Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,789 Replies to “Noyau (2)”

  1. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    Alan Fox: A lesson for us all perhaps!

    Ha, perhaps! Though at the time Rorty published Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (in 1979), analytic philosophy was much more hostile towards the figures he was drawing upon (Heidegger, Dewey, and Wittgenstein). Rorty never taught in a Department of Philosophy after that book came out.

  2. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Rorty never taught in a Department of Philosophy after that book came out.

    Didn’t Dennett reminisce something about Rorty always wanting to be a poet?

    Rorty on poetry

  3. Mung Mung says:

    walto: When I took a course from one of his followers at Cornell in the 1970s, he was grouped with Buddha and Jesus.

    Which thief was he?

  4. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    Alan Fox: Didn’t Dennett reminisce something about Rorty always wanting to be a poet?

    I do recall a remark by Dennett — maybe in a reminiscence after Rorty’s passing? — where Dennett recalled a conversation they’d had. Dennett said he aspired to be the kind of philosopher appreciated by scientists, and Rorty responded by saying that he’d wanted to be the kind of philosophers appreciated by poets.

    What’s surprising about this is that Dennett and Rorty are very closely aligned on all sorts of views — methodological naturalism, anti-foundationalism, a modest anti-realism, and accepting both Quine’s critique of the analytic/synthetic distinction and Sellars’s critique of the Myth of the Given. Rorty once said that Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature had been superseded by two subsequent books — Dennett’s The Intentional Stance and Michael Williams’s Groundless Belief. I think that could be true, though neither Dennett nor Williams bring their views into conversation with Heidegger and Gadamer, as Rorty does.

  5. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Kantian Naturalist,

    I have Rorty’s book and I must make the effort to read it properly. Rorty does seem to have had a high regard for Dennett judging by this book review. I smiled at this snippet:

    The conviction which idealists shared with Husserlian phenomenologists – that consciousness must for ever remain opaque to natural science – has been the basis of an enormous amount of bad philosophy from Kant’s day to this.

    ETA If anyone’s interested, Philosophy and the
    Mirror of Nature
    is available as a PDF here.

  6. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    Alan Fox: I have Rorty’s book and I must make the effort to read it properly. Rorty does seem to have had a high regard for Dennett judging by this book review. I smiled at this snippet:

    Some parts of PMN have aged better than others. If you decide to sit down with it I can make some suggestions about which sections can be skipped.

    I really loved Consciousness Explained but I’m sympathetic to people like Chalmers who were frustrated by Dennett’s dismissal of qualia. Besides, as Sellars once said to Dennett, “But Dan, qualia are what make life worth living!”

  7. BruceS says:

    Kantian Naturalist: I really loved Consciousness Explained but I’m sympathetic to people like Chalmers who were frustrated by Dennett’s dismissal of qualia. Besides, as Sellars once said to Dennett, “But Dan, qualia are what make life worth living!”

    The best material that I have found for understanding Dennett’s illusionism are the essays by Keith Frankish in the illusionism volume of Journal of Consciousness Studies. Although some of the essays from that volume are freely available, I have not found Frankish’s work offered freely online.

    I bought the whole volume since I have no access to an academic library. Frankish does get the stamp of approval from Dennett in another essay in that volume. Gazzinga also has an essay on his version (we discussed it in TSZ some years ago).

  8. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox: Rorty does seem to have had a high regard for Dennett

    Dennet also seems to have a high regard for Dennett.

    “Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim. . . . Since, unlike us brights, they believe in the supernatural, perhaps they would like to call themselves supers.”

    He sounds a lot like Trump.

  9. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    BruceS: The best material that I have found for understanding Dennett’s illusionism are the essays by Keith Frankish in the illusionism volume of Journal of Consciousness Studies. Although some of the essays from that volume are freely available, I have not found Frankish’s work offered freely online.

    I bought the whole volume since I have no access to an academic library. Frankish does get the stamp of approval from Dennett in another essay in that volume. Gazzinga also has an essay on his version (we discussed it in TSZ some years ago).

    I also got a lot out of Dennett’s “Why and How Does Consciousness Seems the Way It Does?”. Once you get past the rhetoric and drill down into the arguments there’s something really quite compelling about illusionism. I know several philosophers who started their careers working with and about Dennett and then ended up, by the logic of that argument, developing a strong interest in Buddhism and the doctrine of no-self.

  10. stcordova says:

    Keiths and Patrick have been kind of quiet lately. Hmm, I wonder why?

  11. stcordova says:

    Should prince charming kiss Sleeping Beauty?

  12. Rumraket Rumraket says:

    stcordova:
    Should prince charming kiss Sleeping Beauty?

    As usual you’re defending a fairytale. xD

  13. stcordova says:

    Star Wars Theory on Snoke and Plagus. I find this more fascinating than philosophy and theology:

    https://youtu.be/Mqk8-EQLOMI

  14. stcordova says:

    Beautiful portrait of Shmi Skywalker and son:

  15. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Recent posters:
    Scordova
    CharlieM
    Nonlin.org
    J-Mac
    J-Mac
    Nonlin.org
    Gregory
    J-Mac
    Robert Byers
    Vjtorley

    Great job.

  16. Mung Mung says:

    What a model group of skeptics!

  17. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    Richardthughes:
    Recent posters:
    Scordova
    CharlieM
    Nonlin.org
    J-Mac
    J-Mac
    Nonlin.org
    Gregory
    J-Mac
    Robert Byers
    Vjtorley

    Great job.

    I haven’t authored a post a TSZ in a while because the stuff I’m thinking about these days isn’t going to be of much interest to TSZ participants. In my scholarship I’m getting deep into technical issues in the philosophy of cognitive science and neuroscience and I’ve taken up Marxist critiques of neoliberalism as a side project. Also the transformation of the GOP into a fascist party is taking up some of my time.

  18. Mung Mung says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Also the transformation of the GOP into a fascist party is taking up some of my time.

    You know how that sounds, right?

    I always sensed you were actually to the far right.

  19. stcordova says:

    Richardthughes:
    Recent posters:
    Scordova
    CharlieM
    Nonlin.org
    J-Mac
    J-Mac
    Nonlin.org
    Gregory
    J-Mac
    Robert Byers
    Vjtorley

    Great job.

    The inmates are running the asylum. 🙂

  20. stcordova says:

    TSZ = UD – Arrington – KairosOutOfFocus- News

  21. walto walto says:

    J-Mac:
    stcordova,

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

    https://www.playbuzz.com/nellietaney10/what-is-your-actual-sexual-orientation

    I could take this and give you my score, but first you’d have to tell us your score on my Are You a Lunatic? quiz.

  22. J-Mac says:

    walto: https://www.playbuzz.com/nellietaney10/what-is-your-actual-sexual-orientation

    I could take this and give you my score, but first you’d have to tell us your score on my Are You a Lunatic? quiz.

    So, you believe it is wrong to inquire someone’s sexual orientation?

  23. J-Mac says:

    The evolution of homosexuality still remains a mystery… but not for Darwin’s boys… Their devotion is exclusive…

  24. Neil Rickert says:

    J-Mac: So, you believe it is wrong to inquire someone’s sexual orientation?

    It is wrong at TSZ.

  25. newton says:

    Mung: You know how that sounds, right?

    Like someone is interested in the fate of the United States?

  26. newton says:

    J-Mac:
    The evolution of homosexuality still remains a mystery… but not for Darwin’s boys… Their devotion isexclusive…

    What is the design explanation?

  27. Mung Mung says:

    newton: What is the design explanation?

    God did it.

  28. Entropy Entropy says:

    J-Mac:
    The evolution of homosexuality still remains a mystery… but not for Darwin’s boys… Their devotion isexclusive…

    There’s no mystery. Natural phenomena are not magical. But you believe in a magical infallible being, yet, you’re still a homosexual. Therefore this magical being made you into something “He” despises. And there you are, a faithful but angry devote. So stop projecting J-Mac. It’s not our fault that you cannot embrace your homosexuality.

  29. newton says:

    Mung: God did it.

    And God saw it and said it was good.

  30. Allan Miller says:

    newton: And God saw it and said it was good.

    … but could be better. So He went off somewhere else to have another go and kind of lost interest.

  31. Allan Miller says:

    stcordova:
    TSZ = UD – Arrington – KairosOutOfFocus- News

    Could be worse, then.

  32. newton says:

    Allan Miller: … but could be better. So He went off somewhere else to have another go and kind of lost interest.

    Better to be under supervised than over.

  33. Mung Mung says:

    Entropy: Natural phenomena are not magical.

    But natural phenomena are magical!

  34. stcordova says:

    Mung: God did it.

    If God did it, this is what would have happened in the Garden of Eden:

    https://youtu.be/zKAW96N-Vms

  35. stcordova says:

    Cessna Landing at O’Hare. It brings back some memories!

    https://youtu.be/vipvtaRbQho

  36. stcordova says:

    J-mac:

    stcordova,

    Are you a homosexual?
    Yes or No?

    Awh shucks J-Mac, did you ask me because you’re hitting on me? Were you trying to do to me what Broner and Maidana were doing to each other in the boxing ring:
    https://youtu.be/CicDljEpJp4

    Was that why you were offering to buy dinner for me and Harshman? Sorry to disappoint you but, I’m not in to that. You’ll have to ask some other guy out for a date, not me.

  37. J-Mac says:

    stcordova,

    It took you this long to figure this one out??? Lol

    Joking aside…

    How about you and I (and John ) get together and perform a simple experiment that will resolve the Complex Specified Information issue? We could do it either with the protein folds or embryos, like fruit fly…

    Do you know what I’m talking about?

    All we have to do is “disturb” the quantum information and see if proteins with the same sequence fold the same way or at all…

    Or if fruit fly embryos develop if the quantum information in the cell differentiation process is disturbed…

    What do you say?
    We could even win some prize if we are successful, ye know…;-)

    I think OMagain wants to help he just doesn’t seem to know how… 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.