might seem pointless, and who never says empiricist today? Yet when it comes to politics, even the greatest masters of contemporary thought incur drug naive. I mention the names of Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Edoardo Boncinelli, which are among the most lucid thinkers living (I'm reading the authors of which explains, sometimes in a few lines, problems that have gripped us for decades, only because it searches for answers the wrong places - religions, unrelated insights, literature, philosophy of evolution, not evolutionary psychology). And therefore, these teachers when they talk about society, neutrality of science and relations between classes (even if you do not call it that) show an incredible ability to involuntary bar.
The reason for this is obvious: preaches outside of a theoretical framework, and now: there is only one and is called historical materialism, it must be, unfortunately, for now and for the next decades (epistemologically) no mechanistic so terribly flawed, but it should be used, those outside, in politics, does not go absolutely nowhere, even if it is able to clarify all the rest on nature and man made or taken as an individual in its relations in small groups.
0 comments:
Post a Comment