Thanks for the refresher course in the etiology of post truth intellectual and academic decadence.
My view is that such analysis is far too late to prevent the slide towards an irreconcilable ideological schism and serious social conflict that we have not seen since the Reformation. Societies have gone to war for much less than what is in dispute here, which is an existential all or nothing collision where the stakes are so great, no one can afford to lose.
What is needed now is a militant and damning formulation that is prepared for open hostilities and has constructed an ideological assault vehicle suitable for that purpose, which is to destroy a system that has so undermined its own capacity to tell the difference between knowing fantasy and unknowing delusion, it is become asylum grade, unhinged from reality and a destroyer of worlds.
No pasaran Woke! They don't need critical rebuttal, as if the rational architecture of discourse were still intact. They need padded cells and regular dosing with fentanyl
I dont need a bunch of over educated numb nuts who are perverts telling me what should be obvious to all sensible people you are all born to be either male or female there have always been queers of both genders and there is piss all you can do to change that and remain healthy.
This is excellent. My remaining hope is that reality always reasserts itself and sex and biology are irrefutable in the long run. We are a dimorphic species and sexually reproducing. This will never change. Its like the laws of physics, ideologues try to fool mother nature all the time, but it never works.
According to Wilson: “we are a biological species arising from Earth’s biosphere as one adapted species among many; and however splendid our languages and cultures, however rich and subtle our minds, however vast our creative powers, the mental process is the product of a brain shaped by the hammer of natural selection upon the anvil of nature.”
That's a lovely bit of poetically evocative language, but what follows? A rebuttal of Butler? Certainly not. Nothing whatsoever follows in terms of logical constraints upon language and ideas and the nature of language (and that's what is crucially in question here). Supposing Wilson's claim is true (or even meaningful), it suggests, if anything, that language and culture are indeed socially constructed and constructible ad in(de)finitum, i.e., that there are no logical limits to what we can do and be, there are only brute facts about what survives and what does not -- and this is the case whether we're talking about organisms themselves, or about their variations, organic or socio(bio)logical, including human projects in social construction, such as Butler's and that of 'the educational establishment.'
"However, in voicing an opposition to gender theory, one is now taking on the official ideology of the educational establishment: common sense is not enough, one needs to be able to cite chapter and verse of an established intellectual authority such as Wilson. It isn’t enough to say i.e. “Jordan Peterson says so” because, as compelling as Peterson’s discussions drawn from sociobiology are, he tends not to cite or name his sources: one must know where the arguments are published and articulated and be able to repeat this information in order to take on the establishment."
Well maybe, but if this were really true then the social constructionists would be right. The only way to win an argument, i.e., to establish any point of view, is by appeal to its socially constructed authoritative status. If Peterson is dismissible, then why not Wilson? Why should Wilson's chapter and verse be regarded as authoritative? Because it has socially constructed authority? But obviously, in the eyes of the 'educational establishment,' so does Butler. And so do they. And why should they listen if you tell them that the authority of Wilson should trump that of Butler?
David: I wouldn't personally use the word dismissible in association with Jordan Peterson, nor would I demean the man in any which way. What I said above is that, since his youtube discussions don't provide sources or citations, one can't really cite them and be intellectually convincing. And I would also resist framing the intellectual game in the manner which you have just done, that is, in the manner of the far left theorists, the social constructionists. For me, and for intellectuals like me, the philosopher remains the lover of truth and seeker after truth, and the academy will remain that institution which is dedicated to the cultivation and dissemination of truth - Wilson is authoritative in my eyes because of his capacity as a scientist to isolate and to demonstrate simple truths about life. It doesn't matter how many people think the same thing about Wilson and pass on that perception socially, his authority is not a social construction because his work reads like that of a truth seeker, and it doesn't matter how many people pass on the perception that Butler is such a "philosopher" (which is her professional title), her work reads like a ploy, a preposterous masquerade and a concealing of truth. The way to win an argument is by appeal to truth, and those with ears to listen will hear. No one, read no one, can socially construct truth - they can only befuddle the weak minded.
Let me suggest that citing authorities in order to be 'intellectually' convincing -- all the while ignoring the profoundly ambivalent nature of the authorities you are citing (in this case E. O. Wilson) in respect of the issue in question! -- whether you recognize it as such or not, just is an exercise in the 'social construction of truth' (or what Aristotle referred to as rhetoric) -- which is, btw, an indispensable element of any kind of fruitful engagement in the political order. And it is that -- a rhetorical exercise, an exercise in persuasion, an exercise in the 'social construction of truth' (in the non-pejorative sense) -- quite regardless of your dismissive position on more radical generalizations of the notion of social constructionism, as we see in perhaps preposterous philosophical posers like Butler. But in your response here, you're of course just flatly begging the question against those who take Butler seriously as a philosopher, and also just ignoring my point (see my other comment) that Wilson (and in general, evolutionary sociobiology) in fact has nothing to offer in regard to resolving fundamental questions about the nature of language, society, power, meaning, truth, etc. as thematized by Butler.
David --- You could tie yourself in knots and suggest that sociobiology has quote "nothing to offer," by all means go ahead and do so. I'm embarrassed for you.
I don't need to tie myself in knots, nor do I have the least inclination to do so. I've pointed out something that I take to be quite obvious, so far as the examples you've provided are indicative. If you do honestly believe there is something vitally, decisively relevant to be found in sociobiology, by all means give me an example of what you have in mind. If all you have to offer is substanceless bluster, well I'm embarrassed for you! So show me the money! Surely there's no need for both of us to continue in mutual embarrassment? In the meantime, to my relatively well-trained eye, your 'argument' here "reads like a ploy, a preposterous masquerade and a concealing of truth." (Isn't that ironic?)
Big mouth McPike, such a keyboard warrior aren't you big mouth McPike. I won't be performing any writing activities at your behest. Let the readers decide who they find more compelling.
Thanks for the refresher course in the etiology of post truth intellectual and academic decadence.
My view is that such analysis is far too late to prevent the slide towards an irreconcilable ideological schism and serious social conflict that we have not seen since the Reformation. Societies have gone to war for much less than what is in dispute here, which is an existential all or nothing collision where the stakes are so great, no one can afford to lose.
What is needed now is a militant and damning formulation that is prepared for open hostilities and has constructed an ideological assault vehicle suitable for that purpose, which is to destroy a system that has so undermined its own capacity to tell the difference between knowing fantasy and unknowing delusion, it is become asylum grade, unhinged from reality and a destroyer of worlds.
No pasaran Woke! They don't need critical rebuttal, as if the rational architecture of discourse were still intact. They need padded cells and regular dosing with fentanyl
Very well stated.
There is clearly an ideological schism forming, and its very serious.
I think it is time to listen to the advice of Mother Nature:
"You can change your cloths and powder your nose, but in the end your maker knows.
A man can't be a woman, and a woman can't be a man, pretend all you want but,
" you am', what you am'." Author Unknown
I dont need a bunch of over educated numb nuts who are perverts telling me what should be obvious to all sensible people you are all born to be either male or female there have always been queers of both genders and there is piss all you can do to change that and remain healthy.
This is excellent. My remaining hope is that reality always reasserts itself and sex and biology are irrefutable in the long run. We are a dimorphic species and sexually reproducing. This will never change. Its like the laws of physics, ideologues try to fool mother nature all the time, but it never works.
According to Wilson: “we are a biological species arising from Earth’s biosphere as one adapted species among many; and however splendid our languages and cultures, however rich and subtle our minds, however vast our creative powers, the mental process is the product of a brain shaped by the hammer of natural selection upon the anvil of nature.”
That's a lovely bit of poetically evocative language, but what follows? A rebuttal of Butler? Certainly not. Nothing whatsoever follows in terms of logical constraints upon language and ideas and the nature of language (and that's what is crucially in question here). Supposing Wilson's claim is true (or even meaningful), it suggests, if anything, that language and culture are indeed socially constructed and constructible ad in(de)finitum, i.e., that there are no logical limits to what we can do and be, there are only brute facts about what survives and what does not -- and this is the case whether we're talking about organisms themselves, or about their variations, organic or socio(bio)logical, including human projects in social construction, such as Butler's and that of 'the educational establishment.'
