It's all coming together, my droogies.
Following our morose delectation of the "discovery" by Arrighi and others of Spengler-Guenon's cyclical analysis of history, at least as applied to economics, the ever-insightful Charles Hughs Smith puts the boot in:
Conventional economics has failed on a grand scale. Not only has its policies failed, its account of what's really going on fails to explain the underlying dynamics because it is fundamentally self-referential, parochial, mechanistic, blind to broader forces of history and soaked in the quasi-religious hubris that reductionist equations and quant models can not only explicate reality, they can predict human behavior.
The catastrophic failure of its policies result not from poor policy choices but from a tragically inadequate intellectual foundation. Hubris, indeed.
Huh. Quasi-religiously hubristic reductionism? Pretending to explicate all of reality? Sounds familiar:
Of course; legally mandated, NPR-compelled belief in "natural selection" as the be-all, end-all of all human thought.
Even South Park hates Dawkins; here he is with his butt-buddy, KrugmanSo, what does that make me? Some Rick Perry loving wingnut? I guess; but no more than the holy Goddam New York Review of Books, bitchez!
One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins’s book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length? The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. … Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics.
Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur.
Amateur "philosopher," professional she-male?
5 comments:
"Droogies" - I like that.
Having a bit of a hard time shaking off my deep Darwinism but I'm working on it.
AA:
I recommend Cutsinger's essay in Science and the Myth of Progress, which I think you can get for a buck at Amazon.
The problem isn't really Darwin [no creationist, me] or biology but people like Dawkins who either don't know what metaphysics is, or think they do, but really just substitute absurd extensions of supposed empirical data. Physicists like to do the same thing.
Shaw explained quite nicely how Darwin had 'won' because people were just sick of Jehovah, then realized that materialism was inadequate, hence vitalism, Bergson, etc. Dawkins just refuses to admit this, and insists anything he doesn't understand is "unreal." Hence, a psychopath.
Pre-PC there was the expression "like a child interrupting the conversation of adults."
When he gets old and deaf I imagine he'll write a book about "The Bach Delusion" and feel very proud to have overcome his earlier false belief in music.
Thanks for the clarification James. Darwin has a place in the pantheon of Celtic/Germanic heroes.
If you want to include Darwin as a Celtic/Germanic hero, fine, but let's not forget Goethe's biology reigns supreme!
The resemblence between Richard Dawkins and Emma Watson is striking!
I don't normally comment on blogs unless I've something interesting to say, but they could be the same person!
Post a Comment