[demonrail666]

He seems to have really polarised people in the UK. You might find this review interesting if you've not already read it. I'll definitely pick up the book next time I'm in Borders or something.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

He seems to have really polarised people in the UK. You might find this review interesting if you've not already read it. I'll definitely pick up the book next time I'm in Borders or something.

hmm...

Originally Posted by that review

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus?

what does it matter? isn't that question completely besides the point?

mang, interesting read anyway, though a bit lengthy for my morning.

a question for you though-- when the fuck did terry "literature does not exist" eagleton become a religious man?

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hmm...



what does it matter? isn't that question completely besides the point?

mang, interesting read anyway, though a bit lengthy for my morning.

a question for you though-- when the fuck did terry "literature does not exist" eagleton become a religious man?

Yeah, not a good breakfast read. Regarding Eagleton's religious beliefs. He's been a Catholic all of his life, something he's never seen as any kind of compromise regarding his other passion, Marxism.

And a question back to you ... where does the 'literature does not exist' thing come from?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, not a good breakfast read. Regarding Eagleton's religious beliefs. He's been a Catholic all of his life, something he's never seen as any kind of compromise regarding his other passion, Marxism.

And a question back to you ... where does the 'literature does not exist' thing come from?

catholic & marxist-- he must be jesuit. i didnt know.

like many lit students, i had to read this crap (in 2 different classes)

 

is it there, in "what is literature" that he argues oh, how do i remember this, that literature is nothing but a social construct that privileges certain texts over others through a series of institutions bla bla blah? im a bit rusty but my recollection mechanisms are still functioning.

--

ps- found link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94570/Terr...is-literature1

[demonrail666]

Yeah, but I don't think he argues that literature doesn't exist so much as that it's, as you suggest, a socially constructed by-word for 'quality writing in a certain style' - an idea he ultimately borrows from poststructuralism and which I think he's probably quite right about. He then unnecessarily 'Marxifies' the whole thing with his rather less persuasive 'privileging' (in terms of class) argument.

I never studied literature but his impact in British academia is pretty wide, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if physics students here aren't expected to wade through him at least once during their degree.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hmm...



what does it matter? isn't that question completely besides the point?

mang, interesting read anyway, though a bit lengthy for my morning.

a question for you though-- when the fuck did terry "literature does not exist" eagleton become a religious man?

I read a bit of that review, have a feeling I've read it before or something very much like it. It seemed to be filled with flaws, irrelevancies and from what I read no actual criticisms of Dawkins argument.

I read Eagleton's 'How to Read a Poem'. Overall it was pretty good but there were loads of things he said in it that were complete crap and very easy to disagree with and argue against. I think he has a lot of hidden prejudices and he seems to be part of that whole pathetic, relativist, Postmodern, 'there's no true answer but mine sounds clever' group.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

is it there, in "what is literature" that he argues oh, how do i remember this, that literature is nothing but a social construct that privileges certain texts over others through a series of institutions bla bla blah? im a bit rusty but my recollection mechanisms are still functioning.

--

"Privileges" is the key word there, with it's negative connotations of elitism. He's basically saying there are no good and bad books. I suppose that ties in with his Marxism with it's depressing levelling or society.

[demonrail666]

For all of his faults, and while he is often associated with postmodernism, he's one of its staunchest critics. As an out-and-out Marxist any argument against Eagleton is ultimately an argument against Marxism. a s such, he definitely believes there is a 'true' answer (namely a class revolution leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat). The validity of his answer is of course another matter.

Originally Posted by Lurker

"Privileges" is the key word there, with it's negative connotations of elitism. He's basically saying there are no good and bad books. I suppose that ties in with his Marxism with it's depressing levelling or society.

I think you're right in a sense, although he definitely seems to distinguish between a bourgeois (self-serving and bad) and a progressive (and therefore good) strand within, for want of a better word, 'literature'. Although ultimately I think he finds all books 'useful' in terms of the way in which they serve either to highlight or conceal class conditions - hence his 'reading against the grain' argument.

[Lurker]

Yeah, well maybe I going overboard. I've only read that one book, and it was pretty good just had some awful faults.

[pbradley]

Shit, now I'm going to look up the epistemological differences between Aquinas and the dunce.

[afterthefact]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Richard Dawkins - The GOD Delusion

I'm going to write a book called The Dawkins Delusion, all about how people will believe that aliens planted crystals to seed life in our universe BEFORE they would believe that there is a creator.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Lurker

"Privileges" is the key word there, with it's negative connotations of elitism. He's basically saying there are no good and bad books. I suppose that ties in with his Marxism with it's depressing levelling or society.

no he didnt use that word exactly-- i'm just condensing my understanding of it which might do a great disservice.

