I would really, really appreciate it if the lot of you would suck my dick. While I do understand that individuals have individual ideas, opinions and "ways of thinking" about things, I must stop myself and say: Fuck You.
That, my friends, is my individual. That, my friends, is my way of saying "fuck you" (to reiterate). That, my friends, is the only liberty a fag can pretend to have these days. And you - or should I say "You" - can stop pretending to be my friend.
I despise your sympathy, because it's not real. I loath to hear myself "included" in some part of your "community," because it's not real. And I HATE - HATE, to reiterate - the way you dickwads try to console me -: because it's not real.
I am, and I am the way I am. If you think there's a problem there, speak up. I want to hear you, I want to understand you, I want to crush you. Because there isn't a problem there. There's just ME. Your problem, my friend, is only and simply that: your fucking problem.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Gnome Chawmskee
I do believe I made a bit of a Facebook row by posting a description courte of my feelings for Mr. Noam Chomsky. I offer this, then, as an attempt at clarification.
My distaste with Chomsky - my disgust, really - stems from the same problem I have with Richard Dawkins, Jean-Paul Sartre and a number of other "leading intellectuals" - namely, that they have all used their well-deserved renown to peddle some anti-intellectual agenda that, in the case of Chomsky and Dawkins, runs quite contrary to the work that earned them their renown in the first place.
Let's take Dawkins: a brilliant scientist who has single-handedly made some of the greatest advances in the theory of evolution that have ever been made. And what do we find him doing now? What have all his rigorous, admirable contributions to the empirical method of observation brought him to? Well, he's now made a name for himself in the anti-scientific, anti-empirical field of theology: he is attacking "god."
Now it should be recognized that intellectual integrity forbids a genius of such rank to engage in argumentation with minds that are so absolutely deprived of the ability for critical thinking, analysis and logical continuity as those with which Dawkins debates - the entire spectacle is really just comical, and does a great injustice to the scientific work he has produced. What is abhorrent, however, is the nature of his new "line of work." To see a man, whose unflenching adherance to the scientific method of discovery is so widely applauded, suddenly become engaged in arguments for and against the existence of God; to watch the spirit of Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley put to use in service of the spirits Tarsus, Augustine and Aquinas - this, my friends, is not comical in the least, but tragic.
So what is my problem with Chomsky? Well it's just this: the destruction of rational, meaningful discourse by the very mind that threw so much light on the structure, possibility and origin of rational, meaningful discourse; the rhetorical, unintelligable mashing-up of facts (to use a musical term) by a man whose best work was meant to illuminate, standardize and concretize the very concept "fact." The problem I have with Chomsky is that he has sacrificed reason to passion - and what makes it all the worse for the wear is that he has no sense of style.
I mean really: it's all good and well to renounce one's adolescent preoccupations with words in favor of more suitable "adult" themes - politics, injustice, consumerism, etc. But if one is going to commit themselves to discussing such garbage, one could at least be pretty about it.
My distaste with Chomsky - my disgust, really - stems from the same problem I have with Richard Dawkins, Jean-Paul Sartre and a number of other "leading intellectuals" - namely, that they have all used their well-deserved renown to peddle some anti-intellectual agenda that, in the case of Chomsky and Dawkins, runs quite contrary to the work that earned them their renown in the first place.
Let's take Dawkins: a brilliant scientist who has single-handedly made some of the greatest advances in the theory of evolution that have ever been made. And what do we find him doing now? What have all his rigorous, admirable contributions to the empirical method of observation brought him to? Well, he's now made a name for himself in the anti-scientific, anti-empirical field of theology: he is attacking "god."
Now it should be recognized that intellectual integrity forbids a genius of such rank to engage in argumentation with minds that are so absolutely deprived of the ability for critical thinking, analysis and logical continuity as those with which Dawkins debates - the entire spectacle is really just comical, and does a great injustice to the scientific work he has produced. What is abhorrent, however, is the nature of his new "line of work." To see a man, whose unflenching adherance to the scientific method of discovery is so widely applauded, suddenly become engaged in arguments for and against the existence of God; to watch the spirit of Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley put to use in service of the spirits Tarsus, Augustine and Aquinas - this, my friends, is not comical in the least, but tragic.
So what is my problem with Chomsky? Well it's just this: the destruction of rational, meaningful discourse by the very mind that threw so much light on the structure, possibility and origin of rational, meaningful discourse; the rhetorical, unintelligable mashing-up of facts (to use a musical term) by a man whose best work was meant to illuminate, standardize and concretize the very concept "fact." The problem I have with Chomsky is that he has sacrificed reason to passion - and what makes it all the worse for the wear is that he has no sense of style.
I mean really: it's all good and well to renounce one's adolescent preoccupations with words in favor of more suitable "adult" themes - politics, injustice, consumerism, etc. But if one is going to commit themselves to discussing such garbage, one could at least be pretty about it.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Grandstanding for Nihilism
I doth object: to the mind-numbing timeliness of every movement, work of art or piece of legislation; to the way our society seems to run down an unflinching track of cause and effect, thesis and antithesis, without ever bothering to stop off and change the oil; to the unbearable smugness with which men condemn the culpable and criticize all that is ripe for criticism - and all of this, as though we should applaud! "On your knees, boys and girls!" they cry. "I have come to demonstrate once and for all the hollowness of your institutions, the banality of your interests, the meanness of your idols - my words will be that breath of fresh air you seek, and the revolution you await!"
In all honesty and good conscience, we cannot pretend that we are any more than entertained by such demonstrations - no more, at least, than they can pretend away their hollowness, meanness and yes: their banality.
In all honesty and good conscience, we cannot pretend that we are any more than entertained by such demonstrations - no more, at least, than they can pretend away their hollowness, meanness and yes: their banality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)