Martin Harran <
martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
to that.
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
it.
Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
I wonder what is the physiology of nations and races
as would I suppose
my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the
topics at hand.
Which was my query about what the physiology of nations and races might
mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where Im
seancing with Nyikos since youre fixated on comparing me to him.
I guess you would rather stonewall on this the physiology of nations and
races point too.
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of
sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
==============================
[You asked:]
First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's?
Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?
[I answered:]
When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an
objectionable form of "credentialism".
“John P. Slattery is the Director of the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for
Ethics in Science, Technology, and Law at Duquesne University. From
2018-2022, he served as a Senior Program Officer with the Dialogue on
Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC. An ethicist,
theologian, and historian of science, Slattery works at the intersection of
technology, science, religion, and racism. He is the author of the 2019
Faith and Science at Notre Dame, the editor of the 2020 Christian Theology
and the Modern Sciences, and a contributing author to the open access 2023
book, Encountering Artificial Intelligence. His essays have appeared online
in Commonweal Magazine, America, Science, Religion Dispatches, Daily
Theology, and other outlets. The tiles below represent a selection of his
recent writings and lectures.”
https://johnslattery.com“Slattery earned a B.S. in computer science from Georgetown University, a
master’s degree in theology from Saint Paul School of Theology, and an
interdisciplinary PhD in the history and philosophy of science and
systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame.”
https://www.duq.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-slattery.phpNotre Dame? Never heard of it. Guess you’re right then. He’s on the level
of Ron Dean?
==============================
[You asked:]
And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.
[I answered:]
When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:
<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]
Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on
a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at
its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?
[1]
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
</unquote>
I think at this point it’s significant if you acknowledge Teilhard was
contemplating eugenics. There were positive and negative versions and a
spectrum of views per application. But I have yet to see that explicit
acknowledgment from you.
Now about that “physiology of nations and races”…
And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here’s a critique of
Slattery by Joshua Canzona:
“Having recently completed a dissertation on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I
read John Slattery’s RD article on Teilhard’s “legacy of eugenics and
racism” with interest. I agree with some of the motivation for his essay
and in a recent paper I called for more work to be done “on the subject of
elitist, ethnocentric, imperialist, and racist elements in Teilhard’s
thought.” Slattery provides a service by casting light on some of the most
troubling passages in the Teilhardian corpus, but I strongly disagree with
his method and conclusions.”
He points out some errors made by Slattery.
He also, though taking some wind out of Slattery’s sails, adds “there is
indeed prior scholarship on some of the issues raised by Slattery. In her
excellent dissertation, “The Kingdom of God as a Unity of Persons,” Amy
Limpitlaw argues that Teilhard “openly espouses a kind of racism” and
provides an extended analysis.”
He also wonders: “From thousands of pages of Teilhard’s manuscripts,
Slattery has picked out eight troubling passages. While there are certainly
others he could have chosen, we’re still looking at only the tiniest
portion of Teilhard’s work. If eugenics and racism were as central as
Slattery would have us believe, why do they so rarely come up?”
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/teilhards-legacy-cant-be-reduced-to-racism-a-response-to-john-slattery/Eugenics at least comes up in *The Phenomenon of Man* which is Teilhard’s
best known book. In the context of technofuturism Teilhard may be
foreshadowing transhumanism and the allure of augmentation.
Joshua Canzona is a recent PhD though and not of Haught’s eminent stature.
Indeed we should “take into account their qualifications relevant to the
subject upon which they are pronouncing”, but since he is arguing against
Slattery…
And Slattery the PhD from an unknown school called Notre Dame responds:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/author-responds-to-criticism-of-teilhard-eugenics-essay/
Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary
Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary
