On the second article referenced: SOCIOBIOLOGY: THE NEW RELIGION http://itest.slu.edu/articles/90s/blackwell2.html
The author lucidly outlines the dilemmas involved in Wilson's position, but I find his argument conclusive. Scientific materialism is not a religion, and if a certain brand of scientist can only assert it as a form of faith, I conclude that the scientist as well as the religionist has failed to transcend the philosophical antinomies of bourgeois society, which come to a head at the point at which natural science meets the subject-object relation. Marx addressed this issue philosophically (though not in a full-blown scientific manner) in the 1844 manuscripts. Engels was essentially engaged in trying to formulate a non-mystical materialist emergentism combatting the pseudo-scientific evolutionary confusionisms of the late 19th century. The author of this article breaks off just at the point where he needs to begin to analyze why Wilson's attempt to analyze religion as a branch of genetics cannot succeed.
At 01:39 PM 5/25/2005 -0400, Ralph Dumain wrote:
............ At 02:14 PM 5/25/2005 +0000, redtwister666 wrote: >Long-winded? I am hurt! > >And I do not want to have anybody by the balls. This is not a cock >fight or an ego trip. That is just unnecessary provocation and >'starting shit.' > >In biology it is quite clear that sociobiology is self-consciously >materialist ontologically. What is funny is that some religious types >perceive sociobiology as 'more' materialist than Gould, Lewontin, et >al because of their biological determinism (greater or weaker), while >seeing it simultaneously as deeply religious. > >For interesting articles, see > >http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0101/articles/bethell.html >http://itest.slu.edu/articles/90s/blackwell2.html > >Cheers, >Chris
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
