Your statement that OutLaw's friend is imaginary, is that a fact or an opinion? Since you have posted threads declaring the importance of this distinction.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf 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.
-
-
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf 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 don't know about the broader context, but in this exchange between Cofty and OutLaw it seems to me the insults began with the phrase "imaginary buddy", not before or after. So it's a bit rich for Cofty to pin the blame on OutLaw.
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf 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
You're always searching for progress, is that the Whig in you?
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf 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 insbf 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 insbf 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 insbf 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 insbf 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 insbf 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 insbf 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.