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]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. 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.

  3. 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?

  5. 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 Rorty once said that Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature had been superseded by two subsequent books — Dennett’s The Intentional Stance and Michael Williams’s Groundless Belief.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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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!”

  8. 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).

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

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

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

    Great job.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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. 🙂

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

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

    What is the design explanation?

  30. 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.

  32. 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.

  34. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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… 🙂

  42. stcordova,

    If you’re looking for feedback; I tried listening but the sound quality is so poor I found it unintelligible*. If you think there was some content worth talking about, perhaps transcribe it?

    *Admittedly I’m a bit hard-of-hearing but desktop speakers or headphones – still unintelligible.

  43. stcordova,

    All I can tell you is Keiths declared elsewhere he will not post here again until Lizzie returns. Not sure what Lizzie’s current plans are.

    ETA

    The moderators have brazenly abused their privileges, and I have no intention of participating further until there is a grown-up in the room who can prevent further abuses.

    Link

  45. Hey Alan,

    Thanks for even bothering to listen! I put it in Noyau because it was indeed low quality, but I didn’t want to just dispose of it without giving it a little air time.

    The only significant thing was I asked Meyer the difference between ID and creationism. Meyer said creationism was based on biblical authority and ID is based on observation.

    If I may EXTRAPOLATE Meyer’s words with my own view. Creationism is Biblical (REVEALED) theology and ID is NATURAL theology. The two views of REVEALED and NATURAL theology have their own traditions and histories, with natural theology not talked about much in traditional Christian churches.

    Beyond that, I just asked some views of Meyer about creation. Meyer said he believes there were a series of miracles that made the world we see to day, but he believes the universe is billions of years old. He believes the Intelligent Designer is God.

    Meyer had an essay some time ago about a theory of creation, which is not YEC creationism, but more of a philosophical construction.

    In any case, I hope you are well my longtime friend. God bless. 🙂

  47. stcordova: Creationism is Biblical (REVEALED) theology and ID is NATURAL theology. The two views of REVEALED and NATURAL theology have their own traditions and histories, with natural theology not talked about much in traditional Christian churches.

    I almost got that bit. But you know my view on Biblical Literalism. Just seems so unnecessary and a wasted effort to back yourselves in a corner over consilient facts when the Bible is obviously (heh, to me and Thomas Jefferson, at least) not intended as an historical document.

Leave a Reply