Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
 RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
News Round-Up Thu Dec 26, 2024 00:09 | Toby Young
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Ginger Rogers Theory of Information Wed Dec 25, 2024 18:00 | Sallust
In the Daily Sceptic, Sallust draws our attention to the 'gynogenic climate change' hypothesis: that is is women who are principally to blame for global warming.
The post The Ginger Rogers Theory of Information appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Some Laws Relating to Speech Are Surprisingly Uplifting Wed Dec 25, 2024 16:00 | James Alexander
Politics professor James Alexander has compiled a compendium of amusing laws ? Murphy's Law, Parkinson's Law and Cole's Law (thinly sliced cabbage) ? to give you a break from making polite conversation with your relatives.
The post Some Laws Relating to Speech Are Surprisingly Uplifting appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Warm Keir Starmer Just Looked Out? Wed Dec 25, 2024 11:00 | Henry Goodall
'Warm King Starmer just looked out, On the feast of Reeves, then...' Read Henry Goodall's version of 'Good King Winceslas' updated for Starmer's Britain, exclusive to the Daily Sceptic.
The post Warm Keir Starmer Just Looked Out… appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Declined: Chapter One Wed Dec 25, 2024 09:00 | M. Zermansky
Introducing Declined: a dystopian satire about the emergence of a social credit system in the U.K. that's going to be published in serial?form?in?the Daily Sceptic. Read episode one here.
The post Declined: Chapter One appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?113 Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:42 | en
Pentagon could create a second Kurdish state Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:31 | en
How Washington and Ankara Changed the Regime in Damascus , by Thierry Meyssan Tue Dec 17, 2024 06:58 | en
Statement by President Bashar al-Assad on the Circumstances Leading to his Depar... Mon Dec 16, 2024 13:26 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?112 Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:34 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche
In a sense, then, there is a commonality between these three 19th century intellectual figures --Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche. Humanity is the product of evolution through natural selection.
Our minds, egos, self-esteem, consciousness, belief in an afterlife, conscience, guilt etc are fictions created by our evolutionary development. As Nietzsche argued there is no such thing as mind, consciousness, the self. They are, in a sense, illusions created by evolution to produce what is known as humanity. Humanity minus these fictions would not be human. Humans cannot exist without the existence of these illusions. These fictions are necessary illusions manufactured by men.
The body and brain that we possess today are products of the Stone Age. These bodies and brains have hardly evolved since the Stone Age. Consequently they are, in a sense, unsuitable for modern conditions. This is why human beings can act in such irrational ways and why we have psychopaths and other individuals with serious malfunctioning problems. To simply attribute all human problems to capitalism is trite. Nature will be always inscribed on us. We can never escape the limitations imposed upon us by nature.
Humanity evolved these illusions as devices whereby we are more motivated to improve both ourselves and our surrounding conditions. For instance without a sense of self-esteem we would not feel important. Consequently we would not see any meaning in undertaking many activities. If we had never believed in an afterlife we would not found much meaning to life. Consequently there are many things we would not want to do. This is true of the other fundamental illusions that envelope us. Without them there would have been no incentive for the species that evolved into homo sapiens sapiens to socially develop. Consequently there would never have existed human civilization.
In a sense, then, there is a commonality between these three 19th century intellectual figures --Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche.
|
international |
history and heritage |
other press
Tuesday September 07, 2010 17:27
by Paddy Hackett - none
maxanger at live dot ie
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (25 of 25)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Actually Darwin and Wallace both arrived at the idea of "natural selection" after reading an economics book by a laissez faire economist named Malthus. The noted Christian apologist Bertrand Russell noted that Natural selection, "...is Victorian economics introduced into the natural world." (paraphrase). In short Darwinism is free market economic theory entered into the biological world. Perhaps one reason Darwinism sounds so right upon first being exposed to it is because, we have been conditioned to embrace free market economics?
They even have term for it, Social Darwinism, and it is recognised as one of the facets of fascistic programs. The modern euphemism is 'meritocracy'.
Basically dog-eat-dog. Hence the self-affirmation of 'Because I'm worth it'. Madison Avenue retain their cutting edge mastery.
Paddy's terminology is very broad and open to myriad interpretations on many of his terms, not least how to define 'human'.
I dont think being bipedal or language-using mammals is sufficient. Nor are we just the product of the Stone Age. We are evolving all the time, it aint a done deal. Nature AND nurture(or culture, in its broadest sense), Paddy.
Human Race is a good term. Some never cross the finishing line, they retain their simian nature, no matter what their opportunities for development, they defining such a concept as dependent on how many bananas(well, ingots) you can accummulate. And it dont finish til the final whistle, as you can slip from being quite human, in the best sense, to the bestiality of of Camp Commandant, as is constantly proven on all sides.
As a result you get such wonders of the world as the European savages who pillaged and murdered their way west before turning back east for the present festival of carnage(look up the derivation of carnival)designating the great civilisations they torched as being the savages.
And we can escape some of the limitations nature imposes. We can transcend them, as the likes of Christy Brown prove regularly.
For us joe soaps.
But not to any respectable astro-physicist. At least try to do what you claim on your shingle, or adopt no pretentious titles for the sake of impression.
Science is Science Opus.
Nothing to do with political claptrap of any sort.
An apple falls on your head whether you are Fianna Fail of Fine Gael.
Am I realy writing this in 21st Century Ireland ??
..and is a method of examining physical phenomena, a branch of knowledge(Scio, Latin, 'to know').
It is practised by humans, people, or as the Greeks had it, the 'polis'(no not the Glaswegian with the blue light flashing).
People are political, science exists in a political world. Science becomes politicised. Look no further than the discrepancy between prioritising scientific research budgets to suit corporate rather than social and democratically decided ends, often resulting in mega-billions going to arms programs where a fraction of the same investment could provide clean water and adequate nutrition and education to the billion neglected and needing them.
Thats science driven by political(imperial/corporate/profit ) rather than objective/democratic ends. At its extreme it produces its Mengeles;but usually just the average apolitical, apathetic, indifference to outside considerations,which can lead to the usual obedient service to whatever regime pays the food and rent bills. Not unlike the pigeon pecking the food release button, because thats how its been conditioned.
Any practising scientist knows his world is hemmed in by political forces, from the local politics of the lab, back through the jockeying for recognition and publication to secure funding.
Being able to spell the word and wave it around does not make you a practitioner.
As the writer (and also scientist ) C.P.Snow correctly pointed out in 1959:
"Writers and artist operate on an altogether inferior intellectual plane to scientists.".
Thats a 'scientific' observation, no doubt.
Its definitive subjectivity indicates otherwise.
Shame about your hypothesis.
Writers operate on what they have experienced , not what they have imagined !
The Latter is for the ' arty farty ' .
There are writers and writers.Just as there are scientists and scientists. The good practitioners practise both, and recognise that science requires imagination(Einstein claimed it, imagination, to be '.. MORE important than knowledge'). The faculties are not discrete, but interact and compliment each other in a balance.
i dont know what Einstein was smokin' opus ,when he rote what he rit , but as you are an
ardent fan of oul al you must know of course that the aforementioned oul al is' hovis' , as in
brown bread . dont forget to put an x for herr kenny while your at it :-)
So I'll pass it by. Did you grow it yourself ?
My point was about false dichotomies. If you missed it look closer. Al is incidental, its about the actuality of scientific progress which requires more than a monocular reductionist squint.
Herr Kenny??
Is that herr Pat or her Edna?
There you go opus , blindin a Dublin 4'r with science, yet again .
how i , a mere product of Jameson 12 , am supposed to keep abrest of your good self
i will never know , on a' bud lighter ' note i pray you will vote for Herr Endaderoad Kenny as
he is going mad to ' get us all back to work ' , i hate those 4 letter words dont you ?
but at least he tries to move forward in an attempt to bankrupt the third world country , with an
o included , to which meehall martin will rue the bloody day he ever introduced the no smokin
ban which has left the boozers with no craic whatsover . am off out now to drink and be merry
and smoke my brains out , whats left of them , keep well .
Try coming up with a better description of gravity than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
Hitler was so insensed that a Jew should come up with such brilliance that he instructed 100 of the best Aryan writers to write the book:
"100 Authers against Einstein".
Read all about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Authors_Against_Einste...stein
The Jew Einstein replied:
"If I were wrong then only one author would have been enough".
Seeing as Darwin is the first name in the title of the thread title it is instructive to read what Darwin said about British Universities:
"You can get a first class honours degree in arts in a British university without ever having heard that the earth orbits the sun."
You can get a PhD in physics without knowing how Dante relates to Joyce. Horses and courses. Different fields of human knowledge. If we return to the original idea of university, the name implies a universal foundation in human knowledge, so ideally an overview of all fields, before specialisation.
We living people do not need dead men to think for us.
.
Any scientist knows science is a collaborative project, punctuated by individual solitary(relative)inputs.
The thoughts, discoveries, and inventions of the dead are the foundation we think as we do as a result of. Right back to the first taming of fire.
It is the dead created the language and mathemathics science builds with, through and upon.
Such arrogance is a recipe for bad science, which also exists. It is, after all, a human practise.
I was refering to " new ideas" Opus.
Science, Technologyand Mathematics do not "Read the Words of a Prophet." from "Fado-Fado".
The very opposite is true.
Agree with that.
The "prophets " Karl Marx and Nietsche were two jesters, in scientific terms.
History will not remember them kindly.
(The creater of anarchism, Bakunin, included as well.)
Science does not bother to remember any of them at all.
..is an abstraction. to refer to it as 'dead' seems more akin to poetic than scientific speculation.
Science, technology and mathematics do not 'read'. Your anthropomorphism is getting the better of your 'scientific' judgement.
"Dead seems more akin to poetic than scientific speculation."
I ran over a hedgehog yesterday Opus.
It looked dead to me.
Poet that I am.
Indicates the degree of your scientific dependability. Stick to the poesy. I'll warn Heaney.Ciao.
Nobody reads Heaney.
(Except Desmond Fennell who regards Heaney as a not -poet.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Fennell_%28Irish_w...er%29
"Whatever You Say, Say Nothing: Why Seamus Heaney Is No.1 (1991)".
I couldn't care less about either of them.
They are from the Arts world therefore boring.
the only thing scientific about scientist/pete/physicist/astronomer is his methodical approach to the destruction and derailing of every thread on this site that he posts on with pointless navel gazing guff. Ignore him opus
"His methodical approach to the destruction and derailing of every thread."
All machines are tested to destruction.
That is how you find out which space shuttle will lift off the ground.
Doesn't always work.