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
Gene, I think the meaning of phobia has just changed in the context of homophobia and Islamophobia and the like. Here’s what I said in response to an earlier blog post of yours:
ReplyDelete“Gene, this is what I think happened. Regardless of the actual origin of the term, people started viewing the term homophobia as analogous to the term xenophobia. Xenophobia too no doubt originated as a term for an actual phobia like acrophobia, but it acquired the meaning of "bigotry against foreigners". Similarly people think of homophobia as bigotry against gays, not as some psychological condition.
That is what is going on with the coining of terms like transphobia and Islamophobia, they're all being coined in analogy with xenophobia, not in analogy with claustrophobia. If today people had to make up terms from scratch for what they actually want to describe, they'd probably make terms analogous to the word "racism", like maybe "homism" or "heteroism" or "orientationism".”
Yes, Keshav, I understand what has gone on here, which is as you say it is. But I still think that process you describe is objectionable!
Delete