Comments on: Bats aren’t bugs

By: Tedd McHenry

Tedd McHenry — Tue, 11 May 2004 05:29:25 +0000

I think those who’ve identified American Christian creationism with Den Beste’s “P-idealism” have made a valid point, but I don’t see how it argues against Den Beste’s three-way theory. It may be true that many American Christian fundamentalists support, for example, the liberation/occupation/colonization (take your choice) of Iraq, but many are isolationists, also. The fact that Bush has strong support among creationists no more refutes Den Beste’s theory than the existence of Christopher Hitchens. I like the “bat’s aren’t bugs” angle, though.

By: Shai

Shai — Fri, 07 May 2004 18:37:19 +0000

appropriate respect for a schemata that incompetently borrows and manages to mangle aspects of the history of rationalism vs empiricism, applied ad hoc without a shred of evidence to fit his political perspective. right. his work might pass for b- in a philosophy, history, or political science course, mostly because the marker glossing over it would lazily conclude that his writing style is a good enough sign of clear and competent thinking.

By: tictoc

tictoc — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:37:11 +0000

motoko— “empiricism” and “empire” LOL! Glad to see you haven’t lost your sense of Yuma. Have you checked out some of the other weblogs commenting on SDB’s article? About a third express fawning adulation for the Great Man—an utter waste of time. About a third express some fairly substantial reservations/disagreements while managing to show appropriate respect for SDB’s effort. And then there are those who are nothing but examples of lazy, sneering condescension: also an utter waste of time.

By: Motoko Kusanagi

Motoko Kusanagi — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:44:55 +0000

Thank you, tictoc. Though I was aware it could mean “cancelation”, I didn’t know “Aufhebung” could also stand for “preservation”. I should also admit that before reading this thread I was completely unaware of the etymological kinship of “empiricism” and “empire”.

By: tictoc

tictoc — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:32:33 +0000

German is a tough language. Lance Boyle, you claim to have studied Hermann Hesse’s “Glass Bead Game”, but you can’t even give its German title correctly. It is DAS Glasperlenspiel, not DER G., since Glasperlenspiel is a neutral noun (three genders in German, remember?) Motoko Kusanagi, you claim that Aufhebung = elevation. As a matter of fact, the word Aufhebung as used by that maddeningly opaque writer Hegel means more things, among them “cancellation/annullation” and “safekeeping/preservation”. To this day, masochistic graduate students are trying to figure out how these disparate meanings might be tied together so that the whole thing makes sense. Schopenhauer called Hegel a gross charlatan, and his teachings a philosophical charade. He also said that “if you want to stultify a youngster on purpose and render him entirely incapable of all thought, then there is no more effective means than assiduous study of Hegel’s original works.” On the evidence of this weblog post and some of the fawning comments, he was right.

By: nopundit

nopundit — Fri, 07 May 2004 04:19:58 +0000

SdB wins. Hands down. nopundit

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 07 May 2004 00:48:33 +0000

“feudalistic theocracy” are pretty much nonsense phrases. Could you please be more specific?” I hope so, defined it once on Yglesias and only a few though I was completely nuts. Based on an intuition that peasant farmers in Anc Egypt, Ming China, Med Normandy, and Soviet Ukraine had more in common than different; that in spite of ideology the smart kid in the village was picked to be overseer and given special privileges, stuff like that. Heirarchical social systems; a sacrifice of social mobility in exchange for economic security; codified mutual obligations within the heirarchy; static value systems, protected from internal and external change; codified resistance to social innovation; some communitarianism even approaching communal sharing. “Feudalism” usually I guess is used to describe a particular political system at a particular time and place and I think only the upper parts of that system. And I see some analogues in the blue-collar rust- belt America of the twentieth century that are now disappearing. Japan may have it still. Does this make any sense? If ignorance is keeping away the correct word for what I have in mind, help. I hope I am not sounding DenBestian.

By: SpectreU

SpectreU — Fri, 07 May 2004 00:04:04 +0000

Gee willakers, most of you guys seem so smart with all this talk that you’ve reminded me of a phrase, I’m not sure where I read it (I only read comic books, you see), but it goes something like this: “..full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…..”

By: HP

HP — Thu, 06 May 2004 23:07:42 +0000

I once had a mother-in-law who patiently explained to me that psuedo-intellectual is the correct word to use when describing actual intellectuals. I’m reminded of that as I read this comment thread.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:46:58 +0000

Thanks, Tate et al. for explanations on argument. Bob M., please note that “Feudalistic” and “feudalistic theocracy” are pretty much nonsense phrases. Could you please be more specific? (without making any false analogies that include the words “medieval,” ‘Dark Ages’, etc.) I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, but really don’t understand the usage and what it’s supposed to imply.

By: culture wars

culture wars — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:36:40 +0000

I have to poop.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:33:55 +0000

mwb, that’s a splendid idea. Now if only it was as easy to ignore all those people who have a little more direct power and relevance over our lives than some frustrated megalomaniac nutter with a website, but who practice the same “I’m too clever, I’m too right, you just don’t get it” religion…

By: MWB

MWB — Thu, 06 May 2004 20:02:32 +0000

OK, I’m convinced. SdB has another post up explaining at great length that he’s just smarter than the rest of us and anyone who points out that he’s full of shit about any particular piece of his “argument” is just missing the point. Glad he cleared that up for us. Kind of fun how that works. Now can we go back to ignoring him?

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 06 May 2004 17:57:24 +0000

Oh, the powers of translation. Witness how this: Your side will use its nuclear weapons, the people you attack will, who cares who goes first? I don’t have any nuclear weapons. Nobody I have the phone number of does, either. But we’re going, too. written by Lance Boyle became this: According to your non-logic it is America’s fault that Europe will have to fight. in the interesting version by Joshua Scholar…

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 06 May 2004 17:53:28 +0000

larry: don’t forget to add that the much-despised United Nations was the one body the US turned to for discussing the steps up to the military attack, and after, up to and including the present. So maybe people like Joshua should keep in mind that not it’s not just European countries but also the United States that are an active member of it and of its SC. Maybe he could also keep in mind that there was no single coherent position from Europe – aka European countries – on either the war in Iraq itself – since the UK and several other nations were with the US on that – or the war on terror at large, on which collaboration with the US is rather uniform. … maybe also the fact that the war in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism are not exactly the one and same thing.