Sujet : Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary
De : martinharran (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Martin Harran)
Groupes : talk.originsDate : 02. Jun 2024, 12:29:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Message-ID : <nqlo5jp0c0mvndc8u4ge2nrcu0oomvmhog@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:23:35 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<
ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:50:40 -0700, Mark Isaak
<
specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 6/1/24 5:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[
]
I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.
That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'
>
Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.
>
There is nothing wrong with going to the source.
Absolutely! There is nothing whatsoever wrong with going to the
source, that is what I generally do myself. It is why, regarding
Joshua Canzona's six-word quote from Amy Limpitlaw, I said "I don't
put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's dissertation
where the dissertation isn't available to check." For some treason,
that annoyed Hemi - maybe your advice should be directed to him.
There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.
There is equally something wrong in deciding that people who have
professionally studied a subject for many years have simply got it
wrong and that your own interpretation of someone's writing, based on
limited study, is the correct one - especially in the case of the
obscure type of prose for which Teilhard de Chardin is well known. It
becomes hubris when you expect other people to discard the experts and
accept your opinion. That is the error that Hemi and Ron Dean both
make.