Know Your Gnostics

By -
Is now available online.

Tell me what you think of my handling of the gnostic issue, PS Huff.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy2:40 PM

    I haven't read your article, but Brad Birzer (a cool prof at Hillsdale) talked it up on Facebook, so it must be good...

    ReplyDelete
  2. PH4:20 PM

    "We can still use his term 'Gnostic' while acknowledging, as he did, its questionable historical connection to ancient Gnosticism."

    Yeah, that seems fair. I would drop the capital G, though.

    By the day, I love the play on words in the title.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah4:51 PM

    "By the day, I love the play on words in the title."

    But by night he hates it! :-)

    In any case, you must compliment my esteemed editor, Dan McCarthy, on the title. My titles generally suck.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah5:04 PM

    "I haven't read your article..."

    Bob, you read it months before it was published!

    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