[-empyre-] a book, dna,code and ethics
roof12 at comcast.net
Mon Oct 22 08:16:55 EST 2007
I am laughing, too.
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:54 AM, sdv at krokodile.co.uk wrote:
> Actually I don't think that 'Badiou is the ethical turn par
> excellance' actally he is the opposite and arguably the moment when
> refusal of the ethical turn might be thought to begin. Obviously I
> recognize that Badiou's work has had some positive effects on
> ethicists like Critchly (Infinitely Demanding) but the ethics and
> politics that results is not an improvement over parlimentary
> In terms derived from your book Watson is very much a psuedo-
> scientist, whilst for me he remains a scientist. I'd understand
> what makes his position particularly problematic as being
> something along the lines of: a scientist who accepts that
> scientific concepts and social concepts are supported by 'real
> objects' to name a few: DNA, Gene, gender, sex, intelligence, race,
> species. What this implies is that the scientist has some degree of
> belief that the hypothesis that proposes these objects exist is true.
> But actually these concepts only exist in as much as they are
> empirically adequate, that is to say they are 'supported with
> respect to observable phenomena'(Van Frassen). But what we would
> argue is that acceptance of a theory involves the recognition that
> a theory is empirically adequate and provable. So if, as I do, you
> accept the evidence offered that these social concepts have
> primarily reactionary and oppressive purposes, then his
> declarations in support of the concepts are both non-ethical and in
> support of relations (in eugen's sense) that we are discarding.
> The very idea of placing a higher value on one side of a concept
> rather than another is appalling. Now what was it that Deleuze
> would call it in everybodies least favorite book AO? 'fascist'.
> Of course i'm not only an anti-humanist, but even more of an anti-
> realist... laughs...
>> Actually, I've always wondered why the ethical turn is so central
>> (if it is and which postmodernity?). What is it that pushes this
>> ethical turn anyway? The ethical turn needs to be examined--
>> beyond Badiou who is the ethical turn par excellence. And
>> conceptions of resistance (which are always appended to the thing
>> which is resisted) cannot envision an apposition to ethics where
>> ethics is not relevant or itself seen as a disingenuous practice
>> linked to oedipalism. Who, after all, gets to enjoy ethics? Or
>> wield it? Is that an ethical question?
>> As for Watson, what is it that determines the banality of his
>> banality or the terribleness of his science? In what way are
>> these declarations not ethical?
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
More information about the empyre