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
Is there smart modern distributist commentary? I am entirely sympathetic to distributism as a principle but I have been disappointed by distributists. I've heard some distributist speakers on Youtube, but my impression is that what they were really excited about was pro-lifery and just-shy-of-sedevacantist SSPV conservative Catholicism. Which, you know, that's cool, too ...
ReplyDeleteI hope to write some! Still researching.
Delete