Asymmetrical Information

Sorry I don't have a newer link, but atheists aren't thought of too favorably by many. Regardless, I'm wary of the approach this author takes; I think people should be cautious about treating 'Brightism' as if it's a religion-- the last thing, in my view, that we need is for atheism to be thought of as anything even slightly reminiscent of a religion.

It's not the beliefs (whatever they may be) of the self-labelled 'brights' that I object to. It's the automatic claiming of victim status for their newly discovered group. How immensely absurd it is, for a group to define itself only in relation to others - not based on what they believe, but instead on what others believe that they do not agree with.

I suppose, though, that the invention of this new victim class was inevitable - it appears to represent everyone in the Democratic party that didn't already get to call themselves a repressed minority. Why should just the well-known victims get in on all the action? No wonder that student in the audience when the speaker 'outed' himself as a so-called 'bright' called the experience liberating: 'brights' can finally be free of all that guilt of not being an oppressed minority, of possibly themselves being the evil white-man-oppressors. How lovely for them. And they can try to get a piece of the handout pie. Unconcerned with suddenly discovering a minority group with a really large number of members, the creators seem to instead hope that the large populations of newly self-identified downtrodden will instantly translate into political power. (And lucrative positions and speaking tours for the creators, but I'm sure that *never* crossed their mind.)

I'm in favor of this movement. For one thing, I always approve of idiots announcing themselves soon after meeting me. It saves a great deal of time. For another, I hope that this blatant grab for sympathy and loot will finally be the strawman that breaks the camel's back, waking the general public up to the insanity of the professional victims' classes. Either the 'brights' will be successful, leading others to make up their own groups and sue for goodies, bankrupting the system; or the sheer idiocy of successful white males trying to claim that they are being treated unfairly will force a long-overdue examination of a broken system.

And while choosing the label 'bright' was a very clever move - how many people are willing to deny being 'bright' in front of their peers - I'm confident enough to say "I'm not 'bright', I'm a damn genius!"

Add "identifying myself as a bright or using the term to describe somebody else" as a codicil to both my living will and blogging living will. What disgusting conceit! I prefer apathetic agnoticism (www.uctaa.org)

My own theological doctrines are similar to those of the Unitarian-Universalists. Still, I am essential a believer---and I realize that atheism can never be the position of the majority if society has any chance for survival. Adhering to a religious perspective is the inherent norm. Atheism is not only atypical, it is emotionally and psychologically impossible. Am I suggesting that I know what some people really believe more than they do themselves? Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying! The choice of the term “bright” is something of a Freudian slip. These folks merely wish to be perceived as superior to the rest of us.

I am an atheist. I am not a "bright".

I agree that Brights aren't entitled to rights based on some imagined group status. But politicians shouldn't sneer at their beliefs either, because their beliefs are true.

Instead, politicans should sneer at the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslim, Hindus because their beliefs are false, self-contradictory and generally very silly. Politicians shouldn't pander to those groups and enact laws which give religious people special rights based upon nothing but a belief in a "god" (whatever that means). They certainly don't enact laws giving special rights based upon a lack of belief.

There's a God with an elephant's head? Belief in the resurrection is prerequisite to the afterlife? God forbids blood transfusions? God doesn't like pork?

Please. Give ME a break.

“But politicians shouldn't sneer at their beliefs either, because their beliefs are true.”

Wow, all of the existential mysteries of the universe have finally been resolved! Such adamancy might be comforting, but it’s not logical defensible. The polling data overwhelmingly indicate that the vast majority of people need to believe in a God and an after life. You may, of course, argue that these people are deluded. Nonetheless, we can safely declare that the very underpinnings of a viable social order depend on this being the case.

Many of the Founding Fathers of this country shared my theological premises. These guys might not have been conservative Christians, but they still realized the necessity of belief, however vague, in a God. Our political system can tolerate atheism, but it cannot afford for it to become the dominant attitude. Nature abhors a vacuum. No society can be both God believing and atheist. When push comes to shove, the theists must be victorious.

I supply all of the major logical refutations of god(s) under the Basic Assumptions at my site. Your premise that the existence of God can be proven through polling data is not logically defensible. Nor is your contention that the very underpinnings of a viable social order depend upon people being deluded about the existence of a vaguely-defined god, a god which, according to polling data, issues contrary dictates regarding abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, gay marriage and every other debated social issue.

It really doesn't matter which side of the God v. No Gods debate is right to realize that the 'brights' are idiots. Hopefully Mr. Raving Atheist (and anyone else on the No Gods side) can realize that the "enemy of my enemy" may still be a prick.

"Your premise that the existence of God can be proven through polling data is not logically defensible."

Who ever said that "the existence of God can be proven through polling data?" Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply asserted that the evidence indicates that this is the statistical norm
throughout history. Gof many not exist, but most people still need to believe that He does.

What astonishes me is that people like Dennett — whom I'd thought was "bright" in the more usual sense — should sign on to such a stupid name. God (oh, sorry — pardon the expression!). If they had the slightest sense they'd call themselves freethinkers, as the 19th-c. atheists did. That name is also not without its hint of superiority to the benighted masses, but the sneer is less pronounced and it has a noble history. I can respect someone who acknowledges, say, Bradlaugh as a forerunner.

Instead they choose a label that, by implication, dubs the majority of mankind "Dims." One heck of a marketing campaign, this.

If "freethinker" is too down-market, I suggest "materialist." It might take a little re-branding, as it has other connotations. But so does "bright," yes?

RavingAtheist: I'd like to see a refutation of the existence of the supernatural, given the following definition:

The supernatural is that which cannot be successfully analyzed by the scientific method.

The fact that an assertion can be neither proved nor disproved does not imply that it is therefore false. If you believe that it does, then prove it.

RavingAtheist: Actually, I retract my challenge. From my perspective, your claim that you have proven the non-existence of god is self-evidently false. I must conclude that we don't share sufficient common ground to have a reasonable discussion about metaphysics, which is unfortunate.

I will make this point, however... If someone claims to have proven that the theory of special relativity is false, and a group of scientists reviews and rejects that proof, then a rational individual would accept the proof as flawed.

If philosophers have reviewed and rejected proofs that god does not exist, shouldn't rational individuals accept those proofs as flawed as well? If your proof that god does not exist is so obviously correct, then why do philosophers, who are experts in the field of metaphysics, still believe the question of god's existence to be unanswered?

The failure of the philosophy community to accept your proof should at least trouble you somewhat, even if it doesn't cause you to change your mind.

I just decided I'm a Cloudy.

I seem to be the only blogger willing to openly defend the Bright concept.

On the other hand, I also point out why it might give certain brights more than they bargained for.

RavingAtheist: I'd like to see a refutation of the existence of the supernatural, given the following definition:

The supernatural is that which cannot be successfully analyzed by the scientific method.”

That is absolutely correct. I not only take to task the shabby logic of a Raving Atheist---I also blast the mediocre work of pro-supernaturalists like Frank J. Tipler. The latter gentleman wrote a ridiculous book entitled “The Physics of Immortality” claiming that life after death could be proven via the methods of the empirical scientists.

Some schools of philosophy like the Logical Positivists merely present a dishonest and evasive argument. They contend that the very discussion of God and the after life are beneath the dignity of an educated individual. Supposedly only empirically verified facts deserve our attention. Needless to add, such a position relegates many of life’s conundrums to the wastepaper basket. The vastly overrated ludwig Wittgenstein was driven close to madness by his earlier infatuation with Logical Positivism. The remaining years of his life were virtually devoted to unscrambling his brains.

Oh, David, don't you realize that Raving Atheist is a troll? He doesn't want to talk, he wants to attack and mock and spread hatred. You are sticking your head into a blender even addressing him. When he came by my site I had to clean up all his troll-droppings and ban him. He got banned from my site for that kind of behavior, and in response, like a petulent child, he called me a racist and a godidiot, and tried sending one of his two or three fans to my site to accuse me of not supporting democracy or freedom of speech, forcing me to ban them too.

You will get nothing meaningful from him but a lot of vicious hatred. The best thing you can do is ignore him. Addressing him with serious argument just gives him what he wants: an excuse to treat you like garbage.

Do Not Feed The Energy Creature.

“You will get nothing meaningful from him but a lot of vicious hatred. “

Raving Atheist is the stereotypical village atheist. He reminds me of the irritable Madalyn Murray O’Hair. RA’s an intellectual lightweight who is psychologically and emotionally very similar to his theological opposites who persecuted the Darwinists. I have met few committed atheists. Eventually, the more level headed among them concede that they are actually agnostics---which makes far more sense logically.

I don't believe in god, but I am most certainly not a 'bright'. That guy is a nitwit with delusions of grandeur trying to find followers.
As for either proving or disproving the existence of a creator, well, we all have to wait for the same thing, death. That's when we find out. I personally hope I'm wrong about there being a god. It is certainly more comforting.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Lunacy.

Ya gotta love 21st century living.

Veeshir - Pascal's wager in the looking glass? (just joking).

To Mev:

-- The fact that an assertion can be neither proved nor disproved does not imply that it is therefore false. --

Your point is a good one. In fact, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem requires that there be true but unprovable statements in any formal system -- and formal systems are only rigidifications of informal reality.

I have two lapel buttons in my vast collection that strike me as apposite:

"Militant Agnostic: I dont have any answers, and YOU DON'T EITHER!"

"Relaxed Agnostic: I don't have any answers, and I'm not looking very hard."

I'm a religionist, but I number quite a few agnostics among my friends...all of the Relaxed variety. The other kind is just too much to take. Now, which of these species would be more likely to adopt the self-congratulatory neologism under discussion here?

"Veeshir - Pascal's wager in the looking glass? (just joking)"

Most of us opt, subconsciously or consciously, opt for Blaise Pascal’s theological wager. Also, I’m afraid that Vesshir is wrong about something: if there is no God---we will not realize this after our death!

What about self described atheists such as George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens? My distinct impression is that these thinkers simply feel uncomfortable with conventional religion and prefer to cease dwelling on the matter. They allegedly have better things to do. By the way, I strongly praised Hitchens for criticizing Mother Teresa in “The Missionary Position.” A superb argument can be made that she inadvertently caused far more harm than good. Both the ultra-religious and the ardent atheists are to be shunned. The Osama bin Ladins and Joseph Stalins have much in common. These ostensible opposites are truly blood brothers under the skin.

All systems rest on assumptions (faith).
Science demands that the systems for each possible assumption be examined for internal consistency and external validity.
Religions insist that the problem lies with the inconsistency (or the test that found the inconsistency).
Science can accept the truth and validity of multiple systems that rely on incompatible assumptions. See Geometry (flat plane, inside curved surface, outside curved surface).
Religions choose one system and discard all others that display any inconsistency with the chosen system.

It is true that the existence of all religions cannot be disproved. (See Den Beste's explanation)
Which method of learning about the universe has been the most successful?
Religion (pick your flavor) or science?
As for myself, I pick indoor plumbing over burying my feces with a stick 100 yards outside my back door.

Dean, I defend the bright concept on my blog.

David, I've heard Christopher Hitchens speak. He'll be happy to dwell on the matter of his atheism, and he's quite entertaining on the subject.

It seems to me that a number of the commenters (and Mindless Dreck him/herself) would've laid into Jonathan Swift for advocating cannibalism. It absolutely proves Dennett's point to see so many people go over the top in criticizing the brights for a tongue-in-cheek essay.

The vastly overrated ludwig Wittgenstein was driven close to madness by his earlier infatuation with Logical Positivism. The remaining years of his life were virtually devoted to unscrambling his brains.

1) Read a good biography of Wittgenstein, such as the one by Ray Monk, and you may change your mind about Wittgenstein's association with the logical positivists.

2) Good arguments have been made that oppose this historical view of "early Wittgenstein" vs. "late Wittgenstein." See T. P. Uschanov's essay:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/writings/wittgenstein/

I seem to be the only blogger willing to openly defend the Bright concept.

The religious majority are not likely to shed much support for it and neither are the devoutly atheistic—as seen clearly in the discussion above (see David Thompson vs. The Raving Atheist). "Bright" is a term left for those in the middle who are too skeptical to believe in things religious yet not militant enough to label themselves atheists.

Being "bright" seems to be little more than a convenient way of communicating a personal desire to be demarcated from aggressive atheists and time free from dogmatisms of the strictly religious. Why should they deserve criticism for this?

Delete "time" from the last paragraph.

David: "The polling data overwhelmingly indicate that the vast majority of people need to believe in a God and an after life."

When the Harris Organization called me and asked me if I needed to believe in a God and an afterlife, I said no. They hung up. Therefore, the poll is rigged. QED.

Should I ever venture into politics, I think I will call myself an agcarestic. I really don't care whether there is a God. That will surely piss everyone off.

-Brad

I've found that the only thing I need to do to be demarcated from the agressive atheists is not to go around acting like the aggressive atheists.

> the irritable Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

Heh. She spoke once at Pacific Lutheran University back when I was a student here. There was _lots_ of controversy in the local area, with the more conservative churches being bent out of shape that a moderately church-affiliated school like PLU would sponsor an address by a raving atheist.

But the only fallout I recall is this:

Someone I know personally, and several others I heard about, became Christians after hearing here speak, in a kind of reverse When Harry Met Sally diner scene: "I'll have the opposite of whatever she's having."

