So, I am watching Life on the Discovery Channel on my HDTV, and it’s so cool. Sometimes the narrator slips into saying things likes “this plant evolved such-and-such behavior” which of course is a mere homage to the dull Darwinian orthodoxy. I mean, suppose you replace “evolved” with “were created 6,000 years ago with” or simply something meaningless like “cleepsed their behavior.” Would that explain anything? I mean, come on, if you say that the plant has evolved, then you must be prepared to supply the relevant details: when it obtained its present nature; from what it evolved; through what intermediate stages; how long each evolutionary thrust took; which genetic mutations occurred when and in what sequence; how each feature of the plant evolved; what happened on each level of the plant from organs (roots, leaves) to biochemical and physical events within cells in all their mechanical specified complexity; and a hundred other things. No such explanation is even attempted. So, who cares? I suggest that a far more fascinating and, yes, fruitful approach is to treat these life forms as divine engineering. Were I a biologist, I’d think of the objects of my studies as exactly that.
Categories: Uncategorized
Slavery, they say, is wrong.
But can you prove it?
I can, and do, in this book, as a small part of building a metaethical system.
You will learn what is good -- or rather what good is; why murder is wrong; how morality motivates; and a whole lot of cool things in this vein.
Capitalism, they say, contains in itself the seeds of its own destruction, because the general prosperity it creates finances the emergence of a leisure class of intellectuals whose main occupation is denouncing capitalism.
G.A. Cohen was one such miscreant.
For the health of society, he must be bled. And by the end of my book, he is an exsanguinated corpse.
David Friedman tries to fix with "what's wrong with the world" and fails miserably.
0 Comments