Nicq MacDonald wrote:
>
> > In the 50s "cool" people read Meade and Marcuse and Marx and could feel
> good
> > about maintaining their ideological progressiveness in the face of the
> > conformity of "the man in the gray flannel suit"; today people in the know
> > read Dawkins and More and Kurzweil and look forward to a REAL revolution,
> > while the mainstream of academia slowly dissolves in a self-congratulatory
> > puddle of subjectivist nonsense.
>
> Subjectivism isn't nonsense- the entire discipline of hermeneutics depends
> on this concept. Although I agree that post-modernism is a dead paradigm
> that hasn't had it's funeral yet, I can't agree with a paradigm which denies
> the relevance of my existence. Not that the ideological progressives of the
> 1950's were any better (Karl Marx? Communist Materialism?!?)... I'll agree
> that Romanticism is lousy as a base from which to work, or a social
> paradigm, but it's a wonderful way to live one's life. In my opinion, the
> best philosophy isn't that which achieves the most universal happiness, but
> the one that tells the best story in the end. Wars, revolutions, love,
> hate, death- this is what makes life interesting!
Subjectivism is quite so nonsense, however, to paraphrase Goering,
repeating nonsense often enough is quite useful, as a tool of propaganda
and memetic warfare. It may be a 'wonderful way to live one's life', but
then again, they do say ignorance is bliss.
>
> > > Well then, zeig heil!
> >
> > I wonder what this could mean.
>
> Extrobots seldom seem to grasp the concept of "meaning".
As in "humans are meaning making machines", therefore, because all
humans are equal, all meanings are equal... blah blah blah...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT