Pinker pred anđelima bolje prirode

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.