Richard Dawkins
- Thread starter Bangpuss
- Start date
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
as far as brock lesnar-type bullshit 1) he's a great natural athlete, tho yes his technique is embarrassingly horrible, 2) the heayweight division is generally a joke (except for guys like cain velasquez + jr dos santos), tho isn't that also largely true for boxing, i.e. the Klitschkos?
Code:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
the real action is at 205 lb + below. guys like jon jones + georges st-pierre for example are incredibly athletic.
if you want to see high action seriously go on YT + watch some muay thai. ramon dekkers, sangtiennoi, seanchai, guys like that.
if you want to see high action seriously go on YT + watch some muay thai. ramon dekkers, sangtiennoi, seanchai, guys like that.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
you'd like sangtiennoi. his nickname was "the deadly kisser" cos he'd kiss guys on the cheek right before he knocked them out (which was almost always)
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
^also every fighting sport has its embarrassing fat guys. or in the case of K-1, giant hulking roided out freaks like alistair overeem.
if you want to see a great fight watch ernesto hoost v. bob sapp in K-1. hoost was an all-time great, an undersized (but very skilled) guy with holyfield type heart. sapp was an ex-NFL player with no technique but he's just massive. like a 100 lb weight advantage. in one of their fights hoost actually broke some of sapp's ribs but somehow still lost.
if you want to see a great fight watch ernesto hoost v. bob sapp in K-1. hoost was an all-time great, an undersized (but very skilled) guy with holyfield type heart. sapp was an ex-NFL player with no technique but he's just massive. like a 100 lb weight advantage. in one of their fights hoost actually broke some of sapp's ribs but somehow still lost.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
here's a short doc on hoost/sapp. hoost lost both times on some of the worst bullshit TKOs ever (K-1 is corrupt as hell + sapp is wildly popular in japan so he got the hometown calls)
K-1 Classics: Ernesto Hoost vs. Bob Sapp Feud
I freaking love ernesto hoost. great fighter, great champion.
sorry, back to science + whatnot then
K-1 Classics: Ernesto Hoost vs. Bob Sapp Feud
I freaking love ernesto hoost. great fighter, great champion.
sorry, back to science + whatnot then
comelately
Wild Horses
I understand you accept it has a meaning, that's not under dispute. Can you tell me what the basis for this acceptance is?
comelately
Wild Horses
Arguably Zizek was a positive force for the democratisation of Slovenia, if that's worth anything. It's hard for me to answer this question concisely (obviously), but, quickly and dirtily, I suggest that the continental tradition is the only way to critique the empirical/analytical tradition in a way that provides a check on the inevitable fetishisation of concepts that assist capitalism, and possibly totalitarianism, that result from the fetishisation of the empirical tradition. Continental philosophy can also be used to support ruling elites too, though there is probably less 'need' for it in that instance.
Obviously that idea of such a constant intention running through the work of the 'Marxist deconstructonist' (and to call Zizek a deconstructionist is probably a mistake anyway, in many ways it's become the academic equivalent of calling someone a paki) is pretty silly. "There is no "Žižekian" system of philosophy because Žižek, with all his inconsistencies, is trying to make us think much harder about what we are willing to believe and accept from a single writer" (Ian Parker). Deconstruction is about undermining intellectual suppositions, rather than necessarily proposing new ones.
Of course, it could be argued (and IdleRich would I think) that this is pretty much what Richard Dawkins is doing. And that might be a fair point, and maybe Dawkins and Zizek are both assholes. I tend to side with Zizek because he's playing at a higher level, is interested in challenging *everybody* who reads him and appears to be a bit more self-aware, and I guess I somehow believe that he's probably a force for good (or whatever my fucked-up idea of that is) in a way that Dawkins is not. My initial call to this thread was to outline a leftist critique of Dawkins, not necessarily to stand behind it 100%.
Obviously 'continental philosophy' does provide a way to look clever, gain a certain sort of prestige, make a bit of money etc. People so easily throw this accusation at postmodernists, and in doing so imply that there's something that more earnest about being an analytical philosopher. Not sure that really stands up though.
I am not denying I was simplifying when I was talking about academia. I was under the impression that culturally things had changed quite bit vis a vis tenure and the involvement of private capital - particularly in the UK. No I probably don't have enough knowledge right now to back up vague, sweeping statements, though a quick look at wikipedia suggests there have been significant changes in the last 20 years and my inkling is that you are being overly defensive here.
