Let's Talk about Richard Dawkins

[hippopotamus]

Feb 20, 2020 10:05:33 GMT tory said:

I guess the clumsy point I'm trying to make here is that we have a situation where parents can make an informed decision on whether to continue with a pregnancy or not based on medical data. It does happen - that there is no doubt about.

I would argue that is a form of eugenics.


I worked in dating for a number of years. The next inevitable step with dating will be DNA screening. At a higher level of wealth, prospective partners will need to submit a valid DNA test which will show up all the possible inheritance that they would potentially pass on.

The more knowledge we have about medicine and our bodies, the more selective we become.

There is an argument I guess that someone with amazing genes who's ugly as fuck might find themselves top of the gene pool!

I think the most essential difference is in intentions. If medical decisions are based on the rights of the child, and preventing undue suffering, I don't think it can count as Eugenics. 

One can make the definition as broad as you like. But then would you include deciding not to rescuscitate a baby born at 23 weeks gestation, as eugenics because he's obviously too weak to survive and if he did he would have very severe brain damage, and very poor quality of life? Would you include choosing a mate based on their intelligence, and athletic ability because you fancy your chances of having clever, healthy kids?

I don't believe what you point out is Eugenics, because of the intention behind it. Moreover, I think it's worth getting definitions correct, in both the spirit and the letter. Because there IS a risk of it happening, because historically it has happened. The real definition and practice is completely abhorent, and things that may broadly speaking be similar but not the same do not fit in the same catagory. It is the frightful nature of it, that means that it shouldn't be bandied about lightly... not in careless twitters anyway. 

[Sneelock]

I'm certainly enjoying people on Twitter dumping all over RD for slagging off "Metamorphosis"

[Sneelock]

[tory]

Well, the issue is that there is no overall agreed sentiment or message by critics over what Metamorphosis is actually about.

Many believe that because it was written by Kafka it has been accepted into the canon, but that if it had been written by an unknown author, it wouldn't have.

[Sneelock]

Uh huh. Many believe otherwise.

[Reactionary Rage]

Twitter....the home of the perpetual smartarse.

[DarknessFish]

I thought this reply was a bit of genius:

I don't think that much of Kafka either, it has to be said.

[~ / % ? *]

I wonder if he knows which dinosaurs were Apostles?

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2021 5:00:51 GMT tory said:

Well, the issue is that there is no overall agreed sentiment or message by critics over what Metamorphosis is actually about.

Many believe that because it was written by Kafka it has been accepted into the canon, but that if it had been written by an unknown author, it wouldn't have.

Well you can equally argue Kafka's in the canon because of works like Metamorphosis.

These things either speak to you or they don't. I first read it, rather precociously, at 15. I didn't have any intellectual context to guide me particularly, so just took it as a very original, and even darkly comic ( the humour of Kafka's writing is often overlooked)  illustration of the absurdity of the world and how little free will we can have in controlling our destinies. There may well be more to it than that, but that's what I took from it at the time.
I can understand why Dawkins the arch rationalist wouldn't be able to relate to it.

[Half Machine Lipschitz]

Sorry, G, you've more than doubled the 240 character limit.

[Reactionary Rage]

David Lynch wrote a script for a potential movie but gave up on it.

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2021 11:11:46 GMT Reactionary Rage said:

David Lynch wrote a script for a potential movie but gave up on it.

I can see a lot of similarities between the two.

[Reactionary Rage]

I've not read the book but I mentioned it because Dawkins is a scientist and Lynch is an artist. Two quite different types of people. The former needs a explanation, a purpose whereas the latter is less driven by the need for an explanation and clarity and can appreciate the abstract and the overall journey perhaps.

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2021 11:42:22 GMT Reactionary Rage said:

I've not read the book but I mentioned it because Dawkins is a scientist and Lynch is an artist. Two quite different types of people. The former needs a explanation, a purpose whereas the latter is less driven by the need for an explanation and clarity and can appreciate the abstract and the overall journey perhaps.

I think that's very much true.
It's why I've always been against the numerous metaphorical interpretations of his work- he's really writing about anti-Semitism, that sort of thing Those things can be relevant and interesting, but you lose something essential about the character of his work by fixing him in such narrow terms.
If you want to start with something, I'd start with The Trial. He's a lot more accessible than his reputation suggests.

[tory]

And you could also read Jaroslav Hasek, who was a contemporary of Kafka (and much funnier). His Svejk is my avatar.