It seems to be a classic piece of Cathedral-style suppression of crimethink. I thought that the conflict was over materialism rather than Darwinism (Nagel is himself a Darwinian), though?
I’m relying on superficial information sources on this, so I’m not very confident about it. It certainly looks to me as though his main critics are neo-Darwinists, accusing him of abandoning attachment to naturalistic explanation (you can’t really depart from materialism and remain a Darwinian in good standing).
vimothy Reply: April 3rd, 2013 at 6:02 pm
My (limited) understanding is that his critics are Darwinists, but what they are attacking him for is his questioning of the materialist-naturalist explanation of reason and mind in particular.
Thanks. BTB, really enjoying Fanged Noumena right now. That essay on Kant should be required reading — I could never appreciate the full how & why he was such a BFD before.
Oh I know. Just that my math is non-existent, and I think we can all agree that the conclusions of the Kant essay have been left in the past (as he stated).
OT, and I’m a bit late to the party, but what is Xenosystems take on the Nagel controversy?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Knee-jerk: sympathetic to the intellectual content of the Darwinian criticism, disgusted by the way it has been socially expressed.
[Reply]
vimothy Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 4:49 pm
It seems to be a classic piece of Cathedral-style suppression of crimethink. I thought that the conflict was over materialism rather than Darwinism (Nagel is himself a Darwinian), though?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I’m relying on superficial information sources on this, so I’m not very confident about it. It certainly looks to me as though his main critics are neo-Darwinists, accusing him of abandoning attachment to naturalistic explanation (you can’t really depart from materialism and remain a Darwinian in good standing).
vimothy Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 6:02 pm
My (limited) understanding is that his critics are Darwinists, but what they are attacking him for is his questioning of the materialist-naturalist explanation of reason and mind in particular.
Cop #1: “There’s no way Bernanke can escape this one!”
Action Hero: “…’Escape’ is not his plan…”
[Reply]
admin Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 5:11 pm
That’s really good. Put it into the past tense, and it’s epitaph material.
[Reply]
Thales Reply:
April 3rd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Thanks. BTB, really enjoying Fanged Noumena right now. That essay on Kant should be required reading — I could never appreciate the full how & why he was such a BFD before.
[Reply]
Mark Warburton Reply:
April 5th, 2013 at 10:48 am
I’m being densed. Which Kant essay, Thales?
Speaking of books, I just bought the Stockman Deformation book Plus the Chua book!
“Kant, Capital and the Prohibition of Incest”
[Reply]
Mark Warburton Reply:
April 7th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Yeah, strong opener to FN. Lost me in the final third though. (of the essay AND the book).
[Reply]
Thales Reply:
April 8th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Nick writes at the grad level (refreshingly so, btw), and you have to know all the referents. If you do, it’s like a tidal wave of knowledge.
[Reply]
Mark Warburton Reply:
April 8th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Oh I know. Just that my math is non-existent, and I think we can all agree that the conclusions of the Kant essay have been left in the past (as he stated).