It would be delightful if the essay were tongue-in-cheek. I would certainly get over my own embarassment and have a good laugh.

If it is, it would seem to ridicule the entire idea of people defining themselves as "Brights". Certainly, if the language about "bright rights" is facetious, it would point the needlessness of such a group identity...

The spectre of thousands of people with belief systems similar to my own standing up and saying, like Michael Palin, " help, I'm bein' oppressed" is certainly worth a good laugh.

I will certainly concede this: I think it would be interesting if each candidate were asked whether they thought they were a better candidate for being religious.

"Who is this God person anyway?" - Oolon Colluphid

I plan on talking to the folks at the-brights.net about that FAQ. I don't believe they believe themselves oppressed, but they do ooze some of the smarminess of certain secular humanists (which, by the way, I am not) and certain defensive atheists (which, by the way, I am not).

I don't see the term as defining a rigid group identity. I don't see it as a need to define anyone as a member of the oppressed. I see it as a charming notion, and I embrace it--and for not a single one of the reasons the critics bring up.

Indeed, what I notice most is that the critics keep bringing up non-sequiturs, and refusing to respond to any of my basic arguments in favor of the term. Now why is that, do you suppose? :-)

Dean

“When the Harris Organization called me and asked me if I needed to believe in a God and an afterlife, I said no. They hung up. Therefore, the poll is rigged. QED.”

What’s the problem? I’m sorry but your brief experience is not proof of a rigged poll. You gave your answer and the telemarketer recorded it---and then went to their next call! Your major polling organizations do a superb job to act professionally and in an unbiased manner. Are you really suggesting that “brights” are in the majority? If so, may I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?

“I think it would be interesting if each candidate were asked whether they thought they were a better candidate for being religious.”

No candidate seeking national office in the United States has the slightest chance if they declare themselves to be “brights.” Most voters prefer someone who is a middle of the road believer: not too adamant---and not too secular. They perceive, rightfully or wrongly, that a belief in God is necessary to underpin a viable social order. Brights have always been the statistical minority and they are likely to remain so.

Anyone who thinks Wittgenstein was "vastly overrated" probably holds Bertrand Russell as an irredeemable failure.

If critics are two rungs down from doers, what are critics of philosophers?

"Anyone who thinks Wittgenstein was "vastly overrated" probably holds Bertrand Russell as an irredeemable failure."

Bertrand Russell was indeed one of the greatest philosophers of the previous century. What does that have to do with Ludwig Wittgenstein? The latter gentleman was considered unintelligible by Russell. How weird was Wittgenstein? He once visited Bertrand Russell and went on and on about not being able to prove that a elephant wasn’t in the room!

Please note that the Wittgenstein adorers never cease to point out some ludicrous quotes as alleged proof of his genius. Why is he so popular? My guess is that somewhere alone the line the tipping point phenomenon took over. Nobody dared dissent from the conventional wisdom if they desired a Ph.D. behind their name and tenure.

David writes: What’s the problem? I’m sorry but your brief experience is not proof of a rigged poll. You gave your answer and the telemarketer recorded it---and then went to their next call! Your major polling organizations do a superb job to act professionally and in an unbiased manner. Are you really suggesting that “brights” are in the majority? If so, may I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?

Dreck writes: The spectre of thousands of people with belief systems similar to my own standing up and saying, like Michael Palin, " help, I'm bein' oppressed" is certainly worth a good laugh.

Umm, David, your post proves Dreck's point. The people behind the so-called bright movement are laughing at us for even discussing their issue. And I wasn't suggesting anything -- just being sarcastic.

-Brad

The latter gentleman was considered unintelligible by Russell.

Russell considered Wittgenstien a genius. His diaries explicate that, at one point, Russell considered Wittgenstein the only person capable of continuing his life work. But Russell's primary concern in reference was logic, and Wittgenstein desired to go beyond this.

He later wrote that logic was only one part of language, the remaining part being the judgments we hold about the content of form (or something that effect). In many senses Wittgenstien did continue the work of Russell. That this required he invalidate some of Russell's ideas does not discredit their relationship or the work of either.

Philosophy of the 20th century was more or less obsessed with language, and in this parley over human communication Ludwig Wittgenstein played an important role. That he was likely close to clinical insanity at many points in his life or that he was exceptionally strange cannot discount the positive contributions he brought to 20th century philosophy.

"But Russell's primary concern in reference was logic, and Wittgenstein desired to go beyond this."

