|
ok wait: what's with this assumption that different disciplines operate without contact with each other? you cannot seriously believe that history operates without reference to politics, philosophy, literature, visual culture, etc., or that the sciences operate without reference to philosophy, sociology, politics, etc..
you think you can define where history starts and stops? go for it: i'd be interested--certainly more interested in that than in the question of under what possible circumstances id can be taken seriously.
as for revisionist asswipes: i have had a couple in courses that i have taught--i dont really care if they are present or not in principle--fact is that their positions are so easily demolished that it is not really much fun to have them around--it's not like they bring an interesting perspective into play, really, and this because the center of such revisionist horseshit is generally racism and that the people who adhere to these indefensible positions are almost inevitably simple racist fucktards, they generally act as though their positions are not falsifiable--this because these folk treat their racism operates as an a priori, you see: a matter of faith, a cherished object the contemplation of which they enjoy--and so it gets transposed as an axiom which they will use to dismiss anything and everything that would cause their positions to the troubled. so evidence--clear, uncontroverable, unavoidable evidence that their position is not worth the breath they expend to say it--is dismissed--and the way they typically dismiss it is to avoid the evidence altogether and instead to impute some fatuous category like "jew-lover" to the source of that evidence.
the problem with the last few posts is in the making of a parallel between id/"creationism" and revisionist views of the holocaust. in the latter case, the evidentiary situation is obvious. these positions are simply false. there is no room for speculation about them. they are simply false. in the former, the question at hand is much more complicated and the arguments to be made are themselves more open-ended. because there *are* interesting questions that can emerge through debates on this--like what exactly a scientific theory is, what the relation between a macro-scale scientific theory and history is, what conceptions of causation underpin id assumptions regarding evolution (and it is here that the id/"creationist" position is so weak as to not hold up under scrutiny AT ALL...the notion of biological systems that opponents of evolutionary theory use is a simple tranposing of a superficial notion of mechanical causation onto biological systems---the complication in this is that many of the proponents of evolution do the same thing...but evolution can be understood as obvious if you adopt a complex dynamic systems model for thinking biological systems...but this same position creates all kinds of trouble for not only people who are committed to id but also for folk who adhere to any worldview rooted in a determinist ontology...)
and--again--taltos' argument above that to oppose id/"creationism" is to oppose christianity--or relgiious committments in general---is simply idiotic.
it presupposes that the fundamentalist/evangelical protestant verbal tick of referring to themselves as "christians" as if the term only applied to them was somehow true. it isnt. and because it isnt, his entire argument falls in. it requires no further discussion. it doesnt hold any water.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|