"However, in voicing an opposition to gender theory, one is now taking on the official ideology of the educational establishment: common sense is not enough, one needs to be able to cite chapter and verse of an established intellectual authority such as Wilson. It isn’t enough to say i.e. “Jordan Peterson says so” because, as compelling as Peterson’s discussions drawn from sociobiology are, he tends not to cite or name his sources: one must know where the arguments are published and articulated and be able to repeat this information in order to take on the establishment."
Well maybe, but if this were really true then the social constructionists would be right. The only way to win an argument, i.e., to establish any point of view, is by appeal to its socially constructed authoritative status. If Peterson is dismissible, then why not Wilson? Why should Wilson's chapter and verse be regarded as authoritative? Because it has socially constructed authority? But obviously, in the eyes of the 'educational establishment,' so does Butler. And so do they. And why should they listen if you tell them that the authority of Wilson should trump that of Butler?
David: I wouldn't personally use the word dismissible in association with Jordan Peterson, nor would I demean the man in any which way. What I said above is that, since his youtube discussions don't provide sources or citations, one can't really cite them and be intellectually convincing. And I would also resist framing the intellectual game in the manner which you have just done, that is, in the manner of the far left theorists, the social constructionists. For me, and for intellectuals like me, the philosopher remains the lover of truth and seeker after truth, and the academy will remain that institution which is dedicated to the cultivation and dissemination of truth - Wilson is authoritative in my eyes because of his capacity as a scientist to isolate and to demonstrate simple truths about life. It doesn't matter how many people think the same thing about Wilson and pass on that perception socially, his authority is not a social construction because his work reads like that of a truth seeker, and it doesn't matter how many people pass on the perception that Butler is such a "philosopher" (which is her professional title), her work reads like a ploy, a preposterous masquerade and a concealing of truth. The way to win an argument is by appeal to truth, and those with ears to listen will hear. No one, read no one, can socially construct truth - they can only befuddle the weak minded.
Let me suggest that citing authorities in order to be 'intellectually' convincing -- all the while ignoring the profoundly ambivalent nature of the authorities you are citing (in this case E. O. Wilson) in respect of the issue in question! -- whether you recognize it as such or not, just is an exercise in the 'social construction of truth' (or what Aristotle referred to as rhetoric) -- which is, btw, an indispensable element of any kind of fruitful engagement in the political order. And it is that -- a rhetorical exercise, an exercise in persuasion, an exercise in the 'social construction of truth' (in the non-pejorative sense) -- quite regardless of your dismissive position on more radical generalizations of the notion of social constructionism, as we see in perhaps preposterous philosophical posers like Butler. But in your response here, you're of course just flatly begging the question against those who take Butler seriously as a philosopher, and also just ignoring my point (see my other comment) that Wilson (and in general, evolutionary sociobiology) in fact has nothing to offer in regard to resolving fundamental questions about the nature of language, society, power, meaning, truth, etc. as thematized by Butler.
David --- You could tie yourself in knots and suggest that sociobiology has quote "nothing to offer," by all means go ahead and do so. I'm embarrassed for you.
I don't need to tie myself in knots, nor do I have the least inclination to do so. I've pointed out something that I take to be quite obvious, so far as the examples you've provided are indicative. If you do honestly believe there is something vitally, decisively relevant to be found in sociobiology, by all means give me an example of what you have in mind. If all you have to offer is substanceless bluster, well I'm embarrassed for you! So show me the money! Surely there's no need for both of us to continue in mutual embarrassment? In the meantime, to my relatively well-trained eye, your 'argument' here "reads like a ploy, a preposterous masquerade and a concealing of truth." (Isn't that ironic?)
Big mouth McPike, such a keyboard warrior aren't you big mouth McPike. I won't be performing any writing activities at your behest. Let the readers decide who they find more compelling.