Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Share
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:33 pm

Mislim da se Ragast malo šalio, a u kvotu je ispalo da sam ja to napisao. Nisam, niti to mislim, a slutim da ni Radagast ne misli ni u kom smislu osim možda u ideološkom. Svakako ne u naučnom.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:36 pm

Kvot sistem je raspad (Vaso vrati stari kvot).

Ja bas mislim da ste i ideoloski zastranili. Ali, OK, takvi ste kakvi ste, ja vas i dalje volim (samo ne ovde).


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:39 pm

former informer wrote:
Radagast wrote:
Znam da sam se pozdravio, ali moram:



Koliko vi zastraniste, bog vas mazo.

propustio si post o pinkeru kao helli 
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:46 pm

bemty wrote:


propustio si post o pinkeru kao helli 
Nisam. Napravio sam se da ga nisam video.

(Mada mi se jako dopala ideja o Dr. Helli, nevezano za ovu temu).

Mislim da su Symetu i kimu (kako god da se sad zovu, ne mogu da popamtim) reference malo previse radikalne, barem u poredjenju s mojima. 

Nisam propustio ni ono za Christinu Hoff Sommers kao "right wing blentu" (tu sam se dobro smejao i istovremeno shvatio da se ja leba necu najesti na ovoj temi). To reci za oblast (feminizam) u kojoj ima jedno 17 miliona gender studies professora koji se charitably mogu opisati jedino kao left wing blente... koje, recimo, padaju u zapenusanu histeriju oko naucnika u sarenoj kosulji.

Pogledajte se malo u ogledalo, drugovi radikali.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:59 pm

Ok


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:04 am

ne daju se isprovocitati, moj indy 

e, ali stvarno, kritika za njegovo slaganje sa nekoliko paragrafa hoff-summers zbog njene celokupne ideologije je bezveze. ne kazem da je besmisleno, ali je bezveze.


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:17 am

Ok

A bemty, pa citirao sam ti Pinkera njim samim - ako ovo nije najgrublji redukcionizam, ne znam šta jeste:


Our understanding of life has only been enriched by the discovery that living
flesh is composed of molecular clockwork rather than quivering protoplasm,
or that birds soar by exploiting the laws of physics rather than defying
them. In the same way, our understanding of ourselves and our cultures can
only be enriched by the discovery that our minds are composed of intricate
neural circuits for thinking, feeling, and learning rather than blank slates,
amorphous blobs, or inscrutable ghosts.


Kada kažem da Pinker sedi na hiljadu stolica, mislim da često na nekim tačkama vraća ono što je eksplicitno prokazao u startu, tako je i sa nekim formama redukcionizma. He pays lip service odbacivanju redukcionizma, ali onda - op, objašnjenje kulture ima smisla, samo ako se svede na nervne centre.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:22 am

bemty wrote:ne daju se isprovocitati, moj indy 

e, ali stvarno, kritika za njegovo slaganje sa nekoliko paragrafa hoff-summers zbog njene celokupne ideologije je bezveze. ne kazem da je besmisleno, ali je bezveze.

Nije bez veze, jer je od hiljadu prikaza i preglede situacije u nečemu što očigledno slabo poznaje - savremenom feminizmu, odlučio da se opredeli za najneobjektivniju, uz to duboko intelektualno nepoptenu kritiku. Uz to, ovo je samo jedan primer, on to radi stalno. Kad god piše o stvarima o kojima ne zna dovoljno, on se dohvati neke ideološke paškvile. Pazi ovo npr:


It isn’t entirely clear that Pinker knows what he means when he does this (no citations! no substantive discussion!), but he loves to denounce critical theorists; or, in his language, “critical theorists.” The scare-quotes have the purpose of letting us know that these critical theorists need-not be taken seriously, most likely because they are neither “critical,” nor “theorists.” In some circles, being able to put scare-quotes around a noun counts as an argument. Sadly these circles are most concentrated at what are, ostensibly, our best universities.
Take the following as an example, from page 642:
Reason appears to have fallen on hard times. Popular culture is plumbing new depths of dumbth [for real], and the American political discourse has become a race to the bottom.[206] We are living in an era of scientific creationism, New Age flimflam, 9/11 conspiracy theories, psychic hotlines, and resurgent religious fundamentalism.
As if the proliferation of unreason weren’t bad enough, many commentators have been mustering their powers of reason [clever! see what he did!] to argue that reason is overrated. During the honeymoon following George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2001, editorialists opined that a great president need not be intelligent, because a good heart and steadfast moral clarity are superior to the triangulations and equivocations of overeducated mandarins. After all, they said, it was the Harvard-educated best and brightest who dragged America into the quagmire of Vietnam. “Critical theorists” and postmodernists on the left, and defenders of religion on the right, agree on one thing: that the two world wars and the Holocaust were the poisoned fruit of the West’s cultivation of science and reason since the Englightenment.[207]
206 The dumbth was coined by Steven Allen.
207 Blaming the Enlightenment for the Holocaust: See Menschenfreund, 2010. Examples from the left include Zygmunt Bauman, Michel Foucault, and Theodor Adorno; examples from defenders of religion include Dinesh D’Souza in What’s so great about Christianity? and theoconservatives such as Richard John Neuhaus; see Linker, 2007.
The gloss in footnote 207 is significant. Note the causal argument Pinker claims the “critical theorists” (who merit scare-quotes) and the postmodernists (who do not) are said to be making: “Blaming the Enlightenment for the Holocaust.” The causal argument appears to be “the Enlightenment is to be blamed for the Holocaust because the Holocaust was caused by the Enlightenment.” The counter-argument, the one Pinker on the authority of Menschenfruend will make, is that, “No, fascism is irrational, therefore it is not part of the Enlightenment.” But this, of course, is not the argument–not even the one being falsely attributed to the “critical theorists” and post-modernists. If we were to make the argument in such simple terms, the “critical theorists” and postmodernists would say something like, “If not for the conditions created by the Enlightenment (or, more accurately, modernity–but what does accuracy matter?), there would not have been the Holocaust.” However, just because the necessary conditions for the Holocaust were created by modernity, this does not mean that the Holocaust was a historical necessity.
But let’s continue.
Here, again, we have substantive claims being made on the authority of secondary sources. In fairness, Pinker is just as liable not to read philosophers (Hobbes) as he is not to read these maligned “critical theorists” and postmodernists (Bauman, Foucault, Adorno–as Meat Loaf sang, “two out of three ain’t bad”) or the theocons (D’Souza). In all cases he can’t even be bothered to lift citations from his secondary sources to make seem as though he bothered to do the research. But, we are assured by Pinker, if we’ve made it 642 pages into his book, then we have such a close rapport–indeed, not only are we close to Pinker by page 642, but his bubbie is practically our bubbie!–that we should take it on his authority that he is citing authorities.
It is neither here nor there, but I’ve never heard of either Menschenfreund or Linker. Their work could be great–or not. Their arguments could be great–or not. Either way, I can’t know because Pinker can’t be bothered to even summarize the arguments.
Fortunately, at the bottom of the next page and the top of the page after that (643-4) there is a long quotation from Menschenfreund. Let’s see what Pinker has to say:
In a brilliant recent essay, the philosopher Yaki Menschenfreund reviews the theory that Enlightenment rationality is responsible for the Holocaust:

213 Rationality and the Holocaust: Menschenfreund, 2010.
Quite amazing is that Pinker has provided a direct quotation from Menschenfreund but for some unknown reason, Pinker is unable to provide the page reference. Other citations on the page have full references, but not this one? Why not? Setting this aside, what about the avenue of publication? Surely a brilliant essay of this degree of importance was published in one of the leading philosophical or theoretical journals? No, it’s not. Azure is a magazine. It might be edited, but it isn’t peer reviewed. But then, Pinker had earlier channeled the Sokal canard and called Social Text a prestigious journal (564-5). If it isn’t Science or Nature, Pinker seems to be a bit confused on scholarly publication. Admittedly, from time to time brilliant essays are published in The Atlantic or The New Yorker, but no one would ever confuse such an article with actual academic research in the humanities–except Pinker. (Sadly, the magazine is not sufficiently important enough that my library subscribes to it. If someone has access to the magazine, I’d like to see the article. Otherwise I’ll have to use ILL.)

...

It is well-known (except, perhaps, to Pinker) that Theodor Adorno does not argue that the Holocaust is rational, but that it is an irrational consequence of excessive rationality. These are very different claims. As a bureaucratic exercise (i.e., organized by the rational-legal form of authority that Pinker had just been defending as an unquestioned good), the Holocaust was conducted on excessively rational lines. That is to say, the means were completely rational. The problem is that the end–the Holocaust–was completely irrational. Thus, rationality is put into the service of irrationality and rational bureaucratic-legal authority has no innate defence against this. It’s a complicated argument, for sure, but couldn’t have Pinker assigned one of his research assistants to read the Wikipedia page on The Dialectic of Enlightenment! Apparently not.


Ovo nije Milivojević nego Antonić.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6336
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:18 am

former informer wrote:Kvot sistem je raspad (Vaso vrati stari kvot).

Ja bas mislim da ste i ideoloski zastranili. Ali, OK, takvi ste kakvi ste, ja vas i dalje volim (samo ne ovde).


Ovo o Pinkeru kao obrazovanijoj verziji dr Zoce je bila sala (ironija). Da si pratio diskusiju, uocio bi da ja nemam lose misljenje o njemu kao naucniku.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:26 am

Radagaste, imam oduvek visoko misljenje o tebi i znam da si se salio. Samo sam to uzeo kao ilustraciju dokle se doslo u sladostrasnoj dekonstrukciji Pinkera.

Kritika Pinkera tamo gde je zasluzuje je sasvim OK (i ja uvek nesto naucim iz toga), ali je ovo stalno nalazenje neokonzervativnosti u njegovom liku i delu postalo je analogno vernickom vidjanju lika Isusovog u tostu. 

Covek je liberal 1/1, mogla bi njegova slika da stoji uz taj termin u (americkim) recnicima. E sad, nije marksista, al' to niko ni ne tvrdi.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:09 am

Indy, ja stvarno ne razumem u čemu je problem.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:45 am

Nema uopste problema, mozemo da prezivimo da se ne slazemo na 1 temu. 


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:47 am

Ma, naravno. S tim što ja nikad nisam ni tvrdio da je Pinker nekon, a više sam puta naveo da je self-professed liberal. A zapravo je, ako već delimo etikete - neoliberal - sloboda tržišta je lek za sve, ali ne sloboda tržišta sama za sebe, kao kod libertarijanaca, već sloboda tržišta pod Levijatanom. Baš si mi ti skrenuo pažnju na onaj njegov biser o Snoudenu.



_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:19 pm

William Murderface wrote:Ok

A bemty, pa citirao sam ti Pinkera njim samim - ako ovo nije najgrublji redukcionizam, ne znam šta jeste:


Our understanding of life has only been enriched by the discovery that living
flesh is composed of molecular clockwork rather than quivering protoplasm,
or that birds soar by exploiting the laws of physics rather than defying
them. In the same way, our understanding of ourselves and our cultures can
only be enriched by the discovery that our minds are composed of intricate
neural circuits for thinking, feeling, and learning rather than blank slates,
amorphous blobs, or inscrutable ghosts.

Kada kažem da Pinker sedi na hiljadu stolica, mislim da često na nekim tačkama vraća ono što je eksplicitno prokazao u startu, tako je i sa nekim formama redukcionizma. He pays lip service odbacivanju redukcionizma, ali onda - op, objašnjenje kulture ima smisla, samo ako se svede na nervne centre.

ali zasto je ovo grubi redukcionizam?  to je samo ukazivanje na trivijalnu cinjenicu da su nam kapaciteti za delanje ograniceni i nekim fizickim aspektima. zasto bi, ako to nije tacno, postojala univerzalna ekspresija odredjenih emocija, ili kapacitet za emocije uopste? zasto nam je lakse da naucimo da govorimo nego da naucimo da izvodimo racunske operacije s velikim brojevima? i zasto smo uopste u stanju da naucimo da govorimo, i zasto gubimo nesto od tog kapaciteta nakon nekog uzrasta? zasto kapiramo kinetiku ali nas zaboli glava od kvantne fizike? 

on to objasnjava univerzalnom ljudskom prirodom, kojoj su neke operacije lakse od drugih. ja tu ne vidim svodjenje kulture na nervne centre, ali uopste. stavise, kao sto rekoh gore, meni se to cini trivijalno, i zato me i zbunjuje kolicina otpora koji proizvodi.

edit: odnosno otpor ima smisla iskljucivo ako se kultura i priroda posmatraju kao medjusobno suprotstavljene stvari, sto je opet nesto sto on odbacuje na pocetku, kao first rule of evolutionary psychology.


