universal values?

[Knotted]

No gorski. Read the fucking book. Make your own mind up.

You take this letter from Marx to Engels. Now they had both read the book and this letter was part of a conversation between the two friends. So basically you have uncritically taken part of a private conversation about a book you haven't read and now you think you can have a sensible discussion on it.

It doesn't work that way. Just the book and then we can talk. It's not difficult.

 

[gorski]

Can you read?

Do you want to read Darwin's words? Or Wallace's?

Happy trolling...

 

[Knotted]

Read the book.

Lazy, superficial idiot..

 

[gorski]

You mean, all that English high class education was - missed by you? And on top of it all you have the audacity to state how that particular education fucked you over, i.e. failed you? Ahem...

No wonder...

Temper, temper...

 

[Knotted]

Obviously that applies to you in this case. For some reason you have been educated to assess a book on the basis of an overheard conversation. You're not even looking at a review.

You lazy, arrogant twit.

 

[gorski]

Un-nerving, isn't it? When all your "trolling charm" doesn't work at all... Suddenly, you find yourself floating... with no control... and all that middle-class English "bringing up" is - well, wasted...

 

[Knotted]

Oh fuck off. Since when was I ever polite? You used to say I was Balkan.

 

[gorski]

When was that?

And not for lack of [English] polite or at least correct "manners"...

 

[Knotted]

I don't know do a search. Do I have to do all your research for you?

 

[gorski]

Like Phil and me are doing it for you?

 

[bhamgeezer]

This just gets funnier!

 

[Knotted]

What, repeating the same old stick about Marx sez such and such about Darwin? The same old stick that I've explained to you time and again. The same explanation that you both sit through in glum silence. I don't think you are understanding the theory. You don't understand how it works, you're relying on snippets of correspondences. It's pathetic.

Really it's not a difficult book to read. Please don't be scared. You won't pick up Malthusian cooties by reading it.

 

[revol68]

Gorski you are taking one letter between Engels and Marx and trying to formulate an argument against Darwin, overlooking the fact that those were essentially minor secondary criticisms of style and tone of articulation and that Marx was very taken by the main thrust of Darwin's argument in Origin of The Species.

Like wise Kropotkin followed in Darwin's footsteps but saw in nature more co-operation, again this is a matter of tone and particular perspective WITHIN the wider Darwinian model.

 

[gorski]

Fuck off, revol and stop the BS!!! "Minor criticism of style...." FFS!!!!

Here is a tip: get a new brain!!!

And leave out your favourite subject: "nature red in tooth and claw"... Maybe then you'll see...

 

[revol68]

Fuck off, revol and stop the BS!!! "Minor criticism of style...." FFS!!!!

Here is a tip: get a new brain!!!

And leave out your favourite subject: "nature red in tooth and claw"... Maybe then you'll see...

Well the fact they are secondary criticisms that can largely overlooked in the wider picture of Darwin's theory should be obvious by the fact Marx held Darwin's work in high esteem and as I said even sent him a copy of Capital.

Your argument is typical of many idealists, creationists and other muppets who latch onto disagreements WITHIN evolutionary (for example Gould and Dawkin's on Punctuated Equilibria) in a bid to attack the wider framework.

 

[revol68]

Also since you're fond of quoting Marx and Engels on this,

"However great the blunder made by Darwin in accepting the Malthusian theory so naïvely and uncritically, nevertheless anyone can see at the first glance that no Malthusian spectacles are required to perceive the struggle for existence in nature—the contradiction between the countless host of germs which nature so lavishly produces and the small number of those which ever reach maturity, a contradiction which in fact for the most part finds its solution in a struggle for existence—often of extreme cruelty."

and for all the criticisms that can be aimed at evolutionary psychology and social biology Malthusianism is not one I've detected, sure EO Wilson and chums are quick to naturalise war, xenophobia and gender but they generally don't put it down to overpopulation.

 

[goldenecitrone]

How could anyone still take as gospel something written 150 years ago? The world changes, knowledge increases, we move on. Marxism indeed.

 

[revol68]

How could anyone still take as gospel something written 150 years ago? The world changes, knowledge increases, we move on. Marxism indeed.

who is this in response to?

 

[dilute micro]

How could anyone still take as gospel something written 150 years ago? The world changes, knowledge increases, we move on. Marxism indeed.

Increasing knowledge in respects to Darwin's theory?

The world does change, and knowledge may increase but nothing has to move on.

 

[goldenecitrone]

who is this in response to?

Karl Marx and Charles Darwin. And their acolytes.

 

[revol68]

Karl Marx and Charles Darwin. And their acolytes.

Who here takes them as Gospel, rather in so much as they are strongly respected it is because the core of their theories are still very much relevant and true.

It's easy and yet most banal thing to say "Things change" especially in regards to Marx and Darwin cos as far as I'm aware the thrust of Capital remains very relevant and evolution is a fact.

 

[gorski]

Well the fact they are secondary criticisms that can largely overlooked in the wider picture of Darwin's theory should be obvious by the fact Marx held Darwin's work in high esteem and as I said even sent him a copy of Capital.

Your argument is typical of many idealists, creationists and other muppets who latch onto disagreements WITHIN evolutionary (for example Gould and Dawkin's on Punctuated Equilibria) in a bid to attack the wider framework.

You're a fucking caricature of a dork!!!!

Here is your Balkanic logic: "If you're not with me, you're against me, and as an enemy you should be shot!"

Now, off you go to history's lumber-room, as that particular oblivion is where the likes of you belong!!!

Secondary criticism... Pffff... You wouldn't understand major methodological "difficulty" in a "theory" if it hit you in the face with a hammer...

Demi-educated arrogant twat who thinks he knows it all, as he knows a bit...

Find some humility somewhere, FFS... You and BA are a joke!

 

[Knotted]

Secondary criticism... Pffff... You wouldn't understand major methodological "difficulty" in a "theory" if it hit you in the face with a hammer...

How would you know? You're commenting on a book you haven't read on a theory you don't understand.

Read the book lazy arse.

 

[gorski]

Oh, the middle class ponce is back to try to be clever and wind people up with his superior wit...

I read it twice, once in Serbian Cyrillic, if you must know, second time in original.

Now, how would you know what I am talking about when you're a poor amateur in Philosophy and have no clue even of elementary logics, let alone methodology and on and on and on?!?

 

[Knotted]

So how come you didn't know where Darwin uses Malthus' population theory?

 

[gorski]

You know, K, my auntie could read Hegel, too... but how much would she understand?!?

At least she wouldn't even dream of writing about such stuff so vehemently, pretending to have it all in her little finger...

 

[magneze]

Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

 

[phildwyer]

Gorski you are taking one letter between Engels and Marx and trying to formulate an argument against Darwin, overlooking the fact that those were essentially minor secondary criticisms of style and tone of articulation and that Marx was very taken by the main thrust of Darwin's argument in Origin of The Species.

Like wise Kropotkin followed in Darwin's footsteps but saw in nature more co-operation, again this is a matter of tone and particular perspective WITHIN the wider Darwinian model.

It's not the "Darwinian model." Darwinism is one particular interpretation of evolution--based as we have seen on the early rationalizations of capitalism given by political economy. There are many other, better theories of evolution. Gould's is one of these, as were Paley's, Russell's and Kropotkin's.

 

[phildwyer]

What, repeating the same old stick about Marx sez such and such about Darwin? The same old stick that I've explained to you time and again.

It's schtick, you klutz.

When you learn to spell, feel free to lecture the rest of us on the inadequacies of our reading.

 

[Knotted]

It's schtick, you klutz.

When you learn to spell, feel free to lecture the rest of us on the inadequacies of our reading.

I haven't said anything about your ability to read. It's the fact that you haven't bothered. You don't give a shit about the subject you are waffling on about. So fuck off out of this thread.