Dawkins on In Our Time

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

Richard Dawkins will be on In Our Time to discuss the evolutionary origins of altruism. They are pretty good about getting the archive up in a day or so. Interesting that they illustrate the idea with Mr. a priori Kant, or am I being pretentious and misunderstanding Kant? I simply suspect that Dawkins will argue and elucidate an evolutionarily beneficial situationalism.

9 Comments

  1. I simply suspect that Dawkins will argue and elucidate an evolutionarily beneficial situationalism. 
     
    I wish you wrote more like Dawkins, Razib (tho that isn’t too bad). It’s partly an age and upbringing thang, I know, but you could still try re-engineering your glossome.

  2. I wish you wrote more like Dawkins, Razib (tho that isn’t too bad). It’s partly an age and upbringing thang, I know, but you could still try re-engineering your glossome. 
     
    that takes time. i have a full time job and a relationship and i do do things besides blog. care to endow a chair in blogging so i can go full time at this? or perhaps show me the blog where you can resculpt prose with a minimum of effort?

  3. that takes time. 
     
    If you’re swimming regularly across a river, it takes time to build a boat. Penny-wise, pound-foolish. 
     
    i have a full time job and a relationship and i do do things besides blog. care to endow a chair in blogging so i can go full time at this? or perhaps show me the blog where you can resculpt prose with a minimum of effort? 
     
    You read a hell of a lot about history and science. How much do you read about English style? How much do you care about it? Good ideas conveyed badly often lose to bad ideas conveyed well or badly but more loudly.

  4.  
    You read a hell of a lot about history and science. How much do you read about English style? How much do you care about it? Good ideas conveyed badly often lose to bad ideas conveyed well or badly but more loudly.
     
     
    how much do you care? are you willing to subsidize me? i don’t care if i convey the ideas badly obviously, i’m not doing this for you. most of you readers are worthless, my only interest are those who give me the information i seek. i’ve never see you comment, have you ever commented aside from to complain about my style? 
     
    send me an email, offer to pay me per month, i’ll calculate how much extra time per day it will take, how many more days. be a man and don’t leave anonymous shit on my doorstep. you have the boldness to complain about material you consume for free for god’s sake. do magazines operate solely with writers? are you willing to take your time out to be an editor even if you aren’t willing to pay me? does that matter to you? i wonder where this sense of offended entitlement comes from? perhaps i haven’t read any books on english style, but do you fucking know what grace and etiquette are? do you think it is even close to classy to call someone out behind a veil of anonymity after complaining about the quality of something you consume without prodding or price? or does your sense of grammatical proprietary and civility come a la carte without the whole suite of characters that make a gentlemen.

  5. I’m actually writing my term paper on Kantian ethics and reciprocal altruism so I should listen to this, lol.  
     
    Razib writes very good prose and I’m sure without time constraints he could write great prose. However he’s writing a blog, and not a book, so one can’t expect constant polishing and rewriting like you would expect from someone writing a book.

  6. I listened to the linked recording featuring Dawkins and some commentators on the Western philosophical tradition re: altruism. Razib it would seem hasn’t or anyway not at the time of this heads up. 
     
    I suggest skipping it. I listed to it in the background while web reading. Pretty useless. Doesn’t go deeply into the problem of altruism in neo-Darwinism or for that matter anything else. Once over lightly.

  7. I agree with Doug, the program wasn’t very illuminating. And what was with the guy who thought that, at least partially, Lamarck was being proved correct? 
     
    And Kant did not think that moral sentiments were bad things, as two of the guests seemed to suggest, just that they can’t decide the moral worth of an action. In the Metaphysics of Morals, for instance, he believes it is a duty to try to become more sympathetic. If he thought that moral sentiments were bad things he certainly would not have made that duty (though it was only an imperfect duty I believe).

  8. i too was disappointed. rather unfocused.

  9. Bismiddolf ar-Rahman ar-Rahim. It was a suggestion, not a personal attack. You might not be writing now as efficiently as you think, given the variables you try to juggle. That aside, if you wrote as well as Dawkins it might not just be a nugatory cad like me who’d prefer you to Dawkins. You also seem to be getting Nietzschean, so I’d remind you of the words of the Master: “Coke, it’s t That which does not destroy me makes me stronger.” 
     
    i too was disappointed. rather unfocused. 
     
    It almost always is, but given its audience you can’t expect much more.

a