TruXta
tired
Do you actually believe that shit or is that something someone else said, which some poor fucking student has to reel off?
universal values?
- Thread starter gnuneo
- Start date
Do you actually believe that shit or is that something someone else said, which some poor fucking student has to reel off?
revol68
what, fucking what?
Gorski might talk shite but that comment is just basic Marx.
Nah, he's just talking shite. Probably not his fault though. His lecturers wouldn't know Marx if Marx bit them on the bum.
revol68
what, fucking what?
oh of course it has no relation to the discussion at hand, Gorski is not so vulgar as to actually engage with such base instrumental reasoning.
bhamgeezer
Dogs bark
What does that even mean?
TruXta
tired
Engels you mean. Marx to my knowledge never spoke of false consciousness.
revol68
what, fucking what?
he might not have used the phrase but the general concept is there in Marx's work, it's pretty hard to miss.
revol68
what, fucking what?
aye in relation the "Being" it's most certainly more Heidegger, Marx wouldn't have reduced it to the individual level nor indulged such wank about authenticity.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Exactly, Marx would've kept it at the level of class and relations of productions.As if half the story is enough.
It's not half the story, its the level of analysis appropriate for his theories. It in no way rules out more microlevel analysis, it just works to provide a fundamental framework for them to be located within, furthermore as a dialectical materialist he was well aware of the tension between the universal and particular.
Gorski: I'm sure you're quite an engaging and pleasant person in real life, but I have to warn you that your use of emoticons is creating an impression quite different to the don't-give-a-fuck attitude you may believe they convey.
The regularity with which they appear on the thread is like the gurning face of simpleton which becomes briefly visible as he bounces up and down on a trampoline behind the asylum wall.
The regularity with which they appear on the thread is like the gurning face of simpleton which becomes briefly visible as he bounces up and down on a trampoline behind the asylum wall.
gorski
customised free radical
It's personal with some of the people in the thread. History. Moreover, there are quite a few trolling provocations on here, so I respond in kind... Nothing difficult to grasp... Lots is not in "bad spirit"...
And yes, I am easy going when one meets me "live"... until we start talking "truth" and all that... Then, if I think somebody talks BS - I say so... And I am not English, so I don't mince my words...
But on the whole, let me tell you: it is disappointing just how little people know, judging by this thread...
Still, the worse thing is the vile arrogance with which they come at me [or anyone they may perceive as... who knows what... "inferior", dunno...], because of their ignorance...
And yes, I am easy going when one meets me "live"... until we start talking "truth" and all that... Then, if I think somebody talks BS - I say so... And I am not English, so I don't mince my words...
But on the whole, let me tell you: it is disappointing just how little people know, judging by this thread...
Still, the worse thing is the vile arrogance with which they come at me [or anyone they may perceive as... who knows what... "inferior", dunno...], because of their ignorance...
The older I get gorski, the more ignorant I know I am. One of many areas I know nothing about is philosophy. But evolution I've always been interested in. The first book I can remember was called 'How Things Began', a picture book about the forming of the Earth and the evolution of living things. I'm not brainy enough to contribute to the science of evolutionary biology, but I still love reading about it and remain curious about why organisms, including ourselves, are constructed the way they are and behave the way they do.
So, from that viewpoint or attitude, it's unfathomable why other people might not appreciate the abundant knowledge which flows from evolutionary biology as a pleasurable end in itself.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Gould was addressing actual fossil evidence.
Mayr wasn't disagreeing with him in that bit I quoted. Gould and Eldridge were/are paleotologists they are dealing with geological timescales not ecological timescales. The controversy you imagine isn't there.
TruXta
tired
Ah, but that's where we disagree. Even if you can't rule out a more micro analysis, you still want the societal level to be fundamental. Well, I call bollocks. Class and production relations are dependent variables in need of causal explanation by individual- and group-level factors. That doesn't mean that class and relations of production are not in themselves causes and drivers of various other processes, but they must be explained bottom up.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
You're falling for it because you either want to agree or don't understand it.
Put on your critical thinking cap. No matter how anyone describes it, or redefines it, the fact is the fossil record shows that some animals went off and evolved more in a certain time frame compared to their parent population.
What Gould and others were doing (trying to keep neo-darwinists happy) in bioevolingouese was to make pe look 'darwinian' by basically playing a game of momentarily focusing attention only on the species that went off and evolved and describing its change in darwinistic terms. But the problem arises with the comparison of the two populations. Of the two species we typically know more about the parent species: - its (lesser) change during - its much longer fossil history (longer documented time scale). When held up to each other pe is pe - not darwinian.
Playing games with terminology is just a way to disguise the situation and disguising the situation is the way to make pe look darwinian when it's not.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That is utter nonsense, d_m. You and phildwyer seem to think you know Gould better than he knew himself. Gould was a Darwinian through and through, and if he hadn't been, he would have been mistaken, for his modification of evolutionary theory through punctuated equlibrium does not make it any less 'Darwinian'.
Be precise here. Say exacty what it is that you understand by the term Darwinian and then explain how anything Gould ever said is not in accordance with it. Gould built upon the evolutionary theory that came before him. He did not undermine it, he expanded and enriched it.
Be precise here. Say exacty what it is that you understand by the term Darwinian and then explain how anything Gould ever said is not in accordance with it. Gould built upon the evolutionary theory that came before him. He did not undermine it, he expanded and enriched it.
Similar threads
