?

Log in

англоязычное чтиво - Поклонник деепричастий [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Anatoly Vorobey

[ website | Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| English-language weblog ]

англоязычное чтиво [янв. 14, 2003|05:38 am]
Anatoly Vorobey
  • Reciprocity and Self-Reliance -- мне показалось очень интересной эта запись в веблоге Стивена Ден Бесте.
    One thing I find, as a broad principle, is that I feel much less obligation to act in a principled manner with those who are themselves unprincipled. And in particular, I feel no obligation to act in a principled way with someone who is deliberately trying to use my principles against me.

    To take a minor example of that, as a matter of common courtesy I'm not in the habit of interrupting people when they talk. It does come up, but it's not something I do very often, because it's rude. But I have no compunction about interrupting telemarketers when they call, because they will deliver their pitch nonstop. They're trying to take advantage of me; they're trying to use my common courtesy, my unwillingness to interrupt them or outright hang up on them, as a way of forcing me to listen to a message I have no interest in hearing. Thus I will interrupt them and feel no twinge of guilt.

    The basic idea is that I apply my principles strongly to dealings with other people who follow principles, but only weakly or not at all with those who do not. It could be argued that this is immoral, and some do so. They claim that my acts should always be ethical unrelated to who I'm dealing with.

    But this ignores the global problem of spoiling the commons and free riding. If people know they can break the rules and get away with it, then you'll get a lot of that. On the other hand, if people know that they'll only be treated well if they themselves treat others well, then there's an incentive to do so. By my unwillingness to be magnanimous to jerks, I encourage them to act ethically and cease being jerks. Being magnanimous to jerks isn't moral; it's just being a sucker. It lets them take advantage of you, to your detriment and the detriment of nearly everyone else. If you're nice to jerks, you get more jerks.
    Заодно оттуда по ссылке пошёл и прочитал про дело Китти Дженовиз, о котором раньше не знал.
  • Fans Outraged at New Character in The Return of the King -- забавная шутка.
  • Normative Shift -- о сдвиге норм в современном обществе. Много преувеличений и излишней грандиозности, но есть интересные мысли.
  • Imperial Science -- об Эдварде Вилсоне, Ричарде Докинзе итп. Интересно и хорошо написано; содержит дельную критику глупого радикализма Докинза, напр.:
    In his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins asserts, "we no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: 'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 [the publication date of Darwin's Origin of Species] are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.'"

    In the endnote to the paperback edition, Dawkins responds to those who have taken offense at Simpson's quotation by rubbing it in–without making an argument:

    I agree that, when you first read it, it sounds terribly philistine and gauche and intolerant, a bit like Henry Ford's 'History is more or less bunk.' But, religious answers apart (I am familiar with them; save your stamp), when you are actually challenged to think of pre-Darwinian answers to the questions 'What is man?' 'Is there a meaning to life?' 'What are we for?', can you, as a matter of fact, think of any that are not now worthless except for their (considerable) historic interest? There is such a thing as being just plain wrong, and that is what, before 1859, all answers to those questions were.

    If Dawkins had contented himself with the claim that Darwin had made worthless other answers to the questions, Where do we come from? and, How have we evolved? (empirical questions), he would have offended only creationists. But anyone of the most elementary intellectual sophistication knows that questions about meaning and purpose are of another order–and continue to be the legitimate concern of literature and philosophy. They are not simply reducible to knowledge about our genetic structure.

СсылкаОтветить

Comments:
[User Picture]From: bagira
2003-01-13 09:27 pm
Ссылка на Китти Дженовиз не работает. Но эту историю я читала еще там, в одном из сборников типа "в Америке негров вешают", и отмела ее, как полную чушь. Потом оказалось, что правда, конечно--недавно совсем про нее говорил дуд на бар-ревью, в связи с тем, что в Америке нет duty to rescue (хотя если бы я была судьей, то смотрела бы на это в зависимости от обстоятельств--одно дело, когда нужно жизнью рисковать, но тут-то им всего и надо было, что трубку поднять телефонную). Вспомнилась, также, тошнотная история, лет пять назад, когда один вполне приличный на вид взрослый паренть изнасиловал и убил шестилетнюю девочку в публичном туалете, а его друг, хоть и не учавствовал, ничего не делал, чтоб его остановить (хотя уверял потом на суде, что был очень даже против). ПОмню, какие были дебаты, судить его или нет, а чем закончилось, не помню...
(Ответить) (Thread)
From: hiler
2003-01-13 10:03 pm

Не в тему

Я все-таки нашел про гайку и геринга: (спасибо гуглю)

http://212.188.13.195:2003/nvk/forum/arhprint/421540

Андрей Морозов aka Мурз -- оказывается известная личность ))
(Ответить) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: averros
2003-01-14 02:21 am
But anyone of the most elementary intellectual sophistication knows that questions about meaning and purpose are of another order – and continue to be the legitimate concern of literature and philosophy. They are not simply reducible to knowledge about our genetic structure.

