Alt Text
Show parent replies
this is petty but i just am extremely unimpressed by gillis' writing style
there's already plenty of substance i disagree on but that alone makes this unappealing to slog through
honestly also the stakes and terms of concern feel like gossip and chatter that we're trying to elevate to significance. maybe its just me being biased against contemporary events as potentially significant in the same way, but i can't help but feel that none of this will matter in a few years
just another one of those works that feels like it arrived stillborn from the press
"as an anarchist who came up in the radical left in the '90s and '00s" is like half of gilly's shtick lol
we haven't begun yet but one think i want to note at the outset is that he keeps attributing "liberation" as a common goal and is speaking about how he's going to demonstrate that the true hearty socialists and anarchists realize it better than postmodernists but like
the critique of holism is good and fair
i think the fact that the question of scientific realism vs antirealism not being a conscious or central issue should tip you off to something, and you'll need a great deal of caution attributing and constructing that position to knock down
i imagine it'll be treated as lack of rigor or as cowardice or some other similar deficient trait but i think theres benefit to ignoring something and seeing what comes of it
"anarchists with the stench of humanism"
damn straight
ugh lmao i know this is like one of the main points of the book but "the hard sciences are radicalism and the humanities are reactionary" is so weak man
like im being reductionist in that attribution, certainly at this early stage, but you can see the seeds being planted for it
:sob: even like the characterization of the opposition's position can't avoid your humanism
yes please keep repeating that science is radical because it seeks the root of all things thats so insightful and brave and has so much carry-over to the political context youre so right