[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[gav]

has dawkins changed his tune since the selfish gene
and blind watchmaker?

he seemed pretty standard SOM to me back when i read
them: he reifies the O in the SOM, a classic false
monist position (ie the subject is imaginary; the
object real, hence monism, but really a lopsided
dualism).

his genetic reductionism is naive, it seems to me
anyway. we are just vessels for competing genes....?
come on. does this mean that genes are de facto
subjects?

i found dawkins poor. he even made me swear in a
philosophy class: i interrupted the lecturer, who was
paraphrasing dawkins position, saying that i can't
fucking stand anyone that trys to take the very
livingness of life away. 

dawkins seems to be a nihilistic materialist to me,
but maybe he has had a change of heart lately?





> Quoting Jos Laycock <jos.laycock at virgin.net>:
> 
> > Hi Platt 
> > 
> > Funny thing is, Dawkins almost has me...
> > He is not a SOMist by our definitions, frequently
> citing a tendency towards
> > dualist attitudes in children as being a primary
> factor in susceptibility to
> > the acceptance of religious ideals. He utterly
> rejects any mind/body split.
> > In his view the more advanced or sophisticated*
> (and scientific) stance is
> > monism. His only difference from the MOQ seems to
> be that his world is made
> > of a substance (that he can't define) and ours is
> made of Values (that we
> > can't define), the two may prove to be
> indistinguishable.
> 
> Hi Jos,
> 
> Since the MOQ does acknowledge substance (patterns
> of static values) but Dawkins
> doesn't acknowledge values, wouldn't it be fair to
> say that the two monisms
> are indeed "distinguishable," the former being more
> inclusive of experience? 
> 
> > There is even a
> > lengthy section on theories of how cultural memes
> and belief systems evolve
> > in a quasi Darwinian fashion, which could have
> plucked directly from Lila.
> 
> One you put your faith in Darwinian evolution, you
> can force fit almost anything
> into its assumptions.
> 
> > I'll dig out the quotes if anyone cares, but the
> book is if nothing else a
> > good laugh so go read it!
> > 
> > (*what an in8teresting connotation that word can
> have!)
> 
> Indeed. "Sophisticated" is a great big balloon word
> whose meaning is kept
> deliberately obtuse by self-appointed elites to
> intimidate the great unwashed.
> 
> Platt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com