How touching... humanitarians defending their right to espouse circular arguments and opinions. Upset that some day an irrespectful dirty scientist will intrude and actually prove something, thus taking their freedom to come up with clever rhetoric in favour or against their superstition de jour.

Of course, literature is not reducible to genetic structure. But claiming that literature (or, even funnier, philosophy) may one day come up with the answers to the question of meaning and purpose of life is preposterous. They are not about answering - they're about obscuring the question in fanciful ways.

(Ответить) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: malaya_zemlya
2003-01-14 07:35 am
Вообще-то наука не отвечает на вопросы, связанные с *целью* природных явлений (Зачем E=mc^2? А шоб було). Посему бояться гуманитариям особенно нечего. Когда начинаются вопросы "зачем?" да "какой в этом смысл?" - это уже автоматически философия, в крайнем случае психология. Ссылки на науку тут могут иметь только иллюстративный характер.
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ullr
2003-01-14 11:29 am

Yeah, the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.
...any sophisticated knowledgeable person knows it: 42.
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: avva
2003-01-14 06:33 pm

Re:

Yeah, I can just see Dawkins and his ilk "proving" something about the meaning of life. Hilarious.

The thing is, a scientist spouting nonsense about philosophy or religion is just that - a scientist spouting nonsense. Ignorance of basic principles of philosophy may explain, but not justify, such hubris. The added value of Dawkins, in terms of humor, is that he also does a singularly bad job of explaining science and things scientific. He's basically an intellectual bully who only knows one trick -- a say-so argument dressed with impressive scientific jargon.

And so your average Dawkins fan is a clueless science geek who couldn't tell a sound argument from a bunch of hooey if his life depended on it, and who also manages to be spectacularly ignorant of anything in human culture that is not covered every now and then by the Scientific American.

In short, a pitiful sight.
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mi_b
2003-01-14 07:37 am

The "Normative Shift" is rather stupid. The author seems to believe that de Groot or Aquinas are Latin authors ;)

Besides that, he keeps repeating the usual shit like Gulf crisis and war of 1990–91 [...] did assert two important norms: that aggression should not be allowed to prosper, and that small sovereignties were not to be expunged by force. Of course, as international ideals those concepts had been frequently given pious official endorsement at least since 1919, so they were not new. But their enforcement in 1991 in effect turned ideals into norms There is no new norm about small sovereignity; if US decides to invade another Panama or Grenada, they will do it more easily than 20 years ago.

The most important change is not in new norms, but the greater freedom for the West to enforce whatever it likes on the rest of the world.

(Ответить) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: avva
2003-01-14 05:59 pm

Re:

While I agree with you that "Normative Shift" has its share of silly arguments, I don't agree with your examples.

There is no new norm about small sovereignity; if US decides to invade another Panama or Grenada, they will do it more easily than 20 years ago.

This is obviously false. The US has been slouching towards war with Iraq for about a year now, and it seems quite possible at the moment that it'll be postponed further yet. The US has struggled to maintain an international coalition, to play the game of let-us-inspect-you, to fend off numerous peaceniks and UN officials, as well as substantial domestic opposition.

You may point out, of course, that Iraq is not a small sovereignty; that's true, but it's not a very large one, either. Vietnam wasn't a small sovereignty either; but it was vastly easier for the US to get involved in Vietnam than to get involved in Iraq now. The same is true of Korea.

Cuba is a small sovereignty. 40 years ago Kennedy backed up an attempt to take over Cuba militarily (the Bay of Pigs). Is it even remotely possible for Bush to do the same today? Obviously not.

The rules have changed.

The most important change is not in new norms, but the greater freedom for the West to enforce whatever it likes on the rest of the world.

That is also false. Before the 20th century, the "freedom of the West to enforce whatever it likes on the rest of the world" was virtually unlimited and in fact freely exploited. Throughout the 20th century, limiting this "freedom" and increasing sovereignty and independence of the rest of the world has been a constant trend. Now that the Cold War is over, it's harder for the US to directly interfere with its military anywhere in the world than it was 30 or 40 years ago, when defending itself or its allies from the Red Menace was such a convenient justification.
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shvarz
2003-01-14 09:57 pm

Было дело

Когда я учился в универе, меня однажды (лишь однажды) выгнали с лекции за неприличное поведение. Это было на первом занятии факультатива "Философия науки". Зашел дядя и стал впаривать какую ерунду про смысл жизни ученого и существования вселенной. После того как он спросил: "а почему в ДНК всего четыре основания? А почему аминокислот 20, а не 21?" и начал пытаться вывести из этого какой-то философский смысл, нам с другом стало очень весело и нас попросили...
Больше мы туда не вернулись, а проходили вместо этого на "Историю музыки".
(Ответить) (Thread)
From: ex_ilyavinar899
2003-01-14 11:08 pm

Re: Было дело

По-моему, есть какие-то редкие археобактерии, у которых есть такие аминокислоты, которых не у кого больше нет. Сейчас поищу в Гугле.
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_ilyavinar899
2003-01-14 11:10 pm

Re: Было дело

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020520/020520-8.html

Да здравствует Гугль!
(Ответить) (Parent) (Thread)