My point was to suggest that advocating/having academic freedom is a pretty important feature of a 'leftist empiricism'. I was not suggesting research scientists were trying to get rich. Even if funding cuts are driven by governments lacking money rather than ideology (even though this is a false binary), that definitely still focuses grant money on research that has a commercial use:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11225197
D
droid
Guest
Not sure If this has been covered, but what do people think of John Gray's position on Dawkins?
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2361
Shorthand: Humans need myths. Make better ones instead of trying to tear them all down (or something).
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2361
Shorthand: Humans need myths. Make better ones instead of trying to tear them all down (or something).
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
haven't read all of it, but sounds spot-on to me. Edit: read most of it - I like Gray, he writes like an unpretentious, clear, intelligent human being.
i like the sound of this book:
"In his new book, Proust Was a Neuroscientist, Jonah tells eight stories that share a common theme. In each case, (he chooses Marcel Proust, Walt Whitman, George Elliot, Paul Cezanne, Igor Stravinsky, Gertrude Stein, Virginia Wolf and, yes Auguste Escoffier) an artist is busy about his/her work and happens to observe something or sense something about the real world that scientists have not yet noticed, or that scientists say is not true. But because artists are so good at describing what it's like to experience the world, so intent on delivering the truth of what it feels like to be alive, so intuitive, in each of these eight cases, the artists learn something that the scientists don't discover until years later."
has anyone read it - i'm sure there must be some?
i like the sound of this book:
"In his new book, Proust Was a Neuroscientist, Jonah tells eight stories that share a common theme. In each case, (he chooses Marcel Proust, Walt Whitman, George Elliot, Paul Cezanne, Igor Stravinsky, Gertrude Stein, Virginia Wolf and, yes Auguste Escoffier) an artist is busy about his/her work and happens to observe something or sense something about the real world that scientists have not yet noticed, or that scientists say is not true. But because artists are so good at describing what it's like to experience the world, so intent on delivering the truth of what it feels like to be alive, so intuitive, in each of these eight cases, the artists learn something that the scientists don't discover until years later."
has anyone read it - i'm sure there must be some?
Last edited:
Bangpuss
Well-known member
John Gray recently wrote a negative review of Chomsky's latest book, which was a terrible review. I remember reading it and thinking that Gray was misrepresenting Chomsky's position -- that "America is virtually the sole obstacle to peace in the world," -- and critiquing it. Now I just Googled "John Gray Chomsky" and it comes up with a letter from Noam making the same point: i.e. he has never claimed that America is the sole evil, that U.S. crimes outdo those by any other regime, etc.
His critique of Dawkins is no better.
His critique of Dawkins is no better.
grizzleb
Well-known member
Derrida is rubbish but he has some points to make. The problem is when entire 'continent' is written off as irrelevant nonsense. Continental philosophy can have sensible things to say where analytic says outrageous nonsense. And vice-versa. The writing style isn't that obscure anyway, I mean really, and I find some analytic impenetrable. It's such a false dichotomy, there's so much dovetailing going on it's ridiculous. True philosophers don't hold daft prejudices.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
@CL - fair play to zizek about slovenia then. tho hasn't he also been accused of fascist leanings, + advocating some ethnic cleansing type? which may or may not be unfair slurs, I wouldn't know. then there's the whole apologias for the excesses of stalin thing. (didn't badiou do similar for the great leap forward? or am I making that up?) anyway, whatever on that count.
I'm not sure how you can say continental philosophy is the only way to critique "inevitable fetishization...". well no, you can say it but I'm not sure how that makes it accurate. the situationists seem to' have had a pretty solid grasp of it, altho possibly they were forerunners (or contemporaries?) of deconstructionism. I certainly agree about that inevitability. also the inevitability of recuperation, from which deconstructionism surely has not escaped, yes? either way a continental philosopher claiming continental philosophy is the only way feels suspiciously close to a trotyskist claiming trotyskism is the only true marxism, if you know what I mean.
