Xray Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Sorry haven't read your book but I'll take Silverstein's reading of Whorf over anyone. He was brilliantly mesmerizing, mezmerizingly brilliant.I am certain many many interpretations can be put on the table. As many interpretations as there are hungry academic careers.More ping-pong gals and guys. Come play.The debate between linguistic relativists and universalists is very interesting.Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Sorry haven't read your book but I'll take Silverstein's reading of Whorf over anyone. He was brilliantly mesmerizing, mezmerizingly brilliant.I am certain many many interpretations can be put on the table. As many interpretations as there are hungry academic careers.More ping-pong gals and guys. Come play.The debate between linguistic relativists and universalists is very interesting.Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?Do u think it is serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 One more post....da da da.For the first time I took a look at the stats for this post today.10,000 plus people may have wanted to kno9w more about Rand and Nietzsche but what did they get? From the first comment by 9th doctor, an arrow to the heart. Do you have proof of that statement? Gah.Anyone who has read at least a little of Nietzsche knows. If s/he hasn't then maybe I'll find out reading this post. No such luck babe. All you're gonna get is vitriol. Someone with a different view around here on OL is gonna get called a troll. The same people come out all over someone new to cajole, reward submissiveness and pleas for help, throw darts, of yell troll troll troll.So be the littlest Bily Goat Gruff when you post and comment here folks. Sorry you didn't get much Nietzsche but you sure did drive up the hits for Michael Stuart Kelly eh?He didn't even say thank you. 10,000 plus and no wink or salute. Alas. And comments excessive of other blogs. And the time frame of not even 2 months! For all these hits!Something is in the air. It smells like Nietzsche.Well, you include and promote your own blogs in your every post, so I assume those 10,000 plus more are now reading your blogs if they are interested in Rand and Nietsczhe.. You wouldn't have those readers without Michael and I do not see you thanking him for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Dayaamm, Carol,LOL...I just moved that post you quoted to the Garbage Pile.But out of respect for you, I'll keep the quote here.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Dayaamm, Carol,LOL...I just moved that post you quoted to the Garbage Pile.But out of respect for you, I'll keep the quote here. MichaelThanks Michael. There is too much good contribution on this thread from OLers to merit dumping, in my view. If Seymour considers that it was the fascination of her topic that drew all the readers--- well, a cursory view shows me that the Phil Coates threads build up big numbers even though he flounces regularly and, like Seymour, writes mostly only on one topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 BTW Seymour, how are the numbers for your threads on Solo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Carol,People like a train wreck and gossip. Not so much Nietzsche.Believe me.This thread is closer to Jerry Springer than the halls of academia.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 BTW Seymour, how are the numbers for your threads on Solo?I never bother looking. Why don't you tell me. I just noticed OL today that's how curious I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 BTW Seymour, how are the numbers for your threads on Solo?I never bother looking. Why don't you tell me. I just noticed OL today that's how curious I am.I can't see any viewer numbers on Solo, just numbers of comments. Maybe you have to be a member to look them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I can't see any viewer numbers on Solo, just numbers of comments. Maybe you have to be a member to look them up.The number of reads for a SOLO thread is shown at the bottom of the opening post of the thread. For example, the "For Goblinite Half-Wits: Onus of Proof 101" thread has 3711 reads at this moment.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 .It does seem weird to me that Darren would argue that Rand meant her philosophy as "entertainment." Doesn't Darren know better than that!!??. I asked him and he replied that just because Rand was serious about her philosophy "doesn't entail that WE must be serious about her philosophy; at least, not as serious scholarship (which it quite obviously is not)".(end quote Darren)How did you ask him?I don't find a "comment" function on the blog.EllenThe pages are sorted by date; each page has a "view comments" section at the bottom.Darren wrote his "Reading the Philosophy of Objectivism as "FLOATING SIGN" for Rand's Fiction" piece on March 5; my question is in the "view comments" section at the bottom of Part II:http://aynrand2.blogspot.com/2012/03/philosophy-of-objectivism-as-floating.htmlI don't get pages showing on either of my browsers, only a consecutive (reverse-date-order) list of posts, and no "view comments" sections.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 http://aynrand2.blogspot.com/?zx=523fd78811f03306#!/2012/03/ayn-rand-and-myth-of-chemical-evolution.htmlAyn Rand and the Myth of Chemical EvolutionDuring the Q&A session of one of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum, Ayn Rand slyly evaded a query regarding her estimation of the Darwinian account of biological evolution by replying, "I am not a student of Darwin's theory."Darren misrepresents. Rand wasn't "slyly evad[ing]" or even answering a query. Her comment to which Darren refers was in the lecture itself and was part of remarks she was making about "creationism."I'll quote the segment in full. It's two pages from a ten+ page typescript, thus pushing "fair use." I'll compress the quote if Harry Binswanger or a representative of Harry's complains about the length. Meanwhile, maybe those interested in the subject of Rand and evolution might want to copy the passage for their personal files."The Age of Mediocrity"talk given by Ayn Rand atThe Ford Hall ForumApril 26, 1981printed in The Objectivist ForumVolume 2 Number 3 June 1981pp. 5-7[bold added]Another basic issue of the militant mystics is "creationism," the climax of today's cultural bankruptcy. Complaining that the theory of evolution clashes with their religious belifes, the "creationists" demand what has been called "equal time for God" in public schools--i.e., they demand the teaching of the Biblical story of the creation of the universe on equal terms with the theory of evolution, as an equally valid alternative.This incredible act of impertinence is being perpetrated by people who, in a million years, would not be able to grasp the historical meaning of what they are coing. "Creationism" is the ultimate, embodied, concretized triumph of Immanuel Kant. If you want to see the essence of Kantianism, take a look at the "creationists" who appear on TV talk shows. They are, however, handicapped in a way: the looks of some of them could be used to fill certain gaps in the theory of evolution.Kant did not seek to subordinate science to religion: he merely sought to establish their epistemological equality. Wishing to save religion (particularly religious morality) from the onslaughts of science, he gave his followers the intellectual ammunition that enabled them to claim that the discoveries of science were no better, no more certain, no more valid that their mystic revelations. That is all he had to do. That is all the "creationists" demand: just equality. The equality of science and religion--i.e., the equality of reason and faith.It is a law of economics that bad money will drive out good money. It is a law of man's survival that reason will not argue, bargain or share the same stage with faith. The severe, disciplined, passionate devotion to the pursuit of knowledge, i.e., of truth, motivating a rational man, has nothing to say to, and cannot cooperate with, the blind whims and fantasies of mystics. Their relationship, necessarily, is either-or. Could you teach people a healthy diet by telling them that food and poison have equal value? Could you preserve the honor of virtuous women by declaring that, morally, they are the equals of prostitutes?To claim that the mystics' mythology, or inventions, or superstitions are as valid as scientific theories, and to offer this claim to the unformed minds of children, is a moral crime. Is the child expected to make a choice? Only a very unusual, very intelligent and self-confident child would make the right chioce in such a case--and he would despise his teacher as a fool or a liar. But to the extent that a child trusts his teacher, he would be inclined to accept him on faith and to doubt his own mind (which, of course, is the result sought by Immanuel Kant, by the militant mystics, and by the "creationists").I must state, incidentally, that I am not a student of biology and am, therefore, neither an advocate nor an opponent of the theory of evolution. But I have read a lot of valid evidence to support it, and it is the only scientific theory in the field. The issue, however, is not the theory of evolution: this theory serves merely as a rabble-rousing excuse for attacking science, for attacking reason, for attacking man's mind.The "creationists" are not a new phenomenon. Their ancestors launched the Scopes trial in 1925. They even won it, but it did not do them much good. Why, then, are they an ominous phenomenon today? Because the ground has been prepared for them; because they are cashing in on every vicious tenet of modern philosophy; because they are riding on the horrible helplessness of today's intellectuals who have no answers and no defense to offer.The "creationists" are proclaiming that school textbooks must state that the theory of evolution is only a theory, not absolute knowledge. But of course!--yell the defenders of science--everything is only a theory, there is no such thing as an absolute! How do you know? ask the "creationists." There is no such thing as knowledge! answer the defenders of science.In a recent television debate, two members of the "Moral Majority" were pitted against two liberal professors. The mystics presented their case confidently and almost condescendingly. They did not engage in personalities and did not attack the professors. But the professors kept hammering on a single subject: "Would you call me immoral? How can you call me immoral?" Occasionally, they added: "How can you be so certain? Nobody can be certain!"It was embarrasing to watch. How often, for how many years, had I seen conservatives--and businessmen--fumbling before professors of that kind, afraid to antagonize them, surrendering this country's freedom and their own rights? And here were those academic ogres unable to defend their schools against an invasion of primitive cavemen, anxiously begging for the cavemen's approval.The great miscalculation of the twentieth century--of its liberal intellectuals--is the notion that evil is the product of a self-confident mind, while doubt and uncertainty protect society from the ambitions of tyrants. A forthcoming book, The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikof, offers an example of this error--and of its consequences--on a monstrous scale:[The passage quoted talks of Hannah Arendt's "singl[ing] out for special attack the attitude which she regards as a major source of the Nazis' evil, and of their success: an unswerving commitment to logic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Does anybody have a non-snarky answer for why Rand was hesitant about Darwin in the first place? I have a pseudo-theory, which I have sort of felt was right ever since the first time I saw that response/remark from mid 80's, but am hesitant to throw it out there. The theory, in a nutshell, is that apes are disgusting, let alone little wiggly things in the primordal soup...I doubt you'd be surprised to learn that the subject of Rand re evolution has come up before on this board. Here are some excerpts from a long post of mine from one of the previous threads ("History of Evolutionism"):[....]I'll repeat a warning I've made several times. She's sometimes criticized for not addressing theories of evolutionary psychology which today are prominent. This criticism is anachronistic. Those theories didn't begin to be prominently written about in popular books until the mid-'70s (Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, 1976; Wilson's Sociobiology, 1975). She wouldn't have had a way to know about those theories at the time when she was formulating her ideas on ethics.Furthermore, her disregard of evolution as relevant to human behavior was shared by mainstream thought, which considered that cultural factors had taken over when the big brain appeared. Where she was out of keeping with the scientific views of the time wasn't in her extreme non-nativism but instead in her rejection of every form of determinism.[....][subquote from earlier post:]So I don't think it's the case that she avoided evolutionary theory; I think she just wasn't much interested, since she didn't see its relevance to the "essential" characteristic, in her opinion, of the human, i.e., the human type of consciousness (as she saw that type of consciousness). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Does anybody have a non-snarky answer for why Rand was hesitant about Darwin in the first place? I have a pseudo-theory, which I have sort of felt was right ever since the first time I saw that response/remark from mid 80's, but am hesitant to throw it out there.The theory, in a nutshell, is that apes are disgusting, let alone little wiggly things in the primordal soup...I doubt you'd be surprised to learn that the subject of Rand re evolution has come up before on this board. Here are some excerpts from a long post of mine from one of the previous threads ("History of Evolutionism"):[....]I'll repeat a warning I've made several times. She's sometimes criticized for not addressing theories of evolutionary psychology which today are prominent. This criticism is anachronistic. Those theories didn't begin to be prominently written about in popular books until the mid-'70s (Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, 1976; Wilson's Sociobiology, 1975). She wouldn't have had a way to know about those theories at the time when she was formulating her ideas on ethics.Furthermore, her disregard of evolution as relevant to human behavior was shared by mainstream thought, which considered that cultural factors had taken over when the big brain appeared. Where she was out of keeping with the scientific views of the time wasn't in her extreme non-nativism but instead in her rejection of every form of determinism.[....][subquote from earlier post:]So I don't think it's the case that she avoided evolutionary theory; I think she just wasn't much interested, since she didn't see its relevance to the "essential" characteristic, in her opinion, of the human, i.e., the human type of consciousness (as she saw that type of consciousness).WE know Rand read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals when young in Russia and continuing with him in the US until middle age when she wrote Fountainhead. In it NIetzsche writes about "dawning" consciousness of humanity. Produced by torture. Torture inscribes the body/mind and engraves memory on the body/mind.Consciousness, has its structural bedrock on memory. Without memory there is no consciousness. Nietzsche leaves no doubt about this and Rand certainly read it.Nietzsche goes on to say that over millennia torture produced memory which led to consciousness. Others have said that someone tortured never forgets it. Our present craze for tattoos is a ritual floating sign of this. Ask anyone with a tattoo to tell you about it. They know why they got it, how they chose it, who did it, and all things tattoo. It is a way present people engrave memory on their bodies as a ritual, a trendy ritual.If you read Nietzsche's genealogy it is about Events, not a slow continuous evolutionary climb. This is what Foucault seized upon. Rand knew it too. Did she know she knew? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But she knew enough in her gut not to get entangled in evolutionary Discourse.AS Rumsfeld and Zizek might say, her unknown knowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?Do u think it is serious?I intentionally did not put a comma before the 'who' in my sentence: "Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?There is a difference of meaning between the sentence"The academics, who do serious reaearch ......"The academics who do serious research"....The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academicsWhereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'? Do u think it is serious? Note that Ielf out the comma on purpose.in my sentence "Why not regard he "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'? There is a difference of meaning bewtween the sentence "The academics, who do serious reaearch ...... "The academics who do serious research".... The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academics Whereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research.One does not do serious academic research without govt grants. There are a few exceptions. Robert Altemeyer's work on authoritarianism is just one. You must churn out this stuff for promotions and tenure, jump starting your career, going to a better university, etc.There was a time when this was not the way it was done, but that time is over.Again you are examining the veins in the leaves on the tree and the forest is burning down around you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?Do u think it is serious?Note that Ielf out the comma on purpose.in my sentence "Why not regard he "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?There is a difference of meaning bewtween the sentence"The academics, who do serious reaearch ......"The academics who do serious research"....The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academicsWhereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research.Correct, but the comma after "research" is incorrect. It can give the impression that you intended "who do serious research" to be a nonrestrictive modifier but neglected to place a comma after "academics out there." In short, you should use two commas or none at all.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Why not regard the "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?Do u think it is serious?Note that Ielf out the comma on purpose.in my sentence "Why not regard he "hungry academics" out there who do serious research, as 'workers in the vineyard of truth'?There is a difference of meaning bewtween the sentence"The academics, who do serious reaearch ......"The academics who do serious research"....The first sentence attributes "doing serious research" to all academicsWhereas the second sentence does not refer to all academics, but only to those doing serious research.Correct, but the comma after "research" is incorrect. It can give the impression that you intended "who do serious research" to be a nonrestrictive modifier but neglected to place a comma after "academics out there." In short, you should use two commas or none at all.Ghsx-ray now you have company. There are 2 of u looking at the veins in the leaves while the forest burns down around u. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Correct, but the comma after "research" is incorrect. It can give the impression that you intended "who do serious research" to be a nonrestrictive modifier but neglected to place a comma after "academics out there." In short, you should use two commas or none at all.GhsI originally wavered whether or not to put a comma after "research", but then put it there as a small 'pause of breath' in a fairly long sentence.But the unintended result was what you have described abovex-ray now you have company. There are 2 of u looking at the veins in the leaves while the forest burns down around u.No need to panic, Janet. Since your burning cyberforest is unperilous, it leaves us plenty of time to look at the veins of the leaves. You should take a look too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 What is serious academic research?Is it the opposite of unserious academic research?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 What is serious academic research?Is it the opposite of unserious academic research?MichaelPer Janet, it would be botany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 What is serious academic research?Is it the opposite of unserious academic research?MichaelPer Janet, it would be botany.Serious academic research is the kind that gets you grants, tenure, career brownie points, more money, prestige, etc etc etc.But none of you know that? I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Serious academic research is the kind that gets you grants, tenure, career brownie points, more money, prestige, etc etc etc.Badges for government handout parasites?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anamous Cares Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) If they knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? Edited March 15, 2012 by anamous Cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) If they knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?They want to know before they'll let you do anything.--Brant Edited March 15, 2012 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now