--------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: Jerry Monaco, Chris Doss, joanna, JBrown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this group:
* Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
* Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
* Re: [lbo-talk] Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
* Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
* Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
* Re: [lbo-talk] POLISH NAZI IN TOP POST
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
At around 7/5/06 4:53 pm, joanna wrote:
> My nomination for greatest 20th century philosopher is Wittgenstein.
>
Would Wittgenstein want to be considered a philosopher? As the anger on-list towards Heidegger has demonstrated, there is always room for mud-slinging against anyone you hold up as an important thinker. In the case of Wittgenstein, similar uncharitable light can be shone on his comments on Gödel's incompleteness theorem (#1) or some aspects of his comments on the Foundations of Mathematics (I believe such was indeed young Turing's attitude) -- despite the respectful attention paid to it by someone of the calibre of Hilary Putnam.
> I have read Heidegger and it looks like Buddhism rendered in western
> terms. In other words, very valuable, but can be found expressed more
> clearly elsewhere.
Where? I mean for Buddhism: where is a clear expression of it? Any references? Thus far, in my limited experience, I haven't come across material that is significantly different from Hinduism.
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
At around 7/5/06 4:57 pm, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> It's anti-science? That's the whole point. Good for
> Heidegger.
>
;-) Ah, but you are not going to win anyone with that argument since you forget that scientism is the defining quality of the Western Left. Its a very muscular substitute.
=========== Message 3 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
At around 8/5/06 10:17 am, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>
> With a drop in infant and child mortality, and some other way to secure your
> old age than the support of your children, family size tends to drop
> independent of access to more advanced forms of birth control. This is where the
> population controllers got it all wrong, based on a disrespect for the capacity of
> the poor to analyze their own situation. It isn't just disrespect, though,
> it's also (what we hope is a justified) fear of growing numbers of peasants and
> workers who want to overthrow same population controllers and their rich
> sponsors.
>
I was waiting for the other shoe to drop! This I feel rests on the false assumption that any human being (or group) has the ability to entirely analyze their own situation, independent of all other impulses (such as biological ones). But even this line of reasoning is a diversion: what we need first and foremost (within the scope of this discussion) is an answer on the impact of *current* human population on the environment, other species, and our own long-term survival. If, as I hold (and Marta seems to also), it is significantly destructive/negative, then human population has to decrease. How that is achieved is a separate issue: it could be a natural consequence of rising wealth or welfare. It could be the result of increases in women's education and literacy.
Also, Doug brought up once again the question of how we are going to reduce the number of Chinese or Indians, and the issue of time scales. However, as I already argued, I do not think the negative effects of human consumption are going to be reduced by *any* procedure in the near term.
=========== Message 4 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
At around 8/5/06 7:08 am, Chris Doss wrote:
> Yes. (Actually I have a soft spot for Carnap -- so
> pristine!)
>
Me too... His "Intro to Philosophy of Science" is one of the books that made things very clear for me. Pristine is a great word to describe him and a bunch of the related group (I will stop short of saying logical positivists). Very endearing when accompanied by a amiable personality.
=========== Message 5 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger
At around 8/5/06 8:49 am, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> If you want to read a bunch of half-truths framed for an ideological
> purpose ...
>
Funny, that describes my education in science, pretty well, too.
> I hear a lot of contempt for the thinking of fundamentalist Christian's
> from most of my fellow intellectuals, but nothing can match the wilful
> stupidity of those who actually think that Heidegger has anything at all
> to contribute to intellectual culture.
This is a mean-spirited attack on those of us who have already expressed interest in or respect for Heidegger. You may be entitled to your bitterness over having had to read Heidegger (just as I might be bitter over my wasted years learning Science) but does that justify the gratuitous insult?
=========== Message 6 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] POLISH NAZI IN TOP POST
I for one am not surprised. Only a Nazi would be lacking enough in netiquette to top post.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/