I'll try to duck the shit storm of names that have hit GMeta's metaphorical fan as I have not heard of any of them. The thing that has pissed me off this week is the colonization by the Christian right (tautology?) of the word "Enlightenment". This once characterized the French Philosophes of the 18thC, in the 1960s, it was anti-religion, Deist, Atheist, mechanist, materialist. Since then we have political correctness and inclusion. The first step in colonization and misappropriation of 'enlightenment' was extending it to associate it with the 18thC, this was the error of the people that gave us the caricature above, then it invited a diaspora: Dutch E, German E, Scottish E. Now it can happily include Hume and Liebniz. The original E now becomes marginalised as French, But wait - we now have a Jewish, then a Christian E. After a year of two of describing as a Xian E - what is in effect a counter Enlightenment, the Proffesors of Divinity now characterize the Calvinistic sermons of the mis 18thC as "the greatest influntial achievements of the Enlightenment" - the colonization of the word is now complete by simply dropping the adjective Xian. If challenged they can claim they are talking about the historical period. What they have really achieved in the eyes of the followers is an aggressive take-over with the result that the Enlightenment is now anti-deist, anti-atheist, anti-materialist, and against the struggle for liberty in france and america. Maybe Hitchens and Dawkins are right - maybe we do live in a world where PC have given religion a free pass- beyond critique or ridicule?
I can't disagree with Stanford as they are allowing for a range of methodologies, but what I would like to rail against is that this statement is masking something much worse. the permissiveness of false agendas, and the obscene unfettered relativism that does not even allow us to dust the balls of the rapist when what we need to do is cut them off. PC has allowed rapists' balls to be reattached. On Nov 11, 9:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I honestly suspect business schools were more radical 20 years ago > than the whole academy now. We are 100 years after Veblen though and > much more distanced from Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in a Moral > Sense' - which he kept secret. Bachelard is under-used here in the > 'rupture tradition'. I'd guess none of the kind of people you > describe will have heard of the work of Joseph Sneed, Günther Ludwig, > and Erhard Scheibe; or Bourbaki sets. And also that they ooze Kuhn, > paradigms and root metaphors. And no doubt you'll be up to your arse > in the quadri-hermeneutic. > The following is filched from 'Philosophy of History' in Stanford > Encyclopaedia of Philosophy online. It obviously tells you nothing I > haven't heard you say. I'd just offer it with the question 'what the > fuck would we make of academe now under even this apparently benign > heuristic'? > > 'Finally, a new philosophy of history will be sensitive to the variety > of forms of presentation of historical knowledge. The discipline of > history consists of many threads, including causal explanation, > material description, and narrative interpretation of human action. > Historical narrative itself has several aspects: a hermeneutic story > that makes sense of a complicated set of actions by different actors, > but also a causal story conveying a set of causal mechanisms that came > together to bring about an outcome. But even more importantly, not all > historical knowledge is expressed in narratives. Rather, there is a > range of cognitive structures through which historical knowledge is > expressed, from detailed measurement of historical standards of > living, to causal arguments about population change, to comparative > historical accounts of similar processes in different historical > settings. A new philosophy of history will take the measure of > synchronous historical writing; historical writing that conveys a > changing set of economic or structural circumstances; writing that > observes the changing characteristics of a set of institutions; > writing that records and analyzes a changing set of beliefs and > attitudes in a population; and many other varieties as well. These are > important features of the structure of historical knowledge, not > simply aspects of the rhetoric of historical writing'. > > We might also wonder what the plain English of this is and how we > taught some version of it. I could say 'I told you so mate' - but you > can be assured I won't. I haven't seen an genuine innovation in > academe outside laboratory and mathematical puzzle solving in a long > time. Sue always regarded academics as smug bastards not far removed > from the political scum only fit to vomit on in torrents of gut felt > swearing, and this only at most. I sailed a bit closer to the wind > than that. You could sort of expect to find someone not too bothered > if they could catch your drift. Now I suspect they are all too thick, > products of the pathetic dilution themselves. I'm off to Cameroon > again, by the way. > > On 11 Nov, 12:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 10:35 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Foucault would no doubt have gleaned his BA by using those buses on > > > which French radicals gave out course credits saying the credits are > > > real but the university imaginary. In my class I would have responded > > > by offering you the MA there and then as it's so damned obvious we > > > never fail anyone. > > > Okay let us accept that F might have got his BA on the basis that they > > fail no one these days. I was wrong. However, given the state of the > > establishment's grip on the balls of free-thinking and radical, new > > and novel ideas F would not now have been given a position of power > > inside a university. Neither would Chomsky or any thinker whose urge > > it might be to refrain from supporting the status quo. > > The top rung of the university ladder is moribund, ossified and its > > noses are brown - by sniffing the gravy train. > > > You would be able to rejoin the course at any time > > > > by ripping up the gleaming certificate, an interesting admission > > > procedure! Nominal would probably find it harder