This being, the human being (which is really a tautology because no other beings are beings since they are not free), has a strange habit: it questions.Perhaps he was more Cartesian than he knew. But his doctrine is simply that of the Catholic Church of Heidegger. But don't question his "tautology"!
If we were to trace a parallel on web pages it might be with the work of "Leakey's Angels" against the work of Blucher and Arendt. Or the decline of elephant habitat during their years as American intellectuals.
When the mother elephant finally abandons her dead calf, whatever the physiological changes that could be measured, who is a Bluecher to pronounce her unfree - a non-being?
If the pachyderms outlast us (so very unlikely) they may evolve to a point where a species of giant trunked "beasts" or "brutes" will bury their dead calves - and mark the spot. The recognition of this possibility seems to me to be elemental respect for their species today - and so lacking in the buffoon, Bluecher, puffing at his pipe.
The years of Blücher's teaching are the years of Olduvai gorge.
1953: structure of DNA
1967: the pulsar.
Compare: some regrettable opinions of Konrad Lorenz
Compare: the lack of dogmatics in Hilary Putnam (and his occasional radical politics)
Compare: the Science report on the progress with the Neaderthal genome.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment