make for a critique of Darwinism, just Darwin's particular refererces in Origin of Species.
As I have said before, what are you trying to say? That there is no struggle for existence in nature?
Again I have to point out that the science is not dependent on a particular methodology. In the same way as getting to Rome does not rely on having to take a particular route. Of course you need to take a route, but this need not a particular route. You need not reference Malthus in order to understand Darwinism. You need to reference Malthus only to understand Darwin's particular thinking.
Re Habermas,
No, I wasn't thinking of Habermas. I don't know much about Habermas, so it would be silly of me to "set a trap". I'm trying to get to the bottom of where you think this critique of Darwinism comes from in relation to "your tradition".
Marx was making the point that Darwin was mistaken to think that his reasoning was Malthusian, not that Darwin's "Malthusianism" was flawed. Indeed he thought that Darwin had unwittingly refuted Malthus. This does not make for a critique of Darwinism, just Darwin's particular refererces in Origin of Species.
As I have said before, what are you trying to say? That there is no struggle for existence in nature?
Again I have to point out that the science is not dependent on a particular methodology. In the same way as getting to Rome does not rely on having to take a particular route. Of course you need to take a route, but this need not a particular route. You need not reference Malthus in order to understand Darwinism. You need to reference Malthus only to understand Darwin's particular thinking.
Re Habermas,
No, I wasn't thinking of Habermas. I don't know much about Habermas, so it would be silly of me to "set a trap". I'm trying to get to the bottom of where you think this critique of Darwinism comes from in relation to "your tradition".
On this partiular point, you simply need to read up what evolutionary scientists are saying. You complain about Dawkins, but his point with repect to the "selfish gene" is that it explains altruism, co-operation if you like, without having to rely on a romantic view of nature.
I never started it! If you must - start from the bastard!
Or is defending oneself suddenly not on?
Like your hat, when it should be...
Yes you did and you do start it, everywhere.
You jump out of the blue in the middle of threads with your nonsense post containing nothing else but insults and not even remotely connected to the discussion at hand either.
You were amusing to watch for some time, but no longer so and I think I'll make use of the IL option until I see signs you can post in a manner that doesn't hurt the eyes.
As for your so called university education: I really doubt you ever saw a university from the inside. The way you behave you wouldn't last two classes at any institution I studied before you were thrown out and suspended.
salaam.
You sure about that? You do know that ignorance is a major contributing factor to talking shit?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
That reply puzzles me, as it seems to be a claim about ... reality. And I thought Gorski was pretty clear that he considers all interpretations of reality irreducibly ideological and therefore mutable.
What would be a suitable moniker for this baffling selectivity which excludes most of us from knowledge of the real, reserving it to an "idealist" elite?
Ah! I have it! Gorski's Conceit. Yep, that'll do very nicely
What would be a suitable moniker for this baffling selectivity which excludes most of us from knowledge of the real, reserving it to an "idealist" elite?
Ah! I have it! Gorski's Conceit. Yep, that'll do very nicely
gorski
customised free radical
No, it's your conceit that prevents you from participating in that knowledge - and you'll never get there because of it!
All here are well aware of what science is doing, how we progress in that area, about the new discoveries etc. But you lot - you'll never get anywhere near critically minded Philosophy, as it were!!! Because of the arrogance of ye...
Yep, you're one of those arrogant and ignorant, unbelievably conceited "mastahs of da Universe" I talk about...
All here are well aware of what science is doing, how we progress in that area, about the new discoveries etc. But you lot - you'll never get anywhere near critically minded Philosophy, as it were!!! Because of the arrogance of ye... Yep, you're one of those arrogant and ignorant, unbelievably conceited "mastahs of da Universe" I talk about...
Not quite. Just because the statement is ideological doesn't mean that the ideology can change. It might be logically possible for gorski to take of his ideological blinkers but it isn't reasonable to expect it will happen.
It certainly won't happen in public.butchersapron
Bring back hanging
gorski said:
.
gorski
customised free radical
You mean take off my ideological blinkers?
I know mine - and that's THE difference between me and most posters here, esp. Jonti and the like!!! - and anyone who knows anything about CT ought to... And I am comfortable with them. Couldn't find any better or less shitty ones, as hard as I tried - and Lordy, Lord knows I did!
Praxis Philosophy will liberate you!!!
I know mine - and that's THE difference between me and most posters here, esp. Jonti and the like!!! - and anyone who knows anything about CT ought to... And I am comfortable with them. Couldn't find any better or less shitty ones, as hard as I tried - and Lordy, Lord knows I did!
Praxis Philosophy will liberate you!!!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Bombard the Headquarters of gorksi-thought
You mean take off my ideological blinkers?
I know mine - and that's THE difference between me and most posters here, esp. Jonti and the like!!! - and anyone who knows anything about CT ought to... And I am comfortable with them. Couldn't find any better or less shitty ones, as hard as I tried - and Lordy, Lord knows I did!
Praxis Philosophy will liberate you!!!
But it isn't Praxis Philosophy, otherwise you would be able to answer my question. Take responsibility for your own ideas! This hiding behind "tradition" is pitiful. Are you asking to be patronised? "Nevermind gorski, its his 'tradition'".
Similar threads