to get banned from a > > > British university MA than from 'alt.twatcuntdiscourse'. > > > ME is a much sadder place without you Chaz. Given the increase in > > > godswank since you were chucked it's clear you were the best moderator > > > in the place, working by stealth and cudgel. > > > Thanks. But sometimes you just need to let rip. I also managed to get > > busted out of alt. atheists and freethinkers too - by a stupid bitch > > called 'Trance Gemini" on a "debate" concerning the death penalty. > > Obviously freethinking is not the same as free speech. > > > > Must be good to have a few critical minds about you though mate? > > > Having taught the shit, at least as 'research methods', I have to say > > > the academic well is dry. Your analysis above of the current idiots > > > in government is far better than we could manage held down by academic > > > pretensions. Something in the crap does work though Chaz, at least for > > > the few who don't just toss off the tutors for good marks. I like to > > > think I didn't ask for that, but one or two did remind me that I sort > > > of taught them strategies of working out what the hidden agendas were, > > > and consequently that they hadn't tossed me off in order to do so. > > > I am in a bit of a dilemma at the moment. I had every intention of > > finding an interesting topic for a thesis whilst on my MA, but have > > been shocked by how 'establishment' most of the tutors are in the > > Dept, led by a sever Scandinavian who hob nobs with Divinity > > Professors as they re-write the Scottish Enlightenment to serve the > > status quo. > > Right now Foucault seems attractive because he seems to realise that > > history is not a seemless ribbon of learning and light but has > > irruptions and breaks. It can be understood by power relations, > > exploitations and conflicts. > > My dilemma is that I do not think they are ready to allow for radical > > re-rhinking of their precious cosy topic. It is early says though and > > I am still hoping they might be better than they look. > > > > On 10 Nov, 18:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yeah I followed you recommendation to go there - thanks. > > > > I've been busy telling idiot Americans the difference between a rights > > > > based approach to health and they respond by participating in their > > > > own exploitation by calling public medicine "socialist" > > > > Blimey - banned? > > > > I know it is moderated but you have to go the extra mile to get > > > > banned. > > > > > On Nov 10, 4:07 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Actually I have been posting a lot on alt.philosphy, atheism vs > > > > > christianity and Political Forum..../Chaz > > > > > > Political Forum?.... the one that I suggested to you a while > > > > > back?..... Hell, Chaz, I got "banned" from there , myself, not too > > > > > long ago. Damned their "moderators" to an eternity in hell with their > > > > > heads up their asses and with shit for brains... relegated them to > > > > > Nominal9"s Censorship Hall of Shame.... maybe you shouildn't mention > > > > > that you know me, there.... if you like the place... > > > > > nominal 9 > > > > > > On Nov 9, 2:18 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Actually I have been posting a lot on alt.philosphy, atheism vs > > > > > > christianity and Political Forum. > > > > > > The activity on this NG is much less so don't often visit. > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 4:51 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nice to see you posting again chaz!! > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:04 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > For me this event seems to represent the passing of something > > > > > > > > greater. > > > > > > > > His generation of Frenchmen and those that followed him such as > > > > > > > > Derrida, Foucault, and others. > > > > > > > > In the post war period France was seized by an > > > > > > > > anti-authoritarian zeal > > > > > > > > that is wonderfully expressed by Derrida's concept of the > > > > > > > > tyranny of > > > > > > > > the text, and an extreme reaction to the sort of logical > > > > > > > > positivist > > > > > > > > certainty that had justified the extreme ideologies of the > > > > > > > > early part > > > > > > > > of the century that had enslaved the earth and occupied France. > > > > > > > > This in turn informed the post-structualist and post-modern > > > > > > > > approaches > > > > > > > > to social theory. > > > > > > > > But what of now. Social theory is now emasculated by feminism, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > worst by toleration and consensus. > > > > > > > > Any attempts at a radical approach has been muted by the > > > > > > > > tyranny of > > > > > > > > inclusion. > > > > > > > > That worst fear of the linguist turn and post-modernism was a > > > > > > > > hopeless > > > > > > > > relativism has now been superseded by something much worse. > > > > > > > > Now we > > > > > > > > have inclusiveness. History has accommodated Church History. THe > > > > > > > > Enlightenment, once portrayed as anti-religion is now the a > > > > > > > > religious > > > > > > > > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Forst we had the enlightenment - a group of French philosophers > > > > > > > > deists > > > > > > > > and materialists. Then we had the Scottish E, then the Dutch E, > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > we have the Christian E. Hume gets ejected from the Scottish E > > > > > > > > just as > > > > > > > > Rousseau gets ejected from the French E. Then, once church > > > > > > > > history has > > > > > > > > colonised the Enlightenment, why append the adjective Christian > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > all? Now the 5 volumes of Blair's Sermons is now heralded as the > > > > > > > > greatest achievement of the Enlightenment. So how did we get > > > > > > > > from an > > > > > > > > atheist and deist materialist philosophy to a firebrand > > > > > > > > Calvinist > > > > > > > > minister who rejects materialism, deism and the struggle for > > > > > > > > liberty > > > > > > > > in the US and France - in 15 years? > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=.
