The philosopher Thomas Nagel has come out with an admirably short and engaging book, Mind And Cosmos, with the subtitle Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Readers unfamiliar with Nagel might assume that his book is an attack on contemporary Darwinism by a person of faith arguing that biological evolution reveals the work of an intelligent designer — God himself. But the author, University Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the School of Law at New York University, removes any such misunderstanding at the start by declaring himself an atheist.
In Nagel’s view, Neo-Darwinism — biological evolution as we understand it today – is fundamentally incomplete, because it doesn’t explain how life originated and, says Nagel, it won’t ever have the ability to explain the emergence of human consciousness. Nagel believes that a better way of thinking about nature, and specifically about biological evolution, would be to search out nature’s purpose and goal. For while insisting that he is not theistic – quite the contrary – he nonetheless believes that evolution is teleological. That is to say, it has a purpose and it intends to reach a specific goal.
Nagel’s book was recently reviewed — rebutted may be the better word — across three of those very large pages that make up the New York Review of Books. The reviewer, H. Allen Orr, is University Professor and Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester, an evolutionary geneticist. These two, the biologist and the philosopher, are well matched in intelligence, prizes and distinguished positions in the republic of the intellect. But you needn’t be either a biologist or a philosopher to read Mind And Cosmos. Although Nagel writes at the highest level of abstraction and rarely yields to the concrete example, he write with pristine clarity and is quite understandable. (more…)
Beware chaos. Humankind has devised prayers to keep chaos from erupting in our lives, and we have rituals — some public, some privateand personal — that might help. But what do we know about chaos that we hope it won’t arrive at our door? And if it did, what kind of car would it arrive in? Marilyn Robertson has wondered about these things in “What Would Chaos Drive?”
Sometimes I think neatness is the charm
to keep bad news away.
A pile of books aligned: no accidents.
Socks folded in a drawer: safe journey.
Afghan laid precisely on the couch:
no one I know will die.
Every straightened picture frame
could signal one less sorrow.
So the chaos I refuse appears in dreams.
“Hey!” it calls, piling its drunken friends
into an old Studebaker.
“There’s room in the back seat.”
Angora dice hang from the rearview mirror.
Comic books and Cheetos line the floor.
None of the windows close.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will soon be giving a gold-plated Oscar for the Best Documentary film. Documentaries have come a long, long way since Robert Flaherty’s silent Nanook of the North back in 1922. Here are this year’s nominated films:
5 Broken Cameras is a first-hand account of some Palestinians’ non-violent resistance to the encroaching Israeli settlements that threatens their village. The Gatekeepers is about the Shin Bet from people on the inside, namely six former heads of Israel’s secret security service. How to Survive a Plague is about the early years of AIDS. The Invisible War is about sexual assault in the United States military. The first two are especially recommended.
That’s only four of the five nominated. They are informative and engaging and certainly worth seeing. And, of course, that’s why you watch a documentary, to be engaged while being informed, usually about something depressingly important. But you probably won’t come away feeling exhilarated, filled with a sense of lucky triumph, delighted that you’ve witnessed a real-world happy ending fairy tale.
Yet you might if you watch the fifth movie, Searching for Sugar Man. The movie is about the search by two Cape Town men who decide to find out whatever happened to the American singer/songwriter Rodriguez who was wildly popular in South Africa, especially among the rebellious young during the oppressive apartheid years. In fact, he was bigger than Elvis. When the search begins there are a couple of rumors about Rodriguez’s death, but nothing is certain. The first thing they learn is that the man known to everyone in South Africa is virtually unknown in the United States where, as one man in the music business says, Rodriguez sold maybe six records. How it ends is almost miraculous.
OK — if you must be fussy fussy and picky picky — there are some inaccuracies in the film, but see it anyway. We think you’ll feel better.
Today, being the 14th of February, is secular Valentine’s Day, which is a wholly different matter from St. Valentine’s Day in the liturgical calendar. We had a nice post about both secular and liturgical Valentines last year, and it’s still in our archive for the curious or the bored and lonely. (We hope you’re not lonely today, but there’s nothing we can do about that. We’re sorry.) In any case, unless you’ve stumbled onto this site by accident you’re probably fond of books and reading, and as we’ve come across a couple of photographs of books, reading and Valentine romance we’ve posted them for you.
You never know what you might find when you venture deep into the stacks at Harvard’s Widener Library. Of course, not just anyone can get into that particular collection of books. But you might have luck at your local library. The lighting isn’t too bright in the narrow aisles between bookcases, so make sure you have the right book and be very sure you have the right person.Here’s another pair of intellectuals reading in bed. He’s the kind of intellectual who gets tattooed, and she’s the kind who smokes in bed. The like to live dangerously. Or carelessly. Anyway, it’s a good bet he’s not going to finish reading that paperback of Hemingway’s A Farewell To Arms. But we don’t care if they don’t care. And we’re pretty sure they don’t care.We can’t help it. We know we posted this same image exactly a year ago, but we like it. We admire the young gentleman helping the young lady across the street in a snowstorm, and we admire the young lady who wears a short dress and those high-heel shoes in a blizzard.
It’s here — a dress that becomes transparent when you’re in the mood. (And you thought only Steve Jobs had cool ideas.) Advanced tech artist Daan Roosegaarde and fashion designer Anouk Wipprecht produced the dress. It’s called Intimacy 2.0 — the name doesn’t sound like haute couture, but it does suggest the high degree of science and technology that went into the garment.
The dress is made of leather and — here’s the good part — conductive e-foils that become transparent when exposed to electricity. It’s possible to design a circuit that is activated by an accelerated heart beat or an increase in body heat. And the subsequent flow of electricity will cause the e-foils to become transparent.
According to Studio Roosegaarde’s web site, “Studio Roosegaarde creates interactive designs that explore the dynamic relation between space, people, and technology.” And “By creating interactive designs that instinctively respond to sound and movement, Roosegaarde explores the dawn of a new nature that is evolving from technological innovations.” (more…)
Here’s something to brighten your gray wintry day — a Cara Cara orange. The Cara Cara has an unknown parentage. It’s a kind of bastard orange. It’s believed to have sprung from a mating of the Brazilian Bahia navel and the Washington navel. The orange was found in 1976, growing shamefully on a tree that regularly bore Washington navel oranges at the Hacienda de Cara Cara in Valencia, Venezuela. It could be a mutation. But that kind of immaculate conception excuse doesn’t convince us. We’re not naive. We think this is what happens when young and foolish oranges fool around. (By the way, this is a true story. You can look it up on Wikipedia. Go ahead. We’ll wait here.)
As for the taste of the Cara Cara, it’s been described as having a bit of cherry flavor, but some tasters add that it also has a bit of rose petal and blackberry. We at Critical Pages haven’t eaten any rose petal, but we’ve dined on Cara Cara oranges. In fact, you might say we’ve binged on them. To our jaded palates they taste mostly like oranges. As our high-school teacher liked to say, “De gustibus, non disputandem est.” That’s Latin for “Don’t tell me what it tastes like, I’ll taste it for myself.” You can get into trouble that way, too.
The recent unearthing of the skeletal remains of England’s Richard III reminds us again that there was a time when leaders who ordered up a battle actually got into the bloody slaughter themselves. Richard, with his crooked back, one shoulder forever higher than the other, was in there hacking his way toward Henry Tudor when he was himself cut down.