You actually are starting to get the idea. It is fair to say that language does indeed transcend logic Both the deconstructionists and the Logical Positivist, however, fail to deal adequately with this matter. Ludwig Wittgenstein simply got bent out of shape because he realized that language is intrinsically nebulous. The truth is that human beings are compelled to muddle along the best they can when conversing with each other. This is why there will never be a computer (like HAL in the film 2001) able to engage in a colloquial give and take conversation.

There is no such thing as a forevermore etched in stone interpretation of a word. The conventional understanding today may be reversed in the very next minute. How do human beings cope? We do this via the developed virtue of prudential judgment. It’s really as simple as that. The study of language is a Liberal Arts endeavor. God help those who think it is primarily a hard science activity. These poor slobs are doomed to become insane and mutter utter nonsense.

This thread is old so I hope this get noticed by the esteemable Mr. Dreck.

I think you're missing something important in all this 'bright' stuff, to the extent it's important at all, and hopefully this will add to the discussion.

A recent art exhibit in London consisted of a roomful of garbage that a janitor mistakenly cleaned up. If one were to look at this 'art' one can easily imagine oneself standing next to a aficionado wondering why you didn't 'get' it and the aficionado responding 'If you were as intelligent and sophisticated as me you'd understand it', to which the best response would be 'True'. Everyone recognizes the psychological reasons why some people like stuff like that.

For a different sort of people, atheism plays the same role. For say Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins, and these 'bright' people, this is screamingly obvious, they wear it on their sleeve as it were. Read anything on the topic of whether there's a God or not and it reads just like 'If you were as intelligent and lucid as me you'd believe as I do', which of course the correct response, after they state why they're atheists, would be 'true'.

I don't want to start a food fight, so I will stipulate that not all atheists are like this, as is obvious, but these 'bright' people obviously are. They're like that Stuart guy from the SNL sketches, who wakes up in the morning and tells his mirror, 'you are too smart'.

The thing about being 'persecuted' is just too ironically rich to past up. They think they are being persecuted for their public adherence to the 'truth'. Where does the Western cultural idea of the nobility of such an occurence happening to someone come from ? The Greeks or the Romans or the ancient Germans or Celts ? No. They think they're little Christs on the Cross, put there by the modern Sadducees, the Christians. How droll.

Lastly, Dawkins and/or Dennett or other materialists would laud Mr. Dreck for his realization that he is 'mindless'. They should like you very much.

We're way off topic now, but I doubt anyone else is bothering to read this thread.

There is no such thing as a forevermore etched in stone interpretation of a word. The conventional understanding today may be reversed in the very next minute.

I don't intend to be rude, but have you read any Wittgenstein and where do you draw your criticism from? Wittgenstein seem to be a popular target in philosophy, possibly because 1) most people haven't read a word and are relying on weird biographical facts, or 2) didn't understand what they read. That isn't to say justifiable criticism doesn't exist, but only that the preponderance of the criticism is unfounded.

First, strange biographical facts do not tell all of the story. The discussion referenced about the existence or non-existence of an elephant was really a discussion about the role of atomic facts in language and reality. It's not quite as "out there" as it might seem at first glance. Besides, would you like to be held accountable for everything you've ever discussed with a friend? Read Philosophical Investigations.

Second, Wittgestein's theory of meaning through use played a very important role in his theory of language. Words are symbols with which we can communicate with others, with which we can think and with which we can affect certain things. Language is the product of an evolution of symbols used in communication in society. This is the same manner in which Wittgenstein argued against solipsism by pointing out that what the solipsist intends is quite correct, bu cannot be said. Use of language in thought and communication assumes the existence of the other minds by which it was created.

You seem to be inferring that Wittgenstein would have supported something like HAL, and I have no idea where you're getting that. Wittgenstein had some sharp criticisms of science as held Popperians. His views are more congruent with those of physicists like Weinberg and Bohr. The Popperians tend to demand a scientific view of almost everything in experience, or at least as I've found in my limited contact with them. Wittgenstein's philosophy is experiential in nature and really lends itself to a beautiful view of many aspects of culture.

Alas, I feel it incumbent upon me to play the role of the small child who pointed out the nakedness of the queen. Peter Medawar perhaps said it best about guys like Teilhard De Chardin and Ludwig Wittgenstein:

“A good deal of Teilhard (de Chardin) is nonsense, but on further reflection I can see it as dotty, euphoristic kind of nonsense, very greatly preferable to solemn long-faced Germanic nonsense. There is no real harm in it. But what, I wonder, was the origin of the philosophical self-destructive belief that obscurity makes a prima-facie case for profundity? --the origin, I mean, of the comically fallacious syllogism that runs 'Profound reasoning is difficult to understand; this work is difficult to understand; therefore this work is profound.'”

