Do you think Amanda Knox has more in common with McCain (POW) or Obama (the youth vote).
Amanda Knox would vote for Obama.
I'm surprised in your restraint to not post the Knox story that was on the front of one of the dailies...you must be out of town
I want my gratuitous hot chick pic, damnit.
Ugh, I didn't realize that your view of philosophy positions it as not much more than the handmaiden of science (and I don't mean in the German Wissenschaft sense or any sense that emphasizes systematic inquiry in a broad sense). But I suppose that it does sort of make sense given that you favor Marx's materialism (though that is of a completely different category than the sort of physical materialism that physicists might presuppose). Anyhow, I guess I'm a little...disappointed, especially given your interest in Hegel, consciousness, and, perhaps above all, meaning (though perhaps this last bit is not quite right).
I should add that when I wrote about you being interested in consciousness, I was assuming that you were interested in it from more of a phenomenological point of view, as consciousness in and for itself rather than as part of a biological process. But enough of this, I'm just sounding annoying and probably idiotic.
david e, i still love hegel. i still love beautiful arguments. i will never stop reading PS and PR.
Neural science is the light.
rel="nofollow">This is your brain.
This is your brain.
Sorry, man, too much weed over the weekend, I guess...
Mmmm, brains! Consciousness will always be a matter for philosophy. Do we really believe consciousness is just brains doing what brains do and that brains are just DNA working its wily will? Even if consciousness is just me watching the cards fall while my brain plays the hand it was dealt, *that* will still be something for philosophers to discuss.
Yeah, I have a question. Charles, is 1980's science starting to seep through your Marxist tin foil hat?
Lay off the Gould and read a little Dennett and some Dawkins for good measure.
science is also a noise of opinions, particularly when it comes to matters of action.
Well, that's good. Hopefully I can read a bit of Hegel today, but I'm focusing on Kant at the moment.
@6: Since when has Charles been into phenomenology? Charles is into Marxism, not philosophy which is why he seems so bad at it.
Worse, Chomsky isn't even a philosopher, he's the head of a lifestyle movement for disaffected bourgeois liberals that imagine themselves as anarchists. Anarchists that seem perfectly content to leave the apparatus of the state squarely in place.
In any event, nothing Charles claims has been decided has been except that he pronounces it so. I think he's drawing the notion of good argument from Derrida, but among Derrida's points (especially when thinking of de Man's interpretation) if scienstistic thought is a tool of subject-centered reason, and the goal is the dethroning of this domination, and science is a collaborator in it, then you've merely become part of the problem by deferring all inquiry to it.
Charles has thrown in the towel for postmodern thought and so thinks you ought to as well. What a very nice Marxist argument... ignore the other threads of thought, someone else has it all taken care of that, so the only argument left is convincing kids to throw a brick at the fast food joint.
Balls balls balls.
If a good argument is all that's left Charles, you have yet to make one... perhaps you should give up the ghost of resistance?
Comments are closed on this post.