Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgens More

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgens

Comments Filter:
  • I read and blogged a fairly thorough refutation of all that noise here [theothermccain.com].
    In summary, the Enlightenment built much, and Postmodernism is a political play disguised as philosophy/art that has successfully exchanged the Enlightenment for power.

    • Oh c'mon... That's just your culture [psmag.com] talking. Take off the cheap glasses. I have to admit, I like your absurdist humor in that link of yours.

      • I evaluate arguments against whether they're directed against body, mind, or soul.
        The Postmodern piffle that has trashed Western Culture over the last 50 years is directed at the body, against the mind, and mostly ignores the soul.
        I hate Postmodernism on all three levels, as I feel it a Satanic joke.

        • As a westerner, those are exactly the feeling one would expect you to have. Are you saying that it is superior to other cultures?

          I hate Postmodernism...

          Don't question authority, huh?

          • Oh, by all means, question authority. With rationality.
            The nonstop, irrational, anti-Enlightenment onslaught of Postmodernism is a major driver for the current decline.
            It's one thing to challenge the establishment in ways that "provoke unto good works" to use an antique phrasing.
            It's quite another to set about burning down Western Civilization for political gain, which is Hicks's conclusion hin the linked book.

            • Allowing authoritarians to decide what is rational or irrational is utterly absurd. Funny how you consider all challenges to be "politically motivated" for some personal gain without addressing the issue. I just saw another example of that when a politician tried to insert an amendment to drug test the legislature in a 'drug test for welfare recipients' bill. The person was accused of "playing politics" without addressing the hypocrisy of the measure. It's very sad that nobody follows through and demands a

              • Abuse of authority has no cultural bounds. It is purely a case of insatiable, animalistic might makes right, as dictated by nature itself, rationalized by the pharisees in their vain attempt to appear intellectual or philosophical. "Baffle 'em with bullshit". Countless times this has already been proven, and we are living it right now in a global inescapable "Stanford Prison Experiment". It must be eliminated, and replaced with self discipline. Those who look outward for their cause are utterly hopeless.

                My

                • y argument is that the result (if not the explicit intent) of Wittgenstein and adherents has been not "It must be eliminated, and replaced with self discipline," but rather a statist infantilism where political authority takes on an idolatrous character.

                  Better we let religious idolatry establish authority? You talk about the past 50 years, well, there's a history of faith-based authority that makes the past 50 years seem positively wonderful by comparison.

                  A case could be made that the past 50 years, for th

                  • Better we let religious idolatry establish authority? You talk about the past 50 years, well, there's a history of faith-based authority that makes the past 50 years seem positively wonderful by comparison.

                    Sweet, sweet subject changing.

                    A case could be made that the past 50 years, for the West, has been a lot better than the 200 years that preceded it, precisely because of the kind of philosophies like the one you're pigeon-holing as "post-modern".

                    So, make it. Stand and deliver. I say the collapse of the Sov

                • ...a statist infantilism where political authority takes on an idolatrous character.

                  ... is the same as market infantilism where corporate authority (covertly, or not so covertly enforced by the state) takes on an idolatrous character.

                  ...what's been lacking is any empirical analysis to ask whose ideas bear fruit, and which lead to ruin.

                  Yes, because authoritarians disallow any attempt to make that analysis. This is very similar to the government telling us that marijuana has no medical use whatsoever while

                  • market infantilism

                    Oddest spelling of "competition", ever.

                    Yes, because authoritarians disallow any attempt to make that analysis. This is very similar to the government telling us that marijuana has no medical use whatsoever while prohibiting any testing that could prove otherwise. They don't want us to know.

                    While not being pro-drug in the slightest, I don't have any trouble admitting that authoritarians always opt for maximal bureaucratic increase.

    • Wittgenstein was not "pomo".

      He was deeply religious, in a vein similar to Deists or Spinoza, and was drawn to an individual monasticism. He was self-sacrificing, having donated and abdicated his entire inherited fortune. When he made additional millions, later on technical merits, he also demurred the rewards for charity and lived in near penury as an elementary school teacher of mathematics - despite being wooed for an Oxford chair.

      • Whoopdie flipping doo.
        See my reply to fustakrakich above. I think the guy's "deeply religious" veneer unimpressive, and the fruit of the ruin he spread surrounds us.
        Guess you located a nerve here, or something.

        • I think the guy's "deeply religious" veneer unimpressive, and the fruit of the ruin he spread surrounds us.

          Precisely the attitude that would get the Christ crucified again if he were ever to appear. Since when are Christian acts to be considered a veneer?

          • Precisely the attitude that would get the Christ crucified again if he were ever to appear.

            Non-sequitur of the day. I haven't advocated violence in the slightest. Kinda off your game today, boss.

            • Well, to call the guy a phony because you don't like what he says pretty much puts you in the same boat then.

              • I'm contending, in agreement with the Hicks book referenced above, that the PoMo movement was a con job.
                The dreadful empirical results of having paid heed to these guys are written in the debt-driven collapse of our society about us.
                Your "Oh yeah? You did it, too" charge also impresses me not.

                • It's not 'you did it', too, it's 'you're still doing it', while talking out the other side of your* mouth. And my original contention is that I believe Christ's questioning of authority goes way beyond what you would consider 'rational', and would bring him to the same fate today as it did then, with full public support, especially the 'falsies' that claim to know him best.

                  Paying heed to these guys is not what brought us to ruin. We simply let thieves steal our money for their own personal gain. They have a

                  • And my original contention is that I believe Christ's questioning of authority goes way beyond what you would consider 'rational', and would bring him to the same fate today as it did then, with full public support, especially the 'falsies' that claim to know him best.

                    As something of an amateur scholar of the Gospels, if you attach any historical validity to their narrative, the real issue was that Jesus of Nazareth was exposing the Temple Cult as a pack of frauds. As frauds, it's fair to question to what d

  • is a symbolic link... No, wait, dynamically linked library?

Slashdot Top Deals

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Close