Analytics Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Read it. It is not a serious paper http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html His critics are critics of postitivism. Read the footnotes in the wikipedia article above. No one would make a serious reply to Dawkins. He is a clown. Read the article. It's a review of a book that criticizes post modernism. The fact that Nature wanted to review the book and chose Dawkins to write the review show that Dawkins is somebody to be taken seriously, as well as the book itself. 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: In fact since Dawkins did not understand Lacan's formulas, he should have used the Idiot's Guide to Philosophy https://books.google.com/books?id=isfA6PRMne4C&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=lacan+signifier+formula&source=bl&ots=LDOHM1caZr&sig=P19duP5_Rq2ib5WQrGPHwE3uIr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUivbTp7XKAhUC12MKHXXYBDIQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=lacan%20signifier%20formula&f=false On what page of the Idiot's Guide to Philosophy are Lacan's formulas explained in detail? 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The man is a fool. Correction: the man is a fool that is regularly published by the journal Nature.
mfbukowski Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 3 hours ago, Analytics said: It's a review of a book that criticizes post modernism. The fact that Nature wanted to review the book and chose Dawkins to write the review show that Dawkins is somebody to be taken seriously, as well as the book itself. On what page of the Idiot's Guide to Philosophy are Lacan's formulas explained in detail? Correction: the man is a fool that is regularly published by the journal Nature. Page 251 I thought the link went straight to it. It does for me Google books: I got the title wrong - it is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy" 2nd edition.
mfbukowski Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) Maybe this is a better link https://books.google.com/books?id=isfA6PRMne4C&lpg=PA254&dq=lacan%20signifier%20formula&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=lacan%20signifier%20formula&f=false The whole point is that Lacan was making a symbolic joke on people like Dawkins who want everything proven mathmatically, so he made fictitious symbolic formulas. Dawkins took the bait and made fun of the math! He had no understanding of what he was even criticizing. But it doesn't really matter. Dawkins had no clue about postmodernism. He was a hard core fundamentalist literalist with science as his only bible. Edited January 19, 2016 by mfbukowski
volgadon Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: In fact since Dawkins did not understand Lacan's formulas, he should have used the Idiot's Guide to Philosophy https://books.google.com/books?id=isfA6PRMne4C&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=lacan+signifier+formula&source=bl&ots=LDOHM1caZr&sig=P19duP5_Rq2ib5WQrGPHwE3uIr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUivbTp7XKAhUC12MKHXXYBDIQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=lacan%20signifier%20formula&f=false The man is a fool. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ&feature=youtu.be 1
Analytics Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, volgadon said: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ&feature=youtu.be "The man is a fool." LOL
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, volgadon said: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ&feature=youtu.be Ah, wonderful, wonderful! I was in Paris in 1968 for a little of the fun. I made a new friend named Isabelle who was quite active in "the movement". You made me miss my Gauloises. I think they are the required drug to fully understand the French. (all before I was a member of course- that is for when my SP finds this. ) Edited January 20, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 20 hours ago, Analytics said: "The man is a fool." LOL I think it is a brilliant memory device and his understanding of symbols are right out there for all to see. The very notion is absolutely brilliant. It is high art. All you have to do to remember the details of a complex argument about signs and signifiers is remember a simple formula. That formula contains pages and pages of text when fully "reconstructed". It is a symbol that tells a story just like cathedral stained glass windows contained all the bible stories for the illiterate. But those who do not understand symbols would never appreciate it. Those people are called "fundamentalists". Just like those who think the bible says the earth was created in 6 literal days. Such folks go on the internet and hassle others for beliefs they do not hold while never understanding what they DO believe. But of course you are not like that, are you? Yes it is funny that Dawkins is a fool and yet people actually listen to him. More sad, don't you think? 2
Recommended Posts