One problem I have with the otherwise laudable mission of this site is the tendency to reduce ideas to soundbites and sloganeering, which does not advance the cause of rationalism. A sensationalist, propagandistic approach to \”fashionable nonsense\” only feeds into the dominant cultural vulgarity.
Baber\’s article points to some real problems, but it is not convincing as an explanation of the phenomenon. The self-indulgent qualities which he says emerged in the late \’60s were and are as much a part of the mainstream as they are of any subculture, counterculture, or political movement. Also, it seems to me that the breakdown in rationality became much more rooted in the \’70s, when rational solutions to social problems became chimerical with economic and political decline. Also, the fragmentation that accompanied the solidification of identity politics diluted the rationalism and universalism that the left–marxism–had once valued. While there were irrationalist currents in feminism and black nationalism, for example, it is not clear that they were dominant tendencies. But with the academicization of both movements combined with the receding of mass movements, the foregrounding of certain intellectual currents resulted, which, combined with a decline in popular rationality, have handed us the ideological situation we face today.
Herbalism is not the same as homeopathy, acupuncture, crystals etc in that its basic idea is not unscientific.
Herbal treatments are just the application of (sets of) chemicals in the same way as conventional medecine uses pharmaceutical drugs (including some derived from herbal treatments).
Which is not to say that some proponents do not do their best to shroud it in mumbo-jumbo. And the future should see herbalism dying out, as any herbs which are found to be useful after scientific testing will be investigated to find the useful ingredients, which can then be mass-produced by the pharma industry. As happened with aspirin for example.
Now why don\’t I think that is what herbalists want?
Ah, so condemning Russian atrocities against Chechens is not relevant when discussing the morality and politics of Chechen atrocities against Russia?
You wrote of some pro-Chechens having a \”Hollywood\” view of the conflict, so why might I not think you had simply the same sort of thinking with roles reversed?
As regards \”separatism\”, you claim that Latvia and Chechnya are not the same thing. Why not? Are you not aware that Latvians were in the SS committing horrible crimes against Russians?
Bottom line: what the Russians have done to the Chechens over the last 250 years dwarfs anything done by the Chechens. The Russians had no moral right to conquer the Chechens and have no moral right to rule Chechnya. Why does your morality not include this? I still do not know if you are appalled by Russian atrocities.
Desmond does it again. I quote: \”because our ancestors successfully killed off all our close relatives\”. Despite the reality that there is no evidence for such happenings, the relative insignificance of humanoid populations on a large planet and the small likelyhood that they would even cross paths much less exterminate each other, the macho anthropologists (or whatever Desmond is) continue with unfounded assertions as helpful as the \”great chain of being\”.
Wow. That was a really great article. Most impressive, yup. Plus it also helpt me with my world history report.
I think your article is slanderous to me and my Greek brothers.
Baber\’s \”The Sleep of Reason\”:
One problem I have with the otherwise laudable mission of this site is the tendency to reduce ideas to soundbites and sloganeering, which does not advance the cause of rationalism. A sensationalist, propagandistic approach to \”fashionable nonsense\” only feeds into the dominant cultural vulgarity.
Baber\’s article points to some real problems, but it is not convincing as an explanation of the phenomenon. The self-indulgent qualities which he says emerged in the late \’60s were and are as much a part of the mainstream as they are of any subculture, counterculture, or political movement. Also, it seems to me that the breakdown in rationality became much more rooted in the \’70s, when rational solutions to social problems became chimerical with economic and political decline. Also, the fragmentation that accompanied the solidification of identity politics diluted the rationalism and universalism that the left–marxism–had once valued. While there were irrationalist currents in feminism and black nationalism, for example, it is not clear that they were dominant tendencies. But with the academicization of both movements combined with the receding of mass movements, the foregrounding of certain intellectual currents resulted, which, combined with a decline in popular rationality, have handed us the ideological situation we face today.
Regarding herbalism in the NHS:
Herbalism is not the same as homeopathy, acupuncture, crystals etc in that its basic idea is not unscientific.
Herbal treatments are just the application of (sets of) chemicals in the same way as conventional medecine uses pharmaceutical drugs (including some derived from herbal treatments).
Which is not to say that some proponents do not do their best to shroud it in mumbo-jumbo. And the future should see herbalism dying out, as any herbs which are found to be useful after scientific testing will be investigated to find the useful ingredients, which can then be mass-produced by the pharma industry. As happened with aspirin for example.
Now why don\’t I think that is what herbalists want?
JoB:
Ah, so condemning Russian atrocities against Chechens is not relevant when discussing the morality and politics of Chechen atrocities against Russia?
You wrote of some pro-Chechens having a \”Hollywood\” view of the conflict, so why might I not think you had simply the same sort of thinking with roles reversed?
As regards \”separatism\”, you claim that Latvia and Chechnya are not the same thing. Why not? Are you not aware that Latvians were in the SS committing horrible crimes against Russians?
Bottom line: what the Russians have done to the Chechens over the last 250 years dwarfs anything done by the Chechens. The Russians had no moral right to conquer the Chechens and have no moral right to rule Chechnya. Why does your morality not include this? I still do not know if you are appalled by Russian atrocities.
Desmond does it again. I quote: \”because our ancestors successfully killed off all our close relatives\”. Despite the reality that there is no evidence for such happenings, the relative insignificance of humanoid populations on a large planet and the small likelyhood that they would even cross paths much less exterminate each other, the macho anthropologists (or whatever Desmond is) continue with unfounded assertions as helpful as the \”great chain of being\”.
Who gives these pseudo scientists a pulpit?