Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

On 6/1/24 5:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
 

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
>
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
[Mercy snip]
>

>
Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
>
May not be available outside the US. Didn't delve much into a critical
assessment of Teilhard's views. Eugenics was of course absent from the
discussion.

>
Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.
>

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

>
Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
>
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?
>

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.  There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.