Often what is needed is not new evidence, but a better home for the evidence one already has.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Do academic philosophers write about anything besides other philosophers? Kripke, Dummett, Foucault, Wright, Rawls, the list goes on and on. Like denizens of a closed-off room, these dilettantes can breathe only their self-made stench.
Open a window, for God's sake! Out in the sunshine you might find Thoreau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein—all romping about, and giving a rat's ass for their fellow philosophers. But no, behind these heavy curtains we find Dennett, Searle, Rorty—each waxing ad nauseam on...Dennett, Searle, Rorty (not to mention, waxing ad nauseam on Thoreau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein).
Why would anyone strive to become a philosopher for the purpose of regurgitating other philosophers? Can these professors not think for themselves?
Maybe Derrida, you say—maybe he is the exception. Well, here too we are stuck in the morass of other philosophers, although I admit the approach is unique. But what can it say about modern philosophy to know that its con artists are the most creative?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I suppose it had to come to this, what with the new atheism having become so popular and all. Now we have the Brights movement, and no kidding, you too can register. Hell, what am I saying, I myself can register—apparently I meet all the preconditions.
But Lord have mercy, where is a Kierkegaard when you truly need him? I can hear the Dane laughing already: “And after you have mastered truth is subjectivity—ein, zwei, drei—then you can register as a Bright.”
According to their website, the Brights' first principle (you knew there had to be a first principle) is “We are a constituency of individuals (the registered Brights).” If I were to make a suggestion for a second principle (after registering, of course), it would be “We shalt make closer scrutiny of the words 'constituency' and 'individual,' not to mention a more careful contemplation on the consequences of registration.”
The real conflict is not between science and religion, the real conflict is between collective ignorance and an individual sense of wonder. And in that conflict, Dawkins, the Pope, Behe, Hitchens, Dobson, Harris, Dembski, Grayling, Dennett and the grand ayatollahs are all on the same side.