I've never read it cover to cover. I struggled through Crime and Punishment though. It was in my pre-philosophy days (late 90's). I suppose I should read it.
I read the first chapter of Foucault's "Madness and Civilization" yesterday. It's an interesting read. In the video they talked about Dostoyevski's "enlightenment" struggle between religion and modernity. Foucault's book was more on the struggle between the pre-Christian and Christian period and the subsequent birth of the clinic, when "disease" became more distinct from "sin".
I suspect that we're entering another similar paradigm shift today, from a more sterile "scientific" age into something a bit more spiritually nuanced. That's my hope, anyway.
...a post-psychological, de-psychologized less cynical age where we don't automatically attribute psychologized motives on another's intentions and actions and instead grant them the "caritas" that they rightfully deserve.
...and hopefully thereby overcome some of the cynicism of our current politics and age and open up a space for spiritual interconnectedness.
example: Peter Thiel - "My feel for it would that in the 17th and 18th century it was probably more anti-dogmatic than anti- skeptical, but it was you know some of both. But if we fast forward to 2024 and you asked scientists, "where is science too dogmatic and Where people too skeptical"? There would be a whole long list of things where they'd say, "there are climate change Skeptics, there are vaccine Skeptics, there are Darwin Skeptics, there are all these people who are too skeptical, and the skepticism is undercutting science, so we're in a war of Skeptics of all sorts." And then if you asked the scientists, "where are the scientists too dogmatic?" I don't think they could tell you a single thing where science is too dogmatic. And doesn't that tell you that we have completely lost the sense of balance and that we are what has become "science" (you scare quotes around). Science is something that is more dogmatic than the Catholic church was in the 17th century.
You can't go all out skepticism. And there's a slippery slope to nihilism, and you know that doesn't work. But that's directionally where we have to course correct. And then you have to go through all these specific issues and think about it. I don't particularly think that vaccines lead to autism. If they did, I don't think our science is capable of figuring it out, because the results would get suppressed. Because it would undercut the lobby for vaccinations. And you there obviously are a lot of good vaccines. If there was some truth to it, that would undercut it, and I'm pretty sure that question isn't being investigated. There has been a dramatic increase in autism in in recent decades. We don't have particularly good explanations for it. Surely it's something we should be thinking about more. And so again, I don't think vaccines lead to autism. I do think that would be healthy if we were allowed to ask a little bit more than we are. And of course, we just went through this crazy exercise with the Covid epidemic, where we somehow cut off skepticism so prematurely. So many times. Where Not only was the skepticism healthy, but the Skeptics were right. So there were people who were skeptical of the "eating the bat from the food market" and you needed to be not to be so dogmatic about the "eating bats Theory" and it was not somehow. The eating bats theory was the politically correct Theory, which is kind of unbelievable. It's disgusting. What sort of a society is it where people are starving so much they need to eat bats? But I think the fear is, if you go down rabbit hole, maybe "vaccines cause autism" is a place you can wind up very quickly. In a place where polio is back and measles are back because, see what I mean? How do you know when you've gone too far in the skeptical Direction?
The pride of scientists leads to scientism. Science should be skeptical of itself, and have a capacity for humility, in the knowledge that there is much more 'unknown' left to discover and that we'll never have "all the answers".
No we'll never have all the answers. But we do know that there's a resurgence of smallpox, polio, and of course whooping cough. Gotta love that MAHA crowd!
Sorry FJ. I'm (hopefully) at the height of my cynicism about politics and even my fellow Americans. I've felt a wide range of emotions about why people voted as they did this time. What grieves me most is how evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump. It makes no sense to me, as a woman, as a Christian. It feels very personal.
And this week I've spent over 12 hours on the phone fighting with Blue Cross Blue shield over denied claims for my diabetic daughter. Timely, huh? I hear he has a go fund me for legal fees...
Like I said, I hope the cynicism doesn't get worse because it's unbearable.
I know what you mean about the frustration. It's becoming more universal.
The "for profit" healthcare model likely is the very reason it remains as expensive as it is. It also likely prevents medical breakthroughs that would reduce profitability.
On the bright side, my son and DiL are expecting in early Feb with our first grandchild. We're keeping our fingers crossed, as she's a diabetic as well.
Congratulations!!! That's such wonderful news! I'm so happy for them and I'm praying everything goes well for Mom and baby. That's just incredible FJ. A baby!!! 💖
Thanks! I've known about it for a while... but haven't wanted to jinx it. Childbirth (like many health related things) can be tough for women with Type 1.
