Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Falsification 101 and the Frauds of the Left

This rant was prompted after some futile attempts at dialogue with another cadre of academic opportunist-aesthetes at Skimming the site I note not only the longwinded, dull, proustian-marxist laments (which make ol Karl's prose seem witty by comparison), but also the numerous messages blocked and censored and altered. The leftist aesthetes, such as the cowards and frauds found at Long Sunday, are not so fond of anarchic libertarianism or freedom of expression as were most liberals until the 80s and 90s: finally attaining his authentic Bukharin-like soul, the Young Hegelian Clown is all about control and censorship and Authori-TAY (as Cartman said once); if he were able to detect the right State Official to snitch to, he'd attempt to find some way (probably by licking, in good lit. poodle fashion, the boots of a lesbian department chair) to put you in Gulag for informing him of the obvious; e.g. he's a worthless, sycophantic bag of irrational shit on his way to the lower levels of Tartarus.

This new type of onanistic leftist blogger, having attentively sat for years at the feet of his marxist, psychoanalytical, or feminist mistresses and masters, has been repeatedly conditioned with the idea that the bad guys were not Stalin or even Hitler (the obscure, dense writings of the one-time nazi Heidegger being a current post-mod. fave); the bad guys were really English and American scientists, Cambridge logicians (notwithstanding that someone such as Turing helped defeat the Germans), behaviorists, Enlightenment thinkers (whether religious or not) and anyone who naively thought reason, inductive or deductive, was a reliable guide to attaining truth.

The rationally-challenged clowns such as those found at Long Sunday or The Weblog or any number of other sites seem to have nothing better to do than to spew pages and pages of unverifiable, quasi-freudian drivel in hopes of demonstrating that rational writing and argument is itself an oppressive discourse. The hip leftist blogger (such as Lacanian stooges RI Pope or Adam Kotkso) is always ready with some cheap bon mot, and ready to take on politics as well as psychology and art--anything "cultural". Like older aesthetes such as Wilde or Gide, he's only nominally leftist (while avoiding any real discussion of employment issues or money or housing or other concerns of the poor); he generally whines and bitches his way to some smarmy and instantly dismissable conceptual excretion (the beats and existentialists, at least the saner ones, would have detested such opportunistic freaks as well). He relishes an attack on GOP economic policies yet knows nothing about stats or demographics or economics at all (having been taught the lie that Marx was some sort of metaphysician), and thus his feeble attempts at political journalism or economic analysis are as futile and laughable as are his examinations of the "political unconscious." Many people are now aware of this; a few years ago a physics professor, Sokal, in fact wrote a brilliant parody of post-modernist leftist jargon which many major post mod. leftists fell for.


After the frustration of trying to argue with people who both do and don't believe in reason as a means to truth (since any recognizable statement is itself a truth claim), it's really somewhat amusing to witness the harmless, though animalic attacks (sort of like a bunch of rabid shrews) by postmodernists and marxists on moderate analytical types (or those brave or foolish enough to advocate such positions), who are regarded as more obnoxious and threatening than are the right wing fundamentalists or conservatives. THe current academic marxist would seem to feel more in common with Heidegger (if not Goering)- than he would with a Jefferson or a Bobby Kennedy (Or Russell, etc. etc.)

Who are the enemies of tolerance and open debate and, as the liberals used to say, the spirit of disinterested inquiry? It is academic leftists as much as the biblethumping right. The hysteria and zealotry of the American protestant echoes the more sophisticated hysteria and zealotry of the postmodernist communist; to the naive, marxism is, as so many have noted, as much a sort of religious ideology as is methodism or catholicism; it replaces the sunday-school of the gullible American liberal arts student-types.

Popper's insistence on falsifiability and falliblism (though his programme is not without errors) would, if implemented, cure this enthusiasm on both sides.


Anonymous said...


--- ---

This is an invite to is a community blogging site that is set up like a forum. There is also an entry ladder and a custom blog ladder. You can change the site skins at the bottom of the home page.


Anonymous said...

If I didn't think there was something to Popper's critique of Freud, I'd say you were a masochist, the way you keep bashing your head against these people. But that's not a verifiable claim, so I won't.

Seriously, why don't you do something constructive with your time? There are plenty of bloggers of an Analytic stripe who write well on political/social issues regardless of political persuasion.

J said...

Humiliating Lacanians and those who fancy themselves leftists, such as most of the creeps on Long Sunday or the Weblog, is a sort of hobby. Personally I think the postmodernist invasion of philosophy and humanities is a disaster and that academics, even small-time struggling adjuncts, editors, writers etc. do not do enough to ridicule them. I am slowly realizing I should gone into biology or clinical psych.

Popper's Humean approach is generally acceptable to me though I think Sir Karl could have used some more stats classes; an eccentric neo-positivist David Stove, an Australian, wrote some great stuff pointing out the errors of Popperian falsifiability; or at least the oversights and oversimplications. selection.)

Stove's a bit conservative (supposedly he was leftist in his youth), but seems materialist and athiest; his scathingly humorous attacks on postmod, marxism, feminism, etc. are sort of Jonathan Swift-like, but much more philosophical.

But I am tiring of the blog game really and find it hard to write entertaining or witty prose on demand. On both leftist blogs like LS and the right wing ones such as Right Reason there is a very cliqueish, control freak attitude (one which I violate with pleasure); generally any one asking for say verification, falsification, boring old evidence and logic is viewed as a party pooper and then given the dreaded troll sobriquet, not that I care.

I have skimmed thru some analytical blogs, but my own view of AP is that it is now really not phil at all but logic and semantics (not a bad thing) and upper level logic discussions (Godel, set theory, etc. ) are not so easy to do extemporaneously.

Custom Search

Blog Archive