Skip to main content

vague sketch of a fun retort

Dawkins has a way of caricaturing Christian beliefs that would be knee-slappingly funny if it weren't so...blasphemous.

A good reply would be to describe democracy as absurd using the same modus operandi.  That is, describe the events that characterize democracy without paying attention to their significance.  For example,  after waiting in line, people go behind curtains by the millions and press levers and come out and get a sticker.  Then they gather around televisions and watch someone talk from a convention hall in a hotel and drop balloons and jump up and down or get very sad.  Then in the middle of January some guy in a funny robe tells another guy in a suit what to say, making him hold up his hand as he says it.... Ridiculous!

Okay, the parody definitely needs refining, but that's what I'd do to caricature RD's caricature.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more