11 comments:
I'm finally ready to read The Brothers Karamazov again. It feels like the perfect time to reconnect with Alyosha
I've never read it cover to cover. I struggled through Crime and Punishment though. It was in my pre-philosophy days (late 90's). I suppose I should read it.
I read the first chapter of Foucault's "Madness and Civilization" yesterday. It's an interesting read. In the video they talked about Dostoyevski's "enlightenment" struggle between religion and modernity. Foucault's book was more on the struggle between the pre-Christian and Christian period and the subsequent birth of the clinic, when "disease" became more distinct from "sin".
I suspect that we're entering another similar paradigm shift today, from a more sterile "scientific" age into something a bit more spiritually nuanced. That's my hope, anyway.
...a post-psychological, de-psychologized less cynical age where we don't automatically attribute psychologized motives on another's intentions and actions and instead grant them the "caritas" that they rightfully deserve.
...and hopefully thereby overcome some of the cynicism of our current politics and age and open up a space for spiritual interconnectedness.
...less skepticism, but not a return to dogmatism. Something more "meden agan" (none too much).
example: Peter Thiel - "My feel for it would that in the 17th and 18th century it was probably more anti-dogmatic than anti- skeptical, but it was you know some of both. But if we fast forward to 2024 and you asked scientists, "where is science too dogmatic and Where people too skeptical"? There would be a whole long list of things where they'd say, "there are climate change Skeptics, there are vaccine Skeptics, there are Darwin Skeptics, there are all these people who are too skeptical, and the skepticism is undercutting science, so we're in a war of Skeptics of all sorts." And then if you asked the scientists, "where are the scientists too dogmatic?" I don't think they could tell you a single thing where science is too dogmatic. And doesn't that tell you that we have completely lost the sense of balance and that we are what has become "science" (you scare quotes around). Science is something that is more dogmatic than the Catholic church was in the 17th century.
You can't go all out skepticism. And there's a slippery slope to nihilism, and you know that doesn't work. But that's directionally where we have to course correct. And then you have to go through all these specific issues and think about it. I don't particularly think that vaccines lead to autism. If they did, I don't think our science is capable of figuring it out, because the results would get suppressed. Because it would undercut the lobby for vaccinations. And you there obviously are a lot of good vaccines. If there was some truth to it, that would undercut it, and I'm pretty sure that question isn't being investigated. There has been a dramatic increase in autism in in recent decades. We don't have particularly good explanations for it. Surely it's something we should be thinking about more. And so again, I don't think vaccines lead to autism. I do think that would be healthy if we were allowed to ask a little bit more than we are. And of course, we just went through this crazy exercise with the Covid epidemic, where we somehow cut off skepticism so prematurely. So many times. Where Not only was the skepticism healthy, but the Skeptics were right. So there were people who were skeptical of the "eating the bat from the food market" and you needed to be not to be so dogmatic about the "eating bats Theory" and it was not somehow. The eating bats theory was the politically correct Theory, which is kind of unbelievable. It's disgusting. What sort of a society is it where people are starving so much they need to eat bats? But I think the fear is, if you go down rabbit hole, maybe "vaccines cause autism" is a place you can wind up very quickly. In a place where polio is back and measles are back because, see what I mean? How do you know when you've gone too far in the skeptical Direction?
The pride of scientists leads to scientism. Science should be skeptical of itself, and have a capacity for humility, in the knowledge that there is much more 'unknown' left to discover and that we'll never have "all the answers".
No we'll never have all the answers. But we do know that there's a resurgence of smallpox, polio, and of course whooping cough. Gotta love that MAHA crowd!
Sorry FJ. I'm (hopefully) at the height of my cynicism about politics and even my fellow Americans. I've felt a wide range of emotions about why people voted as they did this time. What grieves me most is how evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump. It makes no sense to me, as a woman, as a Christian. It feels very personal.
And this week I've spent over 12 hours on the phone fighting with Blue Cross Blue shield over denied claims for my diabetic daughter. Timely, huh?
I hear he has a go fund me for legal fees...
Like I said, I hope the cynicism doesn't get worse because it's unbearable.
I know what you mean about the frustration. It's becoming more universal.
The "for profit" healthcare model likely is the very reason it remains as expensive as it is. It also likely prevents medical breakthroughs that would reduce profitability.
On the bright side, my son and DiL are expecting in early Feb with our first grandchild. We're keeping our fingers crossed, as she's a diabetic as well.
Congratulations!!! That's such wonderful news! I'm so happy for them and I'm praying everything goes well for Mom and baby. That's just incredible FJ. A baby!!! 💖
Thanks! I've known about it for a while... but haven't wanted to jinx it. Childbirth (like many health related things) can be tough for women with Type 1.
We're stoked1
Post a Comment