I refuse to take unintelligible gibberish seriously. It is not my problem that Wittgenstein never learned how to write clearly.

“You seem to be inferring that Wittgenstein would have supported something like HAL”

I haven’t the foggiest notion whether Wittgenstein would have considered HAL a viable project. My only point is that I’m convinced that a HAL will never become a reality. Language is intrinsically nebulous and computers are premised upon absolutes. There also aren’t enough programers on this planet to keep up with the never-ending changes. Furthermore, a computer could never pick up on the use of irony and body language.

That's "Mindles (sic)", but I take your point.

I refuse to take unintelligible gibberish seriously. It is not my problem that Wittgenstein never learned how to write clearly.

Ouch. So you would fall into the second category I listed, of individuals who have read Wittgenstein but didn't understand? You did not directly answer the question about having actually read any Wittgenstein or not. There are a great number of prominent individuals in philosophy that are able to understand the writings of our Austrian friend and that he is regarded as having made some important contributions to philosophy.

Heidegger is generally regarded as being far more difficult to understand and is also a prominent philosopher of the 20th century. I have difficulty understanding a lot of what he says and I tend to generally disagree with what I do understand, but that hasn't kept me from reading commentaries and coming to respect him. I'm an agnostic but that doesn't mean I don't respect individuals like Alvin Plantinga or that I don't feel compelled to sit down and read Kierkegaard for a night. Try to be a little more open. It's possible to have pride in one's ability to appreciate things--not simply to criticize them.

I've seen Wittgenstein justifiably criticized on a variety of things and the failure of the critic to comprehend anything was not one I remember being too successful. If you're set on disliking him, try arguing that he failed to adequately address morality or something interesting like that. Don't insult yourself.

haven’t the foggiest notion whether Wittgenstein would have considered HAL a viable project. My only point is that I’m convinced that a HAL will never become a reality.

It found its way into this discussion because....?

Language is intrinsically nebulous and computers are premised upon absolutes. There also aren’t enough programers on this planet to keep up with the never-ending changes.

Saying that you're unaware of how something could be done and proving its impossibility are two entirely different things. I'm not going to try to say that it can be done, but theoretically, given the rapidly increasing ability of computers to handle complex multivariate problems I think they might be possible to approximate the infinitude of interdeterminations. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I don't think either of us are capable of proving it never will.

“Heidegger is generally regarded as being far more difficult to understand and is also a prominent philosopher of the 20th century. “

The Nazi loving Martin Heidegger was also a philosophical mediocrity. His stuff is only of value if you want a good laugh. The problem with academically driven philosophical work is that you’ve got to suck up to your liberal professors. The Ph.D. is this area of study is often nothing more than proof that the recipient is an intellectual slut. Humiliating yourself is a standard requirement. I am fed up with the defense that incomprehensible statements are somehow proof of a profound mind. That is utterly ridiculous. If one has something to say, they can do so clearly.

Even the most advanced computer today's is premised upon dealing with absolutes. A language software program is at best a matter of highlighting the probabilities. This is exactly what a spell checker does---and that’s why only those with reasonably decent spelling abilities can even use such a program.

I should add something else to my previous comments concerning Martin Heidegger. Some people wonder why so many of the academic Left favor the writings of this scum bag. One would think that a Nazi would be despised and ridiculed. What’s going one? It’s very simple: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Their common hatred of our democratic capitalist society is their common bond.

I am fed up with the defense that incomprehensible statements are somehow proof of a profound mind.

Simply because a statement is, to you (or anyone else for that matter), incomprehensible does not mean that it lacks profundity. Statements may be 1) profound and easily comprehensible, 2) profound and difficult to comprehend, 3) not profound and easy to comprehend and 4) not profound and difficult to comprehend. Straighten out your logic before you come back with this--draw a Venn diagram if it helps. And for the record, what you're attacking in the above quote was never my defense.

If one has something to say, they can do so clearly.

I doubt you'll hold to this if we move into the more theoretically concrete world of mathematics. There are a great number of profound mathematical proofs that I wager you, like most people, would find incomprehensible. If you doubt their profoundness I challenge you only to look so far as any of the various space programs, weapons programs, structural engineering projects, etc. to find an application lucidly illustrating the profundity of some abstruse theorem. Difficulty in comprehension in no way mandates an absence of depth.