Last edited by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:24 pm

William Murderface wrote:
bemty wrote:ne daju se isprovocitati, moj indy 

e, ali stvarno, kritika za njegovo slaganje sa nekoliko paragrafa hoff-summers zbog njene celokupne ideologije je bezveze. ne kazem da je besmisleno, ali je bezveze.

Nije bez veze, jer je od hiljadu prikaza i preglede situacije u nečemu što očigledno slabo poznaje - savremenom feminizmu, odlučio da se opredeli za najneobjektivniju, uz to duboko intelektualno nepoptenu kritiku. Uz to, ovo je samo jedan primer, on to radi stalno. Kad god piše o stvarima o kojima ne zna dovoljno, on se dohvati neke ideološke paškvile. Pazi ovo npr:

pa nije besmisleno jer uocavanje njegove ideologije pomaze da se kontekstulizuju stavovi, ali bezveze je utoliko sto odmah odes dalje od konkretnih recenica kojima se on bavi i ne vratis se na njih. mislim, desava se i da suprotna strana kaze ponesto pametno. a ako nije pametno, onda je meni kao sagovorniku daleko korisnije da kazes zasto nije.
avatar

Posts : 20130
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:52 pm

ja mogu samo da kazem da o umetnosti ne zna nista. mislim tu kada zaluta u apsolutnu nadgradnju iz svoje baze vidi se koliko to moze da bude opasno. simetrija, gradjanski portret, porodicni rucak i sve se to prihvata kao izraz neke ljudske 'prirodnosti'. ako je i tako ko jebe prirodu. medjutim to kod njega nije slucaj vec to uzima kao polaziste za neke interpretacije.

pazi, za mene je ovo pitanje odnosa baze i nadgradnje odnosno ekonomskog redukcionizma u marksizmu. altiser, verovatno najveci marksista druge polovine xx veka, kaze otprilike ovako: naravno da baza odredjuje nadgradnja u nekoj krajnjoj instanci samo taj samotni cas krajnje instance nikada ne stize. 

tako je i sa telom. svi smo mi nase telo i neki zvezdani prah ali eto ta cista telesnost ili kosmicka priroda covekove materije nije nesto sto je bas svakodnevna pojava. cak je i smrt kulturalizovana.


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:01 pm

timur chevket wrote:ja mogu samo da kazem da o umetnosti ne znam nista.  
Ladno sam procitao ovo. 

I bas se obradovah takovom napadu skromnosti.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 20130
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bruno sulak on Sun Dec 07, 2014 1:09 pm

pa znam da ne znam nista. najneskromnija izjava u istoriji.


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:33 pm

timur chevket wrote:ja mogu samo da kazem da o umetnosti ne zna nista. mislim tu kada zaluta u apsolutnu nadgradnju iz svoje baze vidi se koliko to moze da bude opasno. simetrija, gradjanski portret, porodicni rucak i sve se to prihvata kao izraz neke ljudske 'prirodnosti'. ako je i tako ko jebe prirodu. medjutim to kod njega nije slucaj vec to uzima kao polaziste za neke interpretacije.

pazi, za mene je ovo pitanje odnosa baze i nadgradnje odnosno ekonomskog redukcionizma u marksizmu. altiser, verovatno najveci marksista druge polovine xx veka, kaze otprilike ovako: naravno da baza odredjuje nadgradnja u nekoj krajnjoj instanci samo taj samotni cas krajnje instance nikada ne stize. 

tako je i sa telom. svi smo mi nase telo i neki zvezdani prah ali eto ta cista telesnost ili kosmicka priroda covekove materije nije nesto sto je bas svakodnevna pojava. cak je i smrt kulturalizovana.

nemam skoro nikakvo secanje na poglavlje o estetici, verovatno zato sto sam i tad videla da je otisao u spekulacije, a spekulativni deo mi je bio najmanje zanimljiv/koristan/dobar. tako da mi nije tesko da poverujem da je to bilo traljavo. i poglavlje o politickom opredeljenju je zhasu.

