It's a "complex" of claims, some of which are metaphysical, others are physical.
-
-
u mean this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa …
-
oh and why r u telling me to read Deleuze? u haven't even really absorbed Darwin (since u believed that Darwinism is teleological) it's like someone who hasn't understood arithmetics trying to tell someone to study advanced calculus
-
(not claiming here Deleuze is advanced, just obscure)
-
Because you don’t know anything about what you’re trying to say and De Landa will help you.
-
oh but u know things when u claim Darwinism is teleological? Explain how
-
Darwinism isn’t teleological. In the 19th century, classical Darwinism and classical thermodynamics posited single historical outcomes. This is not the case any longer.
-
> In the 19th century, classical Darwinism and classical thermodynamics posited single historical outcomes. wrong wrong wrong. Read Darwin, Hamilton, Wilson, then come back
End of conversation
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.