The skeletal evidence dug up at Leicester fits with historical accounts and vividly suggests King Richard’s final moments. The Royal Armouries’ Bob Woosnam-Savage has provided a possible scenario based on that evidence. Richard either dismounted or his horse had been cut from under him—all we know for certain is that on horseback he had driven toward Henry in an attempt to kill him and was now on foot, covered in armor and fighting it out because there was nothing else to do. He was surrounded. At some point his armor was pierced, his helmet was torn away and he began to receive blows to his head. If you’ve seen videos of Muammar Gaddafi’s last minute, you have a good picture of what was going on. Richard was cut and battered by pikes, swords and knives. Finally, according to Woosnam-Savage, he was stripped of his armor and repeatedly bashed, including a stab to the buttocks of his now lifeless body. “This last, insulting blow could easily have been delivered to king’s body by an infantryman with a bladed weapon after it had been slung over the back of a horse, ‘with the armes and legges hanging down on both sides’, as he was borne to Leicester.”
Our leaders don’t join their soldiers in battle any more. And it probably wouldn’t reduce the number of wars if they did. But there would be a certain satisfaction in knowing that the person who had ordered the bloody carnage was down there, risking his life, just like the rest.
Chuck Hegel was interrogated by the Senate Armed Services Committee prior to their deciding whether or not to confirm him as Secretary of Defense. Now we have some idea as to what it was like to be questioned by the Inquisition.
Hegel is the first cabinet nominee in history to have his confirmation hearing preceded by smear and attack ads on television, ads paid for by anonymous donors. The New York Times has said that Sheldon Adelson, the pro-Israel billionaire, is invested in the fight against Hegel, but it’s impossible to say that he has financed the ads.
During the hearing Republican members of the committee badgered Hegel — beat up on him verbally might be a more accurate description. John McCain hammered his former friend because Hegel, though a Republican Senator at the time, had said that the Iraq “surge” was a foreign policy disaster. McCain asked Hegel if he had been wrong and heatedly pursued Hegel for a yes or no answer. Hegel said he’d leave the judgement up to history.
Hegel was pounded for remarks he made about lobbyists for Israel, referring to them as “the Jewish lobby.” (Just in passing, it might be noted that in a letter to the New York Times, Henry Siegman, who worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, this country’s biggest pro-Israel lobby, reported that “the organization was referred to by everyone in the Jewish community as ‘the Jewish lobby for Israel.’” ) Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, was furious that Hegel had said lawmakers had been intimidated into doing “dumb things” on behalf of the lobby. You might wonder why Graham got so very, very worked up about that. Americans routinely say that Congress is intimidated by lobbyists and does dumb things. (more…)
Sometimes you just can’t win. And sometimes even winning doesn’t work the way you want it to. Pity the Republicans. Currently, Republicans control most governorships and most state legislatures. And their success in the states over the years put them in the position of being able to redraw the boundaries of certain congressional districts. These victories have made it impossible for the Republican Speaker of the House to do politics — which is to say, make deals.
Maybe you’ve seen this political carton before. It’s been around — it was first printed in 1812. Back then, Massachusetts’ Governor Gerry and his allies redrew the lines of the state’s electoral districts to give his party safe-and-sure voting districts. One of the districts was so contorted that on a map it looked like a salamander. And since it was the handiwork of Governor Gerry, it became known as a gerrymander. This is the monster that dined on the House of Representatives the last two years.
Sometimes the people drawing political maps want to break up an area where the opponent has a sure win, other times they may want to draw a district that snakes this way and that in order to gather like-minded voters into a safe-for-our-party haven. But there’s a dangerous downside for a political party that gerrymanders too well.
When a party has redrawn congressional districts so it will surely win, the real contest becomes the primary vote. Then the only question is who the sure-to-win party will run in the upcoming congressional election. But the only people who turn out to vote in the party’s primary are the most zealous members of the party — a relative minority. And that minority of zealots tends to be further to the left or further to the right of the national party. This is particularly true for Republicans. (Think Tea Party.)
Fortunately, politicians can’t redraw state boundaries. Senators have to seek votes across an entire state, not a rigged congressional district. There are some no-compromise senators, but on the whole the Senate is more temperate and more moderate than the House — which is what the founders planned. Now a bipartisan group of eight senators has come up with an outline for immigration reform. After the presidential election, the Republican party realized that it would go on losing national elections unless it took a position on immigration that was within at least a few hundred miles of the Democratic party. (more…)