inace evoluciona psihologija odbacuje cistu telesnost iz prostog razloga sto su geni produkt evolucije, a evolucija produkt prilagodjavanja na sredinu (nekad fizicku, nekad socijalnu). u evolucionoj inace mogu da se nadju odlicne rasprave o tome kako je besmisleno izvlaciti zakjucke o genetskoj osnovi licnosti ako se dobije kao podatak da geni objasnjavaju neki procenat medjuljudskih razlika. zasto? za pocetak, zato sto bi u nekoj drugacijoj sredini objasnjavali neki drugi procenat, sto znaci da sredina igra ulogu u toj dobijenoj cifri. a i kad geni ne objasnjavaju nista, to je obicno zato sto su tako strogo zacrtani da se medjuljudske razlike ni ne javljaju (tipa, gen koji odredjuje da imamo dva bubrega), tako da je samo postojanje uticaja gena na razlike medju ljudima ujedno dokaz da postoji uticaj spoljasnjih faktora, najcesce socijalnih. niko tu zamrsenost nije razradio kao evolucioni psiholozi.

(to je isto kljucan momenat koji je objasnjen u blank slate, da su istrazivanja uvek zasnovana na medjuljudskim razlikama, a ne osobinama u odnosu na neku apsolutnu meru. to je nesto sto je i meni tesko da uvek pojmim i raspetljam do kraja, a imam master iz medjuljudskih razlika zvanih licnost.)
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:10 pm

Bemty, spekulisanje je legitimno opipavanje teme, posebno kad se radi iscrpno i pritom lepo piše. Evo probaj ti, ako misliš da je lako.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:26 pm

pa legitimno je i da mi se ne svidi. tipa spekulisanje da se demokrate i republikanci razlikuju po genetskom sklopu koji ima veze s time da li su im preci ziveli na planini ili u dolini. velika je razlika izmedju tih spekulacija i recimo onih gde otvara mogucnost da nije majka kriva za svaki deciji psihicki poremecaj.


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Indy on Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:32 pm

Hm... Lijeva Rijeka, dinaridi, ideoloski ekstremizam... Ima tu nesto kod Pinkera.


_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:51 am

bemty wrote:
William Murderface wrote:Ok

A bemty, pa citirao sam ti Pinkera njim samim - ako ovo nije najgrublji redukcionizam, ne znam šta jeste:



Kada kažem da Pinker sedi na hiljadu stolica, mislim da često na nekim tačkama vraća ono što je eksplicitno prokazao u startu, tako je i sa nekim formama redukcionizma. He pays lip service odbacivanju redukcionizma, ali onda - op, objašnjenje kulture ima smisla, samo ako se svede na nervne centre.

ali zasto je ovo grubi redukcionizam?  to je samo ukazivanje na trivijalnu cinjenicu da su nam kapaciteti za delanje ograniceni i nekim fizickim aspektima. zasto bi, ako to nije tacno, postojala univerzalna ekspresija odredjenih emocija, ili kapacitet za emocije uopste? zasto nam je lakse da naucimo da govorimo nego da naucimo da izvodimo racunske operacije s velikim brojevima? i zasto smo uopste u stanju da naucimo da govorimo, i zasto gubimo nesto od tog kapaciteta nakon nekog uzrasta? zasto kapiramo kinetiku ali nas zaboli glava od kvantne fizike? 

on to objasnjava univerzalnom ljudskom prirodom, kojoj su neke operacije lakse od drugih. ja tu ne vidim svodjenje kulture na nervne centre, ali uopste. stavise, kao sto rekoh gore, meni se to cini trivijalno, i zato me i zbunjuje kolicina otpora koji proizvodi.

edit: odnosno otpor ima smisla iskljucivo ako se kultura i priroda posmatraju kao medjusobno suprotstavljene stvari, sto je opet nesto sto on odbacuje na pocetku, kao first rule of evolutionary psychology.

Primem primedbu k znanju, i odgovaram čim uhvatim malo više vremena.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 1952
Join date : 2014-11-12

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by bemty on Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:08 pm

vazi   

ionako sam ove nedelje single parent, tako da mi je diskusioni potencijal manji nego inace.


_____
Warning: may contain irony.
avatar

Posts : 45137
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by William Murderface on Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:24 pm

No psychologist has yet developed a method that can be substituted for moral reflection and reasoning, for employing our own intuitions and principles, weighing them against one another and judging as best we can. This is necessary labor for all of us. We cannot delegate it to higher authorities or replace it with handbooks. Humanly created suffering will continue to demand of us not simply new “technologies of behavior” but genuine moral understanding. We will certainly not find it in the recent books claiming the superior wisdom of psychology.


The Psychologists Take Power


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije

Re: Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Mon May 21, 2018 11:10 am