It's incredible that people actually think that Deleuze has new insight to add to Darwinism.
-
-
there is no update
-
I’m sorry, but classical Darwinism has been updated to reflect nonlinearity. Species aren’t hurtling toward a fittest design once and for all.
-
> Species aren’t hurtling toward a fittest design once and for all. in this one single sentence you demonstrate that 1) you do not understand classical Darwinism, 2) you do not understand modern Darwinism, 3) you have not read Darwin, 4) i could go on
-
Darwin never claimed species are "hurtling towards a fittest design" There was a "popular misunderstanding" of Darwinism, I will grant you that, which believed that, but this was almost never taken seriously in science
-
There was no other way to conceptualize time except as linear in the 19th century, and so teleology was built into notions of process. This has been updated.
-
Time *is* linear -- but history and biology aren't. Darwin understood that. The "literalist historicism" you're talking about is akin to claims that the Ancient Greeks could not perceive the color "blue" and it is yet another major BS moderns believe.
-
What Deleuze did was (1) discover a deeper phylum common to all things, and (2) render scientific law impossible while preserving objective knowledge. He didn’t “update” Darwin in the sense of adding knowledge or theory. He transformed Darwin’s world.
-
this is wrong sorry, he didn't discover any phylum, his concepts are fuzzy, his tools are blunt, reading it makes any Darwinist vomit
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.