"what is literature" is the corollary of his whole book on literary theory; the book begins with "the rise of english" which is a sociological look at the appearance of "english literature" courses at university level replacing classical (greek & latin) literature-- this had to to with educating the workers and blah blah blah. which is fine, and interesting, and so forth.

what irks me is when he takes the extreme narrow conclusions of formalism (literature as an "estranged" language) and refutes the whole argument because their extrapolations ("content is irrelevant") were wrong. so he suffers from the same kind of reductionism, but from the opposite end.

basically he's saying that what we call literature does not exist for itself but is based on value judgments that stem from ideology, and we often fail to see that. he says that literature does not exist in the same way as insects do--- it exists only insofar as a certain group of people decide it's literature.

i'd argue against that bullshit. i do believe that literature exists as insects do, but that it's value judgments that determine if we look at them as "pests" or we say "whoa, look at that cool shit!" or if we cook them in a nice meal, or if we adopt them as pets.

so yes, there is value judgment, there is ideology, there is shit that one day is "trash" and another day is "sublime", but there is shit and the brain can tell but just because it's culturally modified it's not a social fiction. sort of like food-- we all eat, we cook, but it varies from culture to culture, it's influenced by social class, by ideology, etc.

so my position is actuall that literature is biological-- as is language. all cultures tell stories, all have music and poetry, all have myth and legend, and no it's not cuz we learned it from another, it's cuz our brains make them with or without outside influence.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by afterthefact

I'm going to write a book called The Dawkins Delusion, all about how people will believe that aliens planted crystals to seed life in our universe BEFORE they would believe that there is a creator.

And I'll right The Delusion Delusion: An Afterthefact Epic Poem.

It will be the capital letter D printed largely in the center of every page.

[afterthefact]

Yeah? And I'll write a blog called The Delusion of D: A Haiku.

It will read:
DDDDD
DDDDDDD
DDDDD

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by afterthefact

I'm going to write a book called The Dawkins Delusion, all about how people will believe that aliens planted crystals to seed life in our universe BEFORE they would believe that there is a creator.

Most humans are ATHIESTS about nearly eery single "god" that humans have ever worshipped, Now, if we could only get them to get rid of that final one...

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Now, if we could only get them to get rid of that final one...

...what would happen then??

[afterthefact]

But do you mean God as in someone to be worshiped, or God as simply a creator? Because to accept the first, you have to find a system of beliefs that you agree with, but for the latter, you only need to accept the possibility that someone did create us, without having to settle on any agreement on what, if any, responsibility that means for humans.

When you talk about the origin of the universe and everything in it, you always have to start with something. Whether it be a god, gas clouds, crystals, whatever, you have to start somewhere. To me, believing that the product of any cause would be greater than the cause itself doesn't make as much sense to me, while the reversal of that does.

And while I have my own religious beliefs, I can fully understand somebody not. But to believe that we were not created confounds me. Not saying that you can't or shouldn't, only that I don't understand it.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by gualbert

...what would happen then??

no more superstition running 90% of human's lives.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by afterthefact

But do you mean God as in someone to be worshiped, or God as simply a creator? Because to accept the first, you have to find a system of beliefs that you agree with, but for the latter, you only need to accept the possibility that someone did create us, without having to settle on any agreement on what, if any, responsibility that means for humans.

When you talk about the origin of the universe and everything in it, you always have to start with something. Whether it be a god, gas clouds, crystals, whatever, you have to start somewhere. To me, believing that the product of any cause would be greater than the cause itself doesn't make as much sense to me, while the reversal of that does.

And while I have my own religious beliefs, I can fully understand somebody not. But to believe that we were not created confounds me. Not saying that you can't or shouldn't, only that I don't understand it.

athiesm is not about creation. it is about the inherent fallibility of a blelief in something for which there is no evidence, and which, by virtue of no evidence, is treated as "faith" by those who seek to control others.

"sure there is no evidence of anything supernatural at all, or of a human soul, or of a creator deity, but you gotta have blind "faith!" "

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

no more superstition running 90% of human's lives.

i have to say though, superstition is a good coping mechanism in the face of adversity. without it, many of us would be "driven to despair" rathern than wait for a miracle/a change of "luck"/divine intervention/the holy goat.

the nervous system didn't create religion out of the blue-- there's a function for it and it's one of beign an escape valve for all the pressures of being mortal & knowing it.

it doesn't make it "true", but it makes it psychologically useful.

i myself believe in the tooth fairy. well no-- i do have my superstitions & propitiatory incantations though.