Or: he saves his time to read ‘useful’ books. Dennett doesn’t publish on postmodern philosophy, so I think he wisely does not consider himself to be in a position to take a stance. This on its own doesn’t justify a disqualification however, until the opposing party is understood on its own terms. It is good to be wary of speaking nonsense (Kant, Hegel, Cassirer, Heidegger, and Derrida were particularly so). Empty words.Ĭomment: it always makes sense to be skeptical, and I think this is basically what Dennett’s general attitude towards postmodernist philosophers is. Postmodernists are a fraud (0:29): this is a bit of a polarizing remark, but Dennetts draws attention to the idea that postmodernist philosophers tend to not be what they should be, namely men of science and truth. So let’s make a list of statements made by Dennett and the respondent. But it seems to me that the points Dennett makes about postmodern philosophy are not necessarily connected with these (apparently) toxic remarks, and a division needs to be made. Of course Dennett should fend for himself. This guy is trying to do something (just look at the ‘pinned’ top-comment). It is because of the guy Dennett is talking to. But I do get why this video is linked with this agenda. In this sense I’m not yet completely up to date with the current political ideological landscape. Now I don’t get the alt-right (surely it would be totally bananas to morally disapprove of someone taking an active interest in social justice?). For instance, YouTube immediately connects this video with videos on ‘Social Justice Warrior Fails’ and ‘Lefties get schooled’. And so it drew my attention to a video entitled: ‘why Postmodernism is a Fraud’, featuring an interview with Dennett:Īll of this would not have been worth mentioning, were it not for the fact that this video is linked to several others which have a – I would argue – ‘toxic’ nature. So back on the topic of Dennett: I enjoy reading Dennett.
0 kommentar(er)
