One of the many reasons to eliminate the humanities is the fact that many
acting in disciplines that do not exist slid inside a jargon analogous to S.
Wikacy 'murti bing' pills.
Consider: what or which is the science that stated that 'killing fathers' is
necessary? Quantum filed theory? Chemistry? Climate science? The damage
produced by decades of non study of anything generated the free floating world
of alternate facts, of disregarding truth, but most gravely disregarding
notions that were to be taught in humanities classes 100 level, such as that a
text is written, that it may be not void of a syntax and a semantics, that
there are reasons to be unfashionable, and so forth.
All of this is replaced by hunting for non problems in order not to perturbate
the hierarchy of academic junk that has only one limit (Marx had some idea in
that area) : its own costs.
It is sad that this will justify and back up Trumpites views of having
business schools only since economics is a fake science and real science is a
scheme to "produce" etc. elites and categories etc.
Etc.
'
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of -tor
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:21 PM
To: Lit Ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Myths and science
Dear all,
In so far as it is possible to avoid the pitfalls of _political_ science and
political _science_ we could turn to the Sophoclean world view. The debate
touches on another taboo proposed by Palma: avoid religion (at all costs). The
question is simple: is patricide morally reprehensible (the religious
perspective) or necessary (the scientific view). It is logically entailed that
the latter case excludes any moral culpability on the side of the patricider.
The point with regard to the manifesto of Sophocles is that while the Oedipus
trilogy supremely proposes the unavoidability of patricide, myths witht he same
theme had been around long before Sophocles and in places far from classical
Athens. In the end we are face with the present dilemma: regardless of whether
these myths and stage dramas suggested their content as necessary or contingent
it would in either case take the place of a _religious_ component since there
would be no world beyond the manifest in their ('naive') terms. The possibility
of a scientific moment only arises with the distillation of these myths and
dramas into universalisable (and there fore necessary) content, even if we
regard their core as positioned on the side of _nature_.
Should we then rephrase our first duality thusly: is there a _religious_
science or merely a science of _religion_?
--
Best regards,
-tor
http://torgeirfjeld.wordpress.com/
* * *
"It makes no difference to me at what point I begin, for I shall always come
back again to this. It is necessary both to say and to think that being is; for
it is possible that being is, and it is impossible that not-being is; this is
what I bid thee ponder." -- The Goddess of Parmenides
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
