<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Darwiniana &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://darwiniana.com/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://darwiniana.com</link>
	<description>History, Evolution, and the Darwin Debate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:13:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Kant, freedom, and reductionist science</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/31/kant-freedom-and-reductionist-science/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/31/kant-freedom-and-reductionist-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=50532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Freedom Evolves This issue is the classic snafu created by causal science. You would think that scientists with so many resources at their disposal would be able to snap out of it and at least read the history of this question. What I find remarkable is the way that &#8216;scientific&#8217; publics are unaware of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/31/kant-freedom-and-reductionist-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>God 2.0: Chopra vs Shermer</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/god-2-0-chopra-vs-shermer/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/god-2-0-chopra-vs-shermer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=49065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[God 2.0. The quantum flapdoodle of New Age author Deepak Chopra is a failed effort to update medieval theology&#8230; I clicked on this right away, only to find that Mike Shermer was taking on Chopra. I have a few problems with quantum theology, but even after a &#8216;dog does the paper&#8217; treatment of quantum mechanics [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/god-2-0-chopra-vs-shermer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Haidt opens Edge junk science lectures on ethics (with a swipe at Kant)</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/haidt-open-edge-junk-science-lectures-on-ethics-with-a-swipe-at-kant/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/haidt-open-edge-junk-science-lectures-on-ethics-with-a-swipe-at-kant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=49059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.haidt.html: Haidt at Edge Accusing Kant and Benthan of Asperger&#8217;s Syndrome to open a discussion of ethics is a bit much. (btw, So what if they did have Asperger&#8217;s? It is almost a recommendation, quite apart from the groupie science at places like Edge.org, where everyone is a suckup trying to get a book deal) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/08/02/haidt-open-edge-junk-science-lectures-on-ethics-with-a-swipe-at-kant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agnosticism and the noumenal</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/30/agnosticism-and-the-noumenal/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/30/agnosticism-and-the-noumenal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schopenhauer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=47472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have already linked today to: An Agnostic Manifesto, but the essay is worth reading. I was often over time &#8216;a sort of atheist&#8217; without realizing it, and this position was really closer to agnosticism than atheism. With the arrival of the New Atheists, vacating the atheist position becomes an necessity since this cultic brand [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/30/agnosticism-and-the-noumenal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spinoza versus Kant</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/16/spinoza-versus-kant/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/16/spinoza-versus-kant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Booknotes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=46735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Link to Spinoza contra Kant]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/06/16/spinoza-versus-kant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kant, philosophy of history, non-randomness, and Kant&#8217;s successors</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/16/kant-philosophy-of-history-non-randomness-and-kants-successors/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/16/kant-philosophy-of-history-non-randomness-and-kants-successors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 May 2010 17:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=45172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My previous post was very hard on Ruse. There is one consolation: Ruse is not the only second-rate philosopher these days. EVERY philosopher, post-Kant is somehow second-rate, a world historical puzzle in itself. Since Kant&#8217;s work is egregiously complex, you might read the books of Bryan Magee on Schopenhauer and/or philosophy and/or Wagner to get [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/16/kant-philosophy-of-history-non-randomness-and-kants-successors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on &#8216;Soul Talk&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/09/44753/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/09/44753/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 19:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=44753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Relink to &#8216;Soul Talk&#8217; No self-respecting professor of philosophy wants to discuss the soul in class. It reeks of old-time theology, or, worse, New Age quantum treacle. The soul has been a dead end in philosophy ever since the positivists unmasked its empty referential center. Scientific philosophy has shown us that there&#8217;s no there there. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/09/44753/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soul talk and positivistic failure mode</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/soul-talk-and-positivistic-failure-mode/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/soul-talk-and-positivistic-failure-mode/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 17:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schopenhauer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=44690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Soul talk No self-respecting professor of philosophy wants to discuss the soul in class. It reeks of old-time theology, or, worse, New Age quantum treacle. The soul has been a dead end in philosophy ever since the positivists unmasked its empty referential center. Scientific philosophy has shown us that there&#8217;s no there there. This article, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/soul-talk-and-positivistic-failure-mode/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harris vs Kant</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/harris-vs-kant/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/harris-vs-kant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 17:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=44687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sam Harris, positivist, and arrogant I was a little unfair to Harris, and my criticism is only of the celebrity effect that can make idiocy seem rational, and influence a huge peanut gallery. My last remark solves the problem: Harris is going to put his views in writing, without consulting the literature. This is in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/08/harris-vs-kant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gould book authors, and materialism/idealism</title>
		<link>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/07/gould-book-authors-and-materialismidealism/</link>
		<comments>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/07/gould-book-authors-and-materialismidealism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 20:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nemo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schopenhauer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://darwiniana.com/?p=44624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York We just discussed the book on Gould by the same two authors who wrote the book above: we have commented here at length on that book, use the search box. It is an interesting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://darwiniana.com/2010/05/07/gould-book-authors-and-materialismidealism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

