Comments on: Quote note (#123)

By: Aeroguy

Aeroguy — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:57:36 +0000

Isn’t NRx itself basically an informal interdisciplinary studies program?

By: Izak

Izak — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:57:40 +0000

(also I realize I’m not the addressee of the question, but I didn’t really know where else to post this minor comment)

By: Izak

Izak — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:56:39 +0000

I thought that was the most incisive aspect of the essay — the recognition that any attempts to break down the corporatization of academia by creating interdisciplinary studies always result in totally muddled nonsense.

This basic premise, before I ever heard anyone else say it, has also led me to completely reject the central claims of books like Consilience by EO Wilson.

By: vxxc2014

vxxc2014 — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:22:27 +0000

Burn. Burn them.

It’s their turn and well deserved from standpoints of reciprocity and survival.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:39:52 +0000

Thanks. I’m not at all familiar with this stuff — it will take me a little while to get up to speed.

By: pythias returns

pythias returns — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:54:13 +0000

By: pythias returns

pythias returns — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:52:27 +0000

Its a very interesting article, as is the linked piece by Meilaender. But, Nick, I am interested to know your take on Meilaender’s urging against inter-disciplinary studies, since I thought you were very much for transgressing the boundaries of academic disciplines.

By: pythias returns

pythias returns — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:50:05 +0000

Agree. This kind of self-assured certainty is also incredibly top down: cookie cutter post-humanism or whatever you prefer to call it. There’s no room for the scientific study of social and technological trends since its all been ‘done’ and conclusions already drawn. To suit, I dare say, a very romantic view of the future.

By: Amon Khan

Amon Khan — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:43:46 +0000

@Latecomer

Is this kind of thinking standard for neoreactionaries? To me it sounds like progressivism on steroids: the future will be radically unlike the past, new men and a new order are just around the corner, resistance is futile, the Singularity is near, etc. How are these concepts any less absurd or faith-based than what the progs are offering?

By: defused

defused — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:34:33 +0000

She could take solace in the fact that the education at an ‘elite’ university wouldn’t have done her any better. Isn’t ‘A’ the most commonly awarded grade at Harvard? And who teaches the courses? Adjuncts, TAs who come from similarly poor undergrad institutions, and Professors willing to slap an A on anything so long as they can neglect reading pitiful terms papers to focus on their inconsequential research. All that can be learned at a university can be learned elsewhere for cheaper for those with the initiative. You can even learn while at the university if you use your time productively; it might mean a 3.6 instead of a 4.0, but in the real world there’s no difference.