"Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology" have weighed in on the question of what a woman is and -- exactly as predicted yesterday -- they want to be clear that a biologist couldn't tell you either.
I suppose if you look under enough carefully selected rocks you can find such agnostic creatures. And you probably aren't allowed to become a "gender law scholar" unless you value power more than truth. And perhaps I display ignorance, but I've never heard of philosophers of biology before--were they minted for the occasion?
Probably not, though I haven’t either. Both ‘philosophy of…’ and ‘…of philosophy’ have been popular specializations for those trying to find a niche in academia.
Apparently I can have as many third rails as I want; they're all superpositioned. I just can't look at them, if I want them all. But that's the nature of Woke Nuance, it seems. Don't look at the facts; they'll become too clear.
Even during WWII there was not fully a single American opinion and level of support. Reading the news of the time gets you a different impression than what we believe in retrospect. Still less did we have a single culture. Especially, we were still regional. Yet we were approaching becoming one culture in a way that was new, at least on the surface. Even though a good deal of that was superficial and papering over, it did lead to increasing civil rights (far more than the protests of the 60s did. Those were the result, not the cause of the change in American racial attitudes), leveling of class distinctions, etc. It was strong enough that it prompted a counter-reaction from the left, which feared we would unify in a way they didn't like. This is the origin (okay, one origin) of the elite paranoia that we are just one random incident away from fascism descending on the whole nation. They felt the unity - a lot of which was people wanting to just get on with life, live and let live - and knew they didn't control it. Time to be a rebel! Against "whatever you got."
I would say we had one "American culture", and that was subdivided into several sub-cultures, that still by and large followed the basic tenets of "American culture".
This reminds me of a passage from The Magician’s Nephew, by C.S. Lewis.
“When the great moment came and the Beasts spoke, he missed the whole point; for a rather interesting reason. When the Lion had first begun singing, long ago when it was still quite dark, he had realized that the noise was a song. And he had disliked the song very much. It made him think and feel things he did not want to think and feel. Then, when the sun rose and he saw that the singer was a lion (“only a lion,” as he said to himself) he tried his hardest to make believe it wasn’t and never had been singing—only roaring as any lion might in a zoo in our own world. “Of course it can’t really have been singing,” he thought, “I must have imagined it. I’ve been letting my nerves get out of order. Who ever heard of a lion singing?” And the longer and more beautiful the Lion sang, the harder Uncle Andrew tried to make himself believe that he could hear nothing but roaring. Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did. He soon did hear nothing but roaring in Aslan’s song. Soon he couldn’t have heard anything else even if he had wanted to. And when at last the Lion spoke and said, “Narnia awake,” he didn’t hear any words: he heard only a snarl.”
14 comments:
I suppose if you look under enough carefully selected rocks you can find such agnostic creatures. And you probably aren't allowed to become a "gender law scholar" unless you value power more than truth. And perhaps I display ignorance, but I've never heard of philosophers of biology before--were they minted for the occasion?
Probably not, though I haven’t either. Both ‘philosophy of…’ and ‘…of philosophy’ have been popular specializations for those trying to find a niche in academia.
Used to be publish or perish.
Now it's philosophy or perish.
Eric Hines
It has become one of many third rails in our culture.
Actually, you can't have multiple third rails, so there needs to be a new metaphor. But you take my point.
Apparently I can have as many third rails as I want; they're all superpositioned. I just can't look at them, if I want them all. But that's the nature of Woke Nuance, it seems. Don't look at the facts; they'll become too clear.
Eric Hines
We have several cultures, of course.
I wonder what would be needed for the rest of us to go on strike against the woke.
No, we have only our American culture. It's the woke who want to break us apart and reinstitute segregation.
Eric Hines
C'mon, you know that's not right. At the choicest moment in American history, there was never just one culture.
At least on biologist can. (from Maggie's)
Even during WWII there was not fully a single American opinion and level of support. Reading the news of the time gets you a different impression than what we believe in retrospect. Still less did we have a single culture. Especially, we were still regional. Yet we were approaching becoming one culture in a way that was new, at least on the surface. Even though a good deal of that was superficial and papering over, it did lead to increasing civil rights (far more than the protests of the 60s did. Those were the result, not the cause of the change in American racial attitudes), leveling of class distinctions, etc. It was strong enough that it prompted a counter-reaction from the left, which feared we would unify in a way they didn't like. This is the origin (okay, one origin) of the elite paranoia that we are just one random incident away from fascism descending on the whole nation. They felt the unity - a lot of which was people wanting to just get on with life, live and let live - and knew they didn't control it. Time to be a rebel! Against "whatever you got."
I would say we had one "American culture", and that was subdivided into several sub-cultures, that still by and large followed the basic tenets of "American culture".
I think the metaphor is "minefield."
This reminds me of a passage from The Magician’s Nephew, by C.S. Lewis.
“When the great moment came and the Beasts spoke, he missed the whole point; for a rather interesting reason. When the Lion had first begun singing, long ago when it was still quite dark, he had realized that the noise was a song. And he had disliked the song very much. It made him think and feel things he did not want to think and feel. Then, when the sun rose and he saw that the singer was a lion (“only a lion,” as he said to himself) he tried his hardest to make believe it wasn’t and never had been singing—only roaring as any lion might in a zoo in our own world. “Of course it can’t really have been singing,” he thought, “I must have imagined it. I’ve been letting my nerves get out of order. Who ever heard of a lion singing?” And the longer and more beautiful the Lion sang, the harder Uncle Andrew tried to make himself believe that he could hear nothing but roaring. Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did. He soon did hear nothing but roaring in Aslan’s song. Soon he couldn’t have heard anything else even if he had wanted to. And when at last the Lion spoke and said, “Narnia awake,” he didn’t hear any words: he heard only a snarl.”
Very good citation Larry.
Post a Comment