What Passes for Conservatism Today

By -

Some clown at a "conservative" web site posted an attack on Professor Stephen Hicks accusing him of being a Marxist who was "training cadres of revolutionaries" because he had seen videos of Hicks discussing Marx and education. Now, that sure is an odd accusation to hurl at a follower of Ayn Rand. And all because the accuser is apparently unaware that we teachers sometimes present the ideas of thinkers with whom we disagree.

One shocked commenter said of this practice that: "this guy is 'presenting' Marxist philosophy from a Marxist's point of view.. however, this would be like me saying I am teaching about Hitler to young minds by pretending I sanctioned him."

Well, if I were teaching Mein Kampf, my job would be to explain what Hitler thought. Then I would explain the problems with his views. This would not mean I was "pretending I sanctioned him," it would mean I was explaining his writing. I have taught Marx three semesters in a row now, even though I am not a Marxist. Why? Well, he is a vitally important thinker in the history of the West. His thoughts directed half the world at one point in history. It is important to understand his ideas.

The commentators did not stop attacking Hicks and teachers in general even after the error was noted by several other commentators; one person still declared that "teachers [are] the new scum of the earth."

David Hume, Edmund Burke, and Russell Kirk are turning in their graves.

Comments

  1. Argosy Jones11:24 AM

    Amazingly, they apologized and took down the article.

    I have been advised that my recent characterization of Dr. Stephen Hicks was inaccurate and that he is not, in fact, a “Marxist educator.” My conclusion was drawn upon a series of videos in which he discussed Marxism and education. Upon further research, and out of an abundance of caution, I have asked BigGovernment.com to take down my post. I apologize to Dr. Hicks.

    Nice comments thread they've got over there....

    "The Second Amendment solves that problem with these Flaming Liberal Anti-American Revolutionaries."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ryan Wills3:20 PM

    Good post.

    I'll get'em where I can take'em.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ryan Wills3:20 PM

    Good post.

    I'll get'em where I can take'em.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more