I'm no philosopher but I do have a basic grasp of deconstructionism. I wouldn't bother with the usual critiques (willful obscurantism, snake oil, etc) whether or not they are true, again I wouldn't know. I still wonder what exactly it offers besides endless feedback loops of inscrutable meta-jargon (exception: foucault). does deconstructionism ever deconstruct itself? or that is a level of meta meta so intense it would tear a hole in the fabric of reality large hadron collider style?
I'm sure zizek that is operating at a much higher level than dawkins (philosophically. it's not like he could match him in a science lab or a biology lecturing hall) as stated I don't care much about dawkins, but I will note "higher" doesn't automatically equal better.
of course there have been changes in science. would you expect it to have stayed static for the last 20 years? tenure has gotten scarcer. a lot of universities are putting more people on non-tenure tracks, which is much cheaper for the school (also cuts into the faculty's power). tenure being a seriously flawed system (which is hardly limited to the sciences) likely has something to do with it too. private capital is probably more involved, mostly due to situation of govts, but it's always been involved at a serious level. further, the relation between the private sector + govt is so frequently incestuous in relation to research (see: the defense industry) that you can't always draw a neat line between the two. I'm not saying what you're saying is entirely untrue. it's just not entirely true either.
of course research focuses on things with commercial application. under capitalism what the hell else would it focus on? that isn't really a criticism of science but of the underlying issues. also commercial application includes many things which are beneficial of themselves outside their commercial value. which doesn't invalidate your point but should be noted.
I'm not sure how you can say continental philosophy is the only way to critique "inevitable fetishization...". well no, you can say it but I'm not sure how that makes it accurate. the situationists seem to' have had a pretty solid grasp of it, altho possibly they were forerunners (or contemporaries?) of deconstructionism. I certainly agree about that inevitability. also the inevitability of recuperation, from which deconstructionism surely has not escaped, yes? either way a continental philosopher claiming continental philosophy is the only way feels suspiciously close to a trotyskist claiming trotyskism is the only true marxism, if you know what I mean.
I'm no philosopher but I do have a basic grasp of deconstructionism. I wouldn't bother with the usual critiques (willful obscurantism, snake oil, etc) whether or not they are true, again I wouldn't know. I still wonder what exactly it offers besides endless feedback loops of inscrutable meta-jargon (exception: foucault). does deconstructionism ever deconstruct itself? or that is a level of meta meta so intense it would tear a hole in the fabric of reality large hadron collider style?
I'm sure zizek that is operating at a much higher level than dawkins (philosophically. it's not like he could match him in a science lab or a biology lecturing hall) as stated I don't care much about dawkins, but I will note "higher" doesn't automatically equal better.
of course there have been changes in science. would you expect it to have stayed static for the last 20 years? tenure has gotten scarcer. a lot of universities are putting more people on non-tenure tracks, which is much cheaper for the school (also cuts into the faculty's power). tenure being a seriously flawed system (which is hardly limited to the sciences) likely has something to do with it too. private capital is probably more involved, mostly due to situation of govts, but it's always been involved at a serious level. further, the relation between the private sector + govt is so frequently incestuous in relation to research (see: the defense industry) that you can't always draw a neat line between the two. I'm not saying what you're saying is entirely untrue. it's just not entirely true either.
of course research focuses on things with commercial application. under capitalism what the hell else would it focus on? that isn't really a criticism of science but of the underlying issues. also commercial application includes many things which are beneficial of themselves outside their commercial value. which doesn't invalidate your point but should be noted.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
what if you just don't care about either?
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I didn't realize how much of this was a philosophical pissing match
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
i thought it (the article) was pretty good, making the obvious point that science can be used for ill just as much as religion can.
He may have misrepresented Dawkins but I'm more bothered about his general argument, which is sound.
Out of interest, what did he get wrong about Dawkins' views?
Incidentally I thought Wittgenstein was alright - read him alongside Chomsky and others on language. But continental philosophy in general I found intentionally obfuscatory. Very, very little is that difficult to communicate as a basic idea in plain language, as challenging/perspective-shifting as the nuances might be, and the best philosophers/writers consistently prove it. If you can literally understand nothing of what someone's saying, chances are they have nothing to say.
What was Derrida's thing that made me want to punch a wall? Oh, the thing about 'differAnce'. Foucault is in a different league, writes about v interesting things though I haven't read enough.
Going back to boxing, it's quite interesting that both Klitschko and Pacquiao are into politics in an active and seemingly non-conservative way.
Last edited: