(Untitled)
Друг прислал рецензию из The New York Review на недавнюю книгу
White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea by Tyler Stovall. Автор рецензии David A. Bell.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/09/23/whose-freedom/?utm_source=nybooks
С припиской о том, что рецензия и книга заставили его по-иному взглянуть на американскую, да и мировую историю.
( Read more... )
Stovall defines white freedom - which, he demonstrates, has been the foundation of liberty beloved by especially European and North American nations, regardless of how progressive their contemporary policies - as "the belief (and practice) that freedom is central to white racial identity, and that only white people can or should be free." His arguments are extremely convincing, at least to me, and for anyone doubting his sources, there are some 70 pages of notes at the end of the book that detail his extensive research material (he also names plenty of the historians whose work he draws from in the main body of the text). "Many populists," he writes in his conclusion, "see themselves as engaged in a movement for freedom, in particular a movement to defend their nations against oppression by an alliance of global elites and the racial minorities and immigrants they exploit for their own ends."
изменили именно оставаясь в парадигме либеральных ценностей и ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Убедительность аргументов Пинкера признается далеко не всеми, особенно когда он выходит за рамки своей непосредственной специальности. Тот же Дэвид Белл написал разгромную рецензию.
"Steven Pinker is no philosophe. The great writers of the Enlightenment, contrary to the way they are often caricatured, were mostly skeptics at heart. They had a taste for irony, an appreciation of paradox, and took delight in wit. They appreciated complexity, rarely shied away from difficulty, and generally had a deep respect for the learning of those who had preceded them.
Enlightenment Now has few of these qualities. It is a dogmatic book that offers an oversimplified, excessively optimistic vision of human history and a starkly technocratic prescription for the human future. It also gives readers the spectacle of a professor at one of the world’s great universities treating serious thinkers with populist contempt. To be fair, Pinker is right that much good news today ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Антиподом Пинкера называли британского философа Джона Грея. В своей рецензии тот писал:
“Judged as a contribution to thought, Enlightenment Now is embarrassingly feeble. With its primitive scientism and manga-style history of ideas, the book is a parody of Enlightenment thinking at its crudest. A more intellectually inquiring author would have conveyed something of the Enlightenment’s richness and diversity. Yet even if Pinker was capable of providing it, intellectual inquiry is not what his anxious flock demands. Only an anodyne, mythical Enlightenment can give them what they crave, which is relief from painful doubt.”
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment