Alphadictionary.com

Our Sponsors

Technical Translation
Website Translation Clip Art
 

Profectitious

Use this forum to suggest Good Words for Professor Beard.

Re: Profectitious

Postby call_copse » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:10 am

Philip Hudson wrote:Dawkins is a philosophical dinosaur. He rehashes hundred-year-old arguments as if he discovered them himself. While I am not a follower of modern philosophy, I know that rational thought has by-and-large gone by the way and the avant-garde is way into subjectivism. This might be seen as the rantings of a red-neck, mesquite tree pseudo-philosopher, I am what I am. But I respect everyone’s right to an opinion.


He seems pretty fresh to me and I think his accolades speak for themselves. I would hardly describe Dawkins as avant-garde though of course if that is your belief, I might struggle to reconcile that with being a dinosaur? I'm fairly certain that rational is a better label for his work - which is accessible and well reasoned - than the profectitious myths of religion, either current or now discarded. Surely any religion is the antithesis of rational, enjoy it or not?
Iain
User avatar
call_copse
Lexiterian
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:42 am
Location: Southampton

Re: Profectitious

Postby Perry Lassiter » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:51 pm

There are huge libraries of erudite religious philosophies that involve great amounts of reason. One example is Thomas Aquinas, a follow of Aristotle, who "baptized" him into the Christian faith. Blaise Pascal was a math genius who used his reason to explicate his beliefs. You may not agree with that body of literature, but imho it's very rational.

Imcidentally, it's been argued that the doctrine of creation opened the door for science by separating God from nature, unlike pantheists and polytheists.
pl
Perry Lassiter
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:41 pm
Location: RUSTON, LA

Re: Profectitious

Postby Philip Hudson » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:19 pm

I did not call Dawkins avant-garde. He is a rationalist. Avant-garde philosophy is subjectivism. I have no philosophical title except mesquite shade-tree philosopher. Accolades come from accoladers. His accolades come from his fellow dinosaurs, as one might expect - rationalists.
It is dark at night, but the Sun will come up and then we can see.
Philip Hudson
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Profectitious

Postby gailr » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:50 pm

When I want to make clear my contempt for a person or a concept, I don't reach for words like rational. :wink:
User avatar
gailr
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:40 am

Re: Profectitious

Postby call_copse » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:56 am

@Philip
Umm, his accolades come from universities all over the world, though I'm sure you must know better than the combined wisdom of twelve different universities in six different countries! We also have high recognition from diverse sources such as the Royal Society of Literature and the Daily Telegraph (a leading and extremely conservative newspaper). Perhaps your perspective here is the most subjective?

Regardless I would consider Dawkins as more scientist (he is an evolutionary biologist) than philosopher. If you do have a point, other than personal distaste - understandable given Dawkins's well-known atheism, please consider making it in a rational way so that I might understand it. If you are saying he is critical of postmodernism then that is also true.

On the subject of rigid beliefs by the way, Dawkins is very clear he adheres to none and will accept clear evidence on any issue.
Iain
User avatar
call_copse
Lexiterian
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:42 am
Location: Southampton

Re: Profectitious

Postby Philip Hudson » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:12 am

I am confused about calling someone a rationalist. Rationalism is a field of philosophy. It is not a stone to cast. So why shouldn't someone be called a rationalist? Perhaps because she/he is not a rationalist? That is a good reason to recant but not a reason to quit discussing rationalism.

It is true that Dawkins was not on my radar until he tried to disprove Christianity and other religions. He has every right to do that. But when someone says that it is child abuse to teach a child the tenets of his faith, that goes a way too far.

Dawkins may be an expert evolutionary biologist. But he gets out of his league at times. Not everyone gives him a thumbs up on his religious prejudices, even among his peers.

I am pretty much through with discussing Dawkins. For those who disagree with me, you have my respect for your person and for your thoughts.
It is dark at night, but the Sun will come up and then we can see.
Philip Hudson
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 1705
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Profectitious

Postby Slava » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:55 pm

And it seems to me we have gone far astray from the discussion of words and their meanings. Can we back away from philosophy and get back to language and linguistics? Please?
Life is like playing chess with chessmen who each have thoughts and feelings and motives of their own.
User avatar
Slava
Grand Panjandrum
 
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am
Location: Finger Lakes, NY

Previous

Return to Good Word Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests