The previous post makes some suggestions that I have made dozens of times at this blog over the last ten years. And yet in all that time I have never had a response or a discussion with the hoity-toity academic/science types who are systematically confused, locked in a box, and yet convinced they have the intellectual authority to exclusively answer these questions. Everyone else is beneath discussion and an can’t be talked to because, gosh forbid, it might bestow some attention on kooks. They get frequent and clear pingbacks, so they know what’s going on, but, gosh, delete immediately. It is a puzzling situation, bad enough if the general domain of modern discourse were at work, but the sad reality is that that discoursed has contracted into the worst and narrowest kind of bad scientism, darwinian dogmatism, misdefined secularism, and the rest of it. You can’t even discuss Kant anymore. It is a screwy situation, and the curious end of ‘modernity’ as everything slides back into we know not what.
It would help to avert all this, and that’s easy, by broadening the meaning of secularism, looking more broadly at the nature of modernity, and taking seriously the critiques of science that have been there all along since the Enlightenment.
This isnt’ about me, however, obviously. But we must suspect that science itself is at risk here. Forty years of clear debriefing of darwinism by critics has gone unheard. You can’t really survive that kind of failure. I am puzzled. If this were a blog on astrology, I could see it. But to discuss Kant, and be ostracized by academics, even by Kantians, is baffling. My contemporaries are in a bad muddle. The problem is darwinism: it is the foundation for a general ideology. And must be defended. The issue of Kant is irrelevant: it is the suggestion Kant couldn’t have been a darwinian that triggers the sudden attacks of academic autism.