Even the most advanced computer today's is premised upon dealing with absolutes.

Ahem--variables? See my last post on the theoretical ability of multivariate interactions to approximate an infinitude of interdeterminations.

Martin Heidegger [...] academic Left [...] scum bag [...] Nazi [...]

You would do well to watch your language. Heidegger said little in favor of the Nazi regime--likely less than was expected of someone in his position at that time. Even the Jewish writer George Steiner views Heidegger's association with Nazism in this light:

"Like millions of other German men and women, and a good many eminent minds outside Germany, Heidegger was caught up in the electric trance of the National Socialist promise. He saw it in the only hope for a country in the grip of economic and social disaster. The Nazism to which Heidegger adhered, more over, was, as yet, masking its essential barbarism. It was Heidegger's error and vanity, so characteristic of the academic, to believe that he could influence Nazi ideology, that he could bring his own doctrine of existential futurity to bear on the Hitlerite program, while at the same time preserving the prestige and partial autonomy of the scholarly establishment. He was fatuously mistaken. But if the photograph I have referred to is anything to go by, Heidegger was, already by November 1933, acutely uncomfortable among his Nazi colleagues. His official impliaction in the movement lasted only nine months and he quit--the point is worth reiterating--before Hitler's assumption of total power. Many eminent intellectuals did far worse."

The greatest criticism one can make of Heidegger's associations with the Nazi regime probably surrounds the silence that followed the end of the Regime. After the War, Heidegger is not known to have commented on it at all. Yet, his involvement was not significant and his silence by no means damming.

“’Even the most advanced computer today's is premised upon dealing with absolutes.’

Ahem--variables? See my last post on the theoretical ability of multivariate interactions to approximate an infinitude of interdeterminations. “

You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and you are completely embarrassing yourself. Computers do not think---and do only what they are instructed to do. Your use of jargon does not change the fact that computers are mere machines which are premised solely on absolutes.

George Steiner is either a complete fool or an outright liar in his defense of Martin Heidegger’s Nazi period. The evidence of this scum bag’s infatuation of Adolph Hitler and his evil political philosophy is overwhelming and beyond reasonable debate.

I think you might wish to consider suing your university. They obviously failed in your case. This is why folks like you must be marginalized. The credentials that you received are obviously fraudulent.

Computers do not think---and do only what they are instructed to do.

And I simply see no reason to limit our ability to instruct computers to structure and model interactions, linguistic or otherwise, at some point in the future. While currently not possible, you're not able to prove that it won't become possible at some point in the future.

The rest of your comments I'm going to choose to ignore. Intellectual food fights have not been worth much time in the past, and I'm not in the mood to give it another try.

Consider separating judgment passed on one's ideas from judgment passed on one's person. Take things a bit less seriously—it's the internet after all.

By the way, making unsubstantiated claims isn’t really acceptable. It may be acceptable if you’re simply going to mention someone’s name, or comment about the appearance of their beard; but if you’re going to call someone like George Steiner a fool/liar (pick) I’m going to demand you substantiate your claim. No offense, but he comes to the table with at least some facts and you’ve brought none. I only pick this travesty as an example because it’s last. There’s a dearth of facts accompanying your other insults as well.

“...but if you’re going to call someone like George Steiner a fool/liar (pick) I’m going to demand you substantiate your claim. No offense, but he comes to the table with at least some facts and you’ve brought none”

I am most certainly calling George Steiner “ a fool/liar.” Martin Heidegger was a Nazi loving slime ball, and the evidence is beyond dispute (you might like to do some research on Google) . Thus, I have every right to advise that you consider suing your school. You are truly embarrassing yourself on this forum. Oh well, this is your problem and not mine.

Shucks, once in a while I can play the role of nice guy. The following piece may be of some help. You can now do the rest of your own research:

“Operating with these assumptions, it is not surprising that Sluga can find significance in the fact that Heidegger's rectorship address "carefully refrained from talking explicitly of Hitler and National Socialism" (p. 171). True enough. Heidegger knew, though, precisely what he was getting into, and Sluga knows equally well what Heidegger did. Heidegger accepted an educational post in a regime that only a few weeks before had burned a mountain of books in Berlin's Opera Square. Sluga himself records the statement made by Heidegger in a class during the winter semester of 1933, a few months after he took over as rector: "Not doctrines and 'ideas' should be the rules of your existence. But the Fuhrer himself and he alone is the present and future reality and its law" (quoted on p. 144). Heidegger signed the Leipzig Proclamation in November 1933, in which a group of German academics agreed that "the National Socialist revolution is not simply the assumption of a power already present in the state by another party that has grown large enough to wield it: this revolution brings with it the total transformation of our German being. " The declaration ended with "Heil Hitler" (Ott, quoted on p. 205).[2] Long after 1933, Heidegger spoke of the "truth and inner greatness" of the Nazi experiment. When Karl Lowith suggested that Heidegger's support for National Socialism was basic to his philosophy, Lowith wrote, "Heidegger readily agreed with me" and "He also left me in no doubt about his faith in Hitler" (Ott, quoted on p. 134).”

