Friday, August 21, 2009


Just in case you haven't seen it before, behold the Postmodern Generator. Every time you hit refresh, you get a brand new, completely meaningless postmodern essay. Enjoy!

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum


EverKang said...

Which reminds me of an amusing story and a fun analysis of just this sort of thing as it is done by actual humans:

KESS said...

Hey James,
This is totally off-topic. I'm still awaiting the copy I ordered of God's Philosophers a couple of weeks ago (free shipping doesn't mean quick shipping). I'm excited having read all of the positive reviews.

Anyways, I read that Loftus, Carrier & Co. have a new book on the horizon. Michael Martin claims it destroys Christianity. Having read almost every word Martin has written on the topic, and having read much of the drivel from the other contributers (Price, Avalos, Loftus, Barker, et. al.), I'm not expecting much. Hopefully they will surprise us and present something new.

The reason I'm mentioning this at all is because I saw that the final chapter in the volume is a contribution from Carrier called "Christianity Was Not Responsible For Modern Science." Knowing your interactions with Carrier in the past, I'm interested to know if he was given (or requested) an advance copy of your work before writing the chapter? I surely hope he would interact with it, if he truly wants to make such a claim as the chapter title entails.

James said...


Sorry about the delay. I expect that they don't use airmail for free delivery but I hope it doesn't take too long.

I'll certainly be looking at Carrier's chapter in the new book. The statement "Christianity Was Not Responsible For Modern Science" is a reasonable one so he may be quite unobjectionable, arguing against the likes of Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods Jr, both of whom I found unconvincing.

I would say that Christianity was a positive factor in the rise of modern science, but I'd settle for people accepting that it didn't hold science back.

Best wishes


Matko said...

Ha, ha, Jim! I thought I was the only one who knew about that generator. One of many reasons I didn't decide for Continental philosophy.

Jim S. said...

Well, not all Continental philosophy is postmodern. In fact, postmodernism has been effectively dead in philosophy for 20 years. My sympathies certainly rest with analytic philosophy, but I can still appreciate Continental.

Matko said...

I did say one „of“ many reasons. Phenomenology or Marxism isn't something I would label postmodern. Regardless, there's a big schism between the Analytic and the Continental tradition. Several years ago, Cambridge decided to award Derrida (a philosophical clown, Foucault and Žižek immediately after him) an honorary doctorate. There was an outcry, Searle was specially vocal about it.

Forgive by brashness, as such mentality was poured into me. My professor who did came into contact with Analytic philosophy share my way to thinking. They and my personal immersion into Anglo-american philosophy formed my philosophical outlook I have now. Please don't get angry at me. :)

It's news to me that postmodernism isn't anymore a leading paradigm in Continental tradition. From the way I hear that term repeatedly, I thought the thing's still alive. You're in Belgium, so you're better informed than me.

Jim S. said...

Don't worry dude, I'm just surrounded by Continental philosophers, so I'm bound to like some of it. Or hate some of it less. There are certainly some interesting thinkers in their ranks, like Jean-Luc Marion, Michel Henry, and William Desmond. But it seems to leave a lot of room for reckless extemporizing, something which analytic excludes by its nature.

Joel said...

Carrier links to a couple of presentations he did on the subject here:

What do you think?