Conversation

Replying to and
don't think they have to be clearly foreseeable as long as they're still iterated refinements of base ideas that were laid out in the 1700s. we have QM, relativity & mature non-euclidian geometry now but lots of problems are still solved in euclidian or newtonian domains
1
Not at all. I’m familiar enough with those two to regard him as a serious synthesizer beyond them. You vastly underestimate the sheer amount of data the last century has provided. He’s primarily an interpreter of recent history more than of Hegel via Kojeve.
1
Replying to
Heh, I just have a strong immune response to argument by authority in general, on subjects where there are no viewpoint privileges except time (as opposed to for eg astronomy with its instruments). My first theory of anything political is generally my own prima facie one.
Replying to and
I don't mind reinventing wheels at all. In fact I think that's a necessary human activity. A lot of people comment that my Gervais Principle analysis is Marxist for eg. I'm sure it was in the osmotic environment, but I've read zero Marxist theory. But reinvention was good.
1
Show replies
Replying to
oh yeah, but there's arguing from authority and there's "ppl who go on to do things that have real effects and consequences all tend to read x, y and z and take them as authoritative therefore if you want to get how things work you've got to deal with x, y & z sooner or later"
1
1