On 21 abr, 22:26, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 20, 10:46 pm, sirbl...@
hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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
Ridleyhttp://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
Ridleyhttp://www.amazon.com/Agile-Gene-Nature-Turns-Nurture/dp/B000GYI1HO/
>
> How Nature Turns On Nurture - Matt Ridley Lecture, Princeton, 2005 61
> minutes
brohttp://tinyurl.com/3hnkkd
i think i''ve given the book its chance and there's too much stuff to
do in the world, too many hobbies n bitches to spend more time with a
book that didnt confuse me- i just found it extremely repetitive, full
of strawmen and with one huge laugh that i recall- when compared to a
bug, he says *nobody* knows how many thingies a gene has- btw, not
even he. plus why should humanists (and post-humanists, the same
thing) give a shit about tabula rasa?
where exactly does this philosopher find such relief in the
enlightenment? apart from being a nice soothingly cool sounding word,
that is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment
