> On 21 abr, 06:50, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> why does he have a go at the postmodernists for doing tabula rasa when
>>> that's all art/literary rhetoric has done for milleniums? why doesnt
>>> he have a go at dante, donne, cervantes, socrates, plato and not just
>>> at rousseau? why stop at virginia woolf when you can have a munch at
>>> anything from dewey to jesus to alexandria's great-library to
>>> economics to law to chemistry to advertisments all the way to sheep-
>>> shagging scotsmen?
>
>> Post-modernism and romanticism were major movements and excellent
>> places to start a critique on theories of human nature and instinct.
>> Whatever boundries that confined Pinker to begin with these two
>> movements is probably not for sales mainly. But please point out what
>> you specifically agree or disagree with. If you have read the entire
>> book it seems like you would see that he covers about everyone in his
>> "dogmas-R-us" approach; Marx to Frued to....
>
>> - Post/Modernism is Based on False Theory of Human Psychology, Beauty
>> is Dirty Word
>
>> ONCE WE RECOGNIZE what modernism and postmodernism have done to the
>> elite arts and humanities, the reasons for their decline and fall
>> become all too obvious. The movements are based on a false theory of
>> human psychology, the Blank Slate. They fail to apply their most
>> vaunted ability-stripping away pretense-to themselves. And they take
>> all the fun out of art!
>
> that's pathetic. try slogging throu gothic caligraphy and renaissance
> weirdoes.
>
>
>
>> Modernism and postmodernism cling to a theory of perception that was
>> rejected long ago: that the sense organs present the brain with a
>> tableau of raw colors and sounds and that everything else in
>> perceptual experience is a learned social construction.
>
> oh so what if goethe said this or that, if he said this or that its
> cuz nebrija or sir thomas elyot said that or this. come on. and im not
> reading anymore of your enormous quotes, nor anymore of that enormous
> book cuz reading one shit always means not reading another.
I think you should read the book to the end and then read it again
until you master the complete kalidascope of "dogmas" against human
nature. Be strong, if your position is right it should not effect you
and you will be more prepared to give and answer unto those that
challenge your preferences.
It might be better for you to take a break and read "ridely" -nature-
via-nurture- retitled "the agile-gene" for a presentation that
considers the influence of both learning and instinct. I agree that
the blank slate by pinker can be confusing if you don't have a clear
understaning of the interactions of instinct and culture. Check this
out of the library and speed read it, garunteed antidote to your
problemo;
Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human
by Matt Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Via-Nurture-Genes-Experience/dp/0060006781
Renamed but the exact same book in later editions to;
The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture
by Matt Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Gene-Nature-Turns-Nurture/dp/B000GYI1HO/
How Nature Turns On Nurture - Matt Ridley Lecture, Princeton, 2005 61
minutes bro
http://tinyurl.com/3hnkkd
