It's prime-time exam time down here at Canterbury University so our AOC efforts to save civilisation, restore liberty to the New Zealand Isles, and give the Beehive a serious clean-out this spring are on hold until one of a large number of senior citizens tell us we can put our pens down and hand our exam scripts to the front.
As such, my small brain only has time to bother itself with two things. Studying, and procrastination concerning studying. One less object of this activity has been one of the worst philosophy courses I've ever done.
PHIL 317 Contemporary Political Philosophy with Simon Clarke. Why in blue blazes I ended up taking this course is a question that I find harder to answer than the sonambulistic inquiries addressed in the final exam on Wednesday. Likewise the essays we had to write, in which our old friend Karl Marx got tangled up in.
Who suffers more than the liberty-loving philosophy student when his final grade depends on his ability to catch and release all the stupidest ideas in the Western World! Rather than delighting in books full of Popper or Rand or Mill, we're bludgeoned by the epsilon-semi-moronics of Marx and Rawls and Nozick. It's dead wood! It's rubbish! Knowing thy enemy is all well and good but investigating the fine-tip details of philosophical dead-end balderdash salesmen and not complaining about it is like....is exactly like this:
That extract is the final word in Allen Wood's
Marxian Critique of Justice, 1993.
If you're like me it makes you just a little bit ticked off to read such huge lies about capitalism. In the first place it is a moral system, the only moral social system possible for us! And in the second place there happens to be a highly developed philosophy to say so with many books and authors saying it. It's just that we never get within a million miles of Popper's 'The Open Society and its Enemies' (even though he wrote the thing as a member of our philosophy department!) or Ayn Rand's 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'. That's plenty bad enough as it is, and then you get Allen Bloody Wood telling us no such ideas exist and that, if they did exist, they wouldn't merit "serious consideration."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm recovering well and pleased that course is over forever. Next exam: Econ 335: Public Economics. Only almost as bad.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:09pm
July 27th, 2008 at 11:33am
July 27th, 2008 at 7:58pm
August 29th, 2008 at 9:02pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:20pm
March 31st, 2010 at 9:02pm
Rick, I welcome you to the University of Otago for a debate. Any topic, one on one. You may even choose whether to affirm or negate.
You say you know about Nozick and his book, or you wouldn't have judged him a moron. Yet you judge a course to be "full of dead-wood rubbish" after attending only three lectures. That's 12.5 percent. How could you possibly know what the course is full of if you have attended only one 8th of the classes?
Anthony, looks like you got a little brown on your nose. You rebuke Dr Simon Clarke for making his statements in the public forum, yet praise Rick for the exact same. If Rick has the gall to publicly attack Dr Clarke's course instead of bring up the matter with him privately, then Dr Clarke has every right to defend himself and his course in the forum chosen by his critic. I sincerely hope you are a troll, Anthony, because you argue like one.
Again, Rick, please do come to the University of Otago for a debate. I will contact you privately with my details to arrange this if you respond favourably.
April 01st, 2010 at 11:13am
Can the matter please be something like "Does mankind signifigantly contribute to global warming", or something like that?
I would love to see the debate...
April 02nd, 2010 at 12:20am
Sure, could be. It doesn't have to be related to Earth Hour, global warming/climate change, or even politics, if Rick doesn't wish it to be. Provided he gives me enough time to research, I honestly don't mind what the topic is, or whether he chooses to affirm or negate. I also realise that this may require me to put forward an argument I disagree with, but that's just part of debating.
Personally, I wouldn't mind debating on VSM, although I realise it's too late for the debate to carry weight, given the passing of the submissions deadline.
So,are you interested in a debate, Rick?
April 01st, 2010 at 12:03am
Hello Dr Hales.
April 02nd, 2010 at 12:15am
I do not have a Doctorate. Also, I am only one Hale.
April 01st, 2010 at 5:47pm
Nice to see how the other page relating to the Earth Hour topic has been removed (http://www.actoncampus.org.nz/blog/earth-hour-and-aoc), or at least made inaccessible to the public. It seems that Act On Campus finds the comments a little bit too hard to swallow... Not surprising..
April 02nd, 2010 at 3:48am
Let's face it. He's got us. His argument is so powerful that it's not necessary to talk about it.
April 04th, 2010 at 6:49am
Rick, or anybody in AOC would slay you in a debate on VSM Simon. That's too easy.
April 04th, 2010 at 2:21pm
Any publicity's good publicity - especially if it comes courtesy of that smarmy Oliver Driver.
Trawl the depths of any youth wing of a political party and you find people as bizarre as Rick. The kid's got an opinion, and found himself with an opportunity to express it on live television. All things considered, he did okay. Maybe members of other parties who fancy themselves as "professional" political commentators would disagree - but you get what you pay for and Sunrise doesn't pay.
Still - no need for Clint to rush to Rick's side, unless them fellas really are worried some of this internet muck might stick. Here's some [free] crisis advice: the net has a short memory, no need to worry.
April 11th, 2010 at 10:53pm
Come on Rick you're fans would love to see that debate!!
If it's anything like you're latest efforts I'm sure it would be an instant hit on YouTube.
Post new comment