In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.” He didn’t say any more, but we’ve always been unusually communicative in a reserved way, and I understood that he meant a great deal more than that.
I had this debate with a friend on objectivity in science. She had read about it and didn’t believe in it. I argued with Husserl’s geometry but she didn’t care for it, arguing for a weakness in my opinion, stressing that maths is something else. I didn’t know what to say and couldn’t think of it before afterwards, when she was gone, that we were talking about two different things; theory of science versus phenomenology.
Anyway, I have come to this: one can’t have deconstruction without situationism. This is Debord:
The two sides of the end of culture–in all the aspects of knowledge as well as in all the aspects of perceptible representations exist in a unified manner in what used to be art in the most general sense. In the case of knowledge, the accumulation of branches of fragmentary knowledge, which become unusable because the approval of existing conditions must finally renounce knowledge of itself, confronts the theory of praxis which alone holds the truth of them all since it alone holds the secret of their use. In the case of representations, the critical self-destruction of society’s former common language confronts its artificial recomposition in the commodity spectacle, the illusory representation of the non-lived.
And maybe not without the fun of american contra-spectacular movements.
«We have to close down the church of Norway due to resent research providing evidence which proves that God does not exist. The good news is that the Nidaros Cathedral will be rebuild into a jumping castle for children.»
This is the translation of a cartoon published in Dagbladet, a norwegian newspaper. It shows caricatures of the bishops of the norwegian church, this church has been part of the state and recently started a process of dividing it. However the church remain connected to the state in economic and theological matters. The cartoon raises interesting questions about the relation between religious belief and science. One of the points for the bishops in the cartoon is to stay in tune with the newest research in science. A question could be: isn’t it also important to look at the unquestioned presuppositions of nature science? French sociologist of science and anthropologist Bruno Latour wrote a book on these subjects in 1987, Science in Action was the title. He showed there how the model of the DNA molecule as we know it today actually was not given from nature, but something people once decided to call natural even if there was a lot of researchers and a number of other models could have been canonized in the literature of biology and chemistry. Anyway nature scientists echoes the words of old encyclopedists when they talk about the physics and other sciences as something which can totally explain nature (like how this old quote looks like Dawkins): »Perfectly finished books make courses unnecessary. The book is Nature inscribed on a staff (like music) and completed.« (The last word underlined by Novalis).
Source for Cartoon (by Flu Hartberg): http://www.dagbladet.no/tegneserie/fagprat/?1400184735&d=-1