Posts by slimboyfat

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

To your point about context. Let me explain what I perceive to be the context.

What I see is someone who is committed to a materialist conception of the world vocally telling JWs and former JWs that they should conceive of the world in the same way. Only ignorance can lead to religious beliefs or deviation from a thoroughly materialist conception of reality.

I tend to think it's worth pointing out there are other ways of making sense of the world. And that while we can be fairly confident of many things (the shape of the earth and evolution) we should be humble enough to admit we could always be wrong.

And I think the worm eye view is a valid question. What you got against worms? How about a serious answer.

For Christians God defines truth.

For enlightenment materialists the human mind defines truth.

For postmodernists perspective defines truth.

Pragmatists ask why do we need to define truth anyway?

I prefer the latter options.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

Well it's come to something when an "imaginary" friend can list the obvious reasons for not taking the video seriously that somehow managed to pass you by.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

I think Orphan Crow has nailed it. What you seem to be objecting the use of precise language or the use of technical language outside the hard sciences.

Whether a distinction is important or pedantic really depends on the situation.

For example someone might say:
The light of the moon is shining brightly tonight.
And a physicist might respond:
Actually the moon is not a source of light, it is reflecting light emitted by the sun.

Whether that response is pedantic, helpful, playful, annoying or whatever probably depends on a complex set contextual considerations. But whatever the intent or reception, it is nevertheless a meaningful distinction that is being made.

It's similar when a theorist responds to a statement such as "only women bear children" with the observation that it depends what you mean by "woman" and it depends what you mean by "bear children". You may find these precise distinctions and technicalities annoying, pedantic or whatever. But they are meaningful distinctions nonetheless.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

Mmm he says he's read "or attempted to read" many postmodern texts. In the previous video he described using google scholar to skim texts and that he found absurd passages very "easily" this way. When he read the quotes he didn't sound like he understood what he was reading: hesitating, pausing in the wrong places, mispronouncing, stating he has no idea who Husserl is, and so on.

But maybe despite all that his rejection of postmodernism is a result of some deep consideration of the topic. People can draw their own conclusions.

To quote you again, because it's such a great quote:

Craeationists proudly display their ignorance because they think it is a virtue.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

Gad Saad is an intellectual. He is not some internet jockey poking fun at things he can't understand. He has read lots of postmodern literature and isn't afraid to point out the Emperor's dangling genitalia.

What makes you say Gad Saad has read lots of postmodern literature? He states the opposite in the first video. He says he can't vouch for the quotes personally because he found them "very quickly" and that others could investigate the context if they wish. He also says he doesn't know who Husserl is! From this information it's doubtful that he's read any postmodern literature beyond some quotes he found online that he believes makes them look silly. If his interaction with postmodernism goes any further than that then he gives no evidence of it anywhere in clip. In fact if anything he seems proud of his ignorance.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

How do you know what he's read? He couldn't even identify Husserl. I can't imagine. What's more, he seems to be proud of his ignorance. Precisely the attitude you lambast in creationists. He most clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. The only reason you can't see that is because you don't know what he's talking about either!

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

Sometimes I think my beliefs have changed a lot. But when I read this thread it actually strikes me how little my views have changed in the last decade. I wouldn't use the words "apostate narrative" now, but I wouldn't completely disavow the idea either. The rest I pretty much agree with. Didier's OP here is my favourite on this site ever. Maybe newer forum members would like to have a look at it.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/134324/nothing

52

Is shunning unscriptual?

by MrTheocratic in

international version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.

do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.

.how does one explain this scripture?.

slimboyfat

Some say the Bible is a fiddle on which any old tune can be played. Whether the Bible endorses shunning may be largely in the eye of the beholder.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90314/does-bible-interpret-itself-fiddle-you-can-play-any-tune

So in a sense it's hard to find the question "does the Bible teach shunning" very interesting or relevant.

You can find Watchtower texts that condemn shunning in clear terms. Doesn't stop them doing it. So much for texts.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

What Shall I call myself? The question of the earth being flat is a diversion Cofty uses whenever he doesn't want to discuss other important stuff. It's a shame to let him get away with it. Of course the earth is not flat. But then no view of world should be regarded as final. There are things we think about the world now which will be discarded in future. We don't know which ones. Perhaps we will discover that assigning a shape to the planet is ill conceived in some way. Don't ask me how, that's the point. We don't know what it is about our current view of the world that will be revised or why. Plus there are meaningful senses in which the world is flat. The worm eye view. Why is the worm's view worth less than human? I've not had an answer except being told it's a stupid question. Christianity was based on the view that God's view is paramount. The enlightenment was based on the view that man's view is paramount. Postmodernism suggests that no single view provides privileged access to the truth.

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

slimboyfat

The quotes given are devoid of context.

I find it curious that you lambast creationists for not reading any books about evolution before denying it. Frankly you are worse. Not only won't you read anything by Foucault or Derrida themselves, you've apparently not even read the critiques of them that you rely upon. At least creationists tend read the anti-evolution texts they advocate.

Ignorance isn't a virtue on any side.

Good for you you've found out about the Sokal's hoax. Maybe you could explain to me now what it has got to do with Foucault and Derrida? They were not writers targetted by Sokal. He criticised Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard and others.