I find pressing it works On Nov 27, 8:00 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Couldn't agree more - these enquiries are Blott on the Landscape. I > have at least triumphed in disabling my capslock key! > > On 26 Nov, 23:21, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well Kant is vary verbose. I am told he comes across just as bad in > > the original German. If you read his other stuff, he uses plain > > speech. It seems that for generation when philosophers do their opus > > magnum they are compelled to exclude most readers, leaving only the > > anoraks. Hume does exactly the sam job as Kant but without the jargon. > > But even Hume was embarrassed by his early Treatise, and wrote the > > Enquiry which had more content with half the words. > > > It seems to be the month of White-Wash. TOny is getting his dirty > > laundry washed for free, and will come out of this enquiry looking > > whiter than white, whilst the Catholic boy buggering wankers are > > getting their sins removed with a wave of a cheque book. > > > On Nov 25, 3:05 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We used to be able to teach in a much less bookish way. I don't > > > insist on books much and tend to trash the textbooks. One wants to > > > encourage people to experiment with ideas and at least look at a few > > > examples of thinking beyond common sense. I got hold of a book called > > > 'The Critique of Pure Verbosity' once, but it was a disappointment - > > > needless to say verbose. Facts have ceased to matter. Rape is a > > > classic example. We never discuss the actual offences. Research is > > > conducted by people chosen by people with no clue about what really > > > needs doing and what impartiality is. Much of it is loony. The days > > > of a George turning up in his just made suit and being summed up and > > > given a job are long gone. > > > > On 12 Nov, 11:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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=en.