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm13_rev_heidegger.html

Google is fine for late-night reading, but any good university teaches its students to regard an unverified source on the internet as no better than a conversation overheard on a bus. Hence journal archives and books often make for better sources.

As you continue to be unwilling to supply any facts, I'll supply some in an effort to make a last stab at getting you to see that this is at least debatable. Just because I'm too lazy to dig up journal articles, I searched at amazon.com for "heidegger biography." The first result returned was Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil by Rudiger Safranski, Ewald Osers. Let me quote from a couple of the editorials/descriptions:

"[...] Safranski sets the moral obscurity of Heidegger's Nazi involvement and tries to unravel the connections there between the philosopher's thought and life. The picture that emerges is, appropriately, darkly unfocused. [...]"

"[...] A different kind of subtlety--more psychological than philosophical--comes into play in the analysis of why Heidegger veered from his quest for truth to serve Adolf Hitler. While refusing to exculpate him for supporting an evil movement, Safranski shows how philosophical reasoning belatedly helped Heidegger distance himself from Nazism [...]"

I'm not picking and choosing things to try to make an argument. I quoted Steiner because the book was sitting on my desk, and I reference the text above because it was the first result returned at amazon. From everything that I've seen it seems there's somewhat of a cloud surrounding the details of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism.

Digging through books searching for evidence to support your argument is not something that really appeals to me. The dearth of facts surrounding your arguments seems to indicate a possible disinterest in facts in general. Besides, my position is pretty easy to defend. As I'm not arguing one way or the other, but only for the ambiguity surrounding the details of the matter, I think I've supplied enough sources to dispel arguments to the contrary.

If you're intending to shed a barrage of insults on Safranski, as you have virtually every other name in this discussion with whom you've found disagreement, please spare my stomach and just don't reply. The dogmatic insults of your arguments only worsens your position and isn't amusing in the least.

Thank you something of ostensive substance! I suppose our posts crossed in the mail, so to speak. I'll read it later this evening.

“From everything that I've seen it seems there's somewhat of a cloud surrounding the details of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. “

There is no “cloud surrounding the details of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. “ The evidence is sufficient to convict him a dozen times over in a court of law. Why does there seem to be a bit of confusion over this well established fact? That’s a very simply question to answer: the idiotic radical Left dominates much of academia! These people are liars and unable to discern truth from falsehood. You should seek out David Lehman’s “Signs of the Times: Deconstructionism and the Fall of Paul de Man.”

If you're intent on believing something, there's no end to the irrational generalizations that can be called upon to provide support. Safranski likely would have received a barrage of insults, but as I asked you not to, he was reduced to being classified as part of the "idiotic academic left."

Your generalizations, unwillingness to present facts, favor for personal insults and insistence on ignoring basic logic continue to leave me baffled at the audacity you've shown in criticizing both my University and my education. If you'll look back over the discussion, you'll see that you were forced to drop almost every position you started with--the only remaining point of debate being over Heidegger and Nazism. You won't even concede you haven't read the writings of any of the individuals you're criticizing and the relentless dogmatism of your insults is tiring.

I might have termed your ignorance of logic (recall Venn diagrams?) into a means of criticizing your educational background, but I refrained from doing so both as a matter of habit and as I consider doing so to be more than a violation of punctilio. I don't know that you even attended a university you could sue and it doesn't matter. Your ideas are sometimes flawed, but that will hopefully change. I respect you by the very fact that you're a person.

A openness to fault and a willingness to be wrong are crucial to productive engagement in debate. I've changed my views on the "Bright" subject. Why? Because there were far better arguments for other views. Am I embarrassed about it? Hardly. I'm human, I make mistakes. A willingness to be wrong has allowed me to change my views to a better position. If I seem unwilling to change here, it's only because you've failed to present better arguments.

I'm going to actually leave now, as I said I would earlier.

Comments are Closed.