(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
[ ]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit
superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard:
Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
[ ]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international
streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
“Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with support for >> eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality,
saying in 1929: "Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that this >> is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the
natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing wing >> of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The >> earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how >> should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects?…To what extent should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the preservation of >> the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations declaration of >> the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as 1953, >> two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been defended by >> theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit
superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard:
Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
[ ]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international
streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
“Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with
support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality,
saying in 1929: "Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human
value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that
this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the
natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the >> same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing
wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups?
The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally
still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects?…To what extent
should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as
1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been
defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit
superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard:
Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international
streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with support for >> eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality,
saying in 1929: "Do the yellows[the Chinese]have the same human value as >> the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that this >> is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the
natural racial foundation "[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic
groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despisedquite the reverse In other words, at one and the same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude should the advancing wing >> of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The >> earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how >> should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of lifes rejects? To what extent should >> not the development of the strong take precedence over the preservation of >> the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations declaration of >> the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as 1953, >> two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been defended by >> theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit
superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard:
Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international
streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-
Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
"Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with support for eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, saying in 1929: "Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that this is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so often no more than one of life's rejects?…To what extent should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations declaration of the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as 1953, two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been defended by theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>> by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was >>>>> excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child >>>>> sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in >>>>> a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
?Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social >>>> Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows?[the Chinese]?have the same human value as >>>> the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that this >>>> is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>> natural racial foundation?"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >>>> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean >>>> they must be despised?quite the reverse?In other words, at one and the same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of >>>> the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And >>>> around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude?should the advancing wing >>>> of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The >>>> earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, >>>> racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving >>>> what is so often no more than one of life?s rejects??To what extent should >>>> not the development of the strong?take precedence over the preservation of >>>> the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, >>>> and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations declaration of >>>> the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as 1953, >>>> two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been defended by >>>> theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.
Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!
On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>> by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was >>>>> excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child >>>>> sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in >>>>> a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social >>>> Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with
support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows[the Chinese]have the same human
value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that
this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>> natural racial foundation "[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >>>> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean >>>> they must be despisedquite the reverse In other words, at one and the >>>> same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of >>>> the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And >>>> around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude should the advancing >>>> wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? >>>> The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, >>>> racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally
still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving >>>> what is so often no more than one of lifes rejects? To what extent
should
not the development of the strong take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, >>>> and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as
1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been
defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were >>> "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
for "cancelling".
--
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the
fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
[1] Some people NOT including me.
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the
fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
[1] Some people NOT including me.
On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovativeWill this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>> by the church.
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was >>>>> excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child >>>>> sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in >>>>> a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
“Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social >>>> Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with
support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human
value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that
this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>> natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >>>> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean >>>> they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the >>>> same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of >>>> the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And >>>> around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing >>>> wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? >>>> The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate, >>>> racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally
still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving >>>> what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects?…To what extent >>>> should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, >>>> and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as
1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been
defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were >>> "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
for "cancelling".
--
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the
fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
[1] Some people NOT including me.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 11:40:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Youre the one who resorted to flaunting social status of the Distinguished >> Research Professor over the lowly recent doctoral graduate, indicative of
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by >>>> newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research >>>> Professor.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative >>>>>>> thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>>>> by the church.Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the >>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was >>>>>>> excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child >>>>>>> sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre >>>>>>> Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and >>>>>>> science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in >>>>>>> a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public >>>>>>> Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app. >>>>>>>
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
?Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social >>>>>> Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows?[the Chinese]?have the same human value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present >>>>>> inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>>>> natural racial foundation?"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic >>>>>> groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean >>>>>> they must be despised?quite the reverse?In other words, at one and the same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude?should the advancing wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life?s rejects??To what extent should
not the development of the strong?take precedence over the preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, >>>>>> and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as 1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an >>>>> attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes >>>>> nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link >>>>> to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's >>>>> arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard
Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.
an overweening arrogant condescension Ive come to expect from you.
Nope, I simply pointed out that both the Wiki editor and you have
chosen to emphasise the lesser qualified person and ignore the better qualified one - bias confirmation, anyone?
Your claim about "credentialism" is somewhat like somebody buying Ron
Dean's opinions about Darwin and Paley and ignoring the opinions of a
certain learned professor who frequents these parts and just happens
to know rather a lot about the subject.
Topped off by a gratuitous insult.
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!
You've worked hard to earn the handle, that's 3 times I've called you
out for it in as many weeks. Stop behaving like him and I will stop
calling you out for it.
I get it. Your hero Teilhard can have no warts.
Oh, he has plenty of warts but none quite so bad as the irresistible
itch he seems to give you.
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.
On 5/20/24 5:52 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so manyI disagree, and so would the Librarian; we're apes, not monkeys!
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially >> meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys. >>
Got me! We're nasty apes.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700, erik simpson[]
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.
What's nasty about monkeys? I thought Daydream Believer was a pretty
good number.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:05:46 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-19 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My complaint is with the use of the term "cancellation".
wrote:
On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative >>>>>>> thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>>>> by the church.Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the >>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was >>>>>>> excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child >>>>>>> sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre >>>>>>> Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and >>>>>>> science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in >>>>>>> a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public >>>>>>> Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app. >>>>>>>
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
"Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social >>>>>> Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with
support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows-[the Chinese]-have the same human
value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present >>>>>> inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that >>>>>> this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>>>> natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic
groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean >>>>>> they must be despised-quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the >>>>>> same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing >>>>>> wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? >>>>>> The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally
still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life's rejects?…To what extent >>>>>> should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics, >>>>>> and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as >>>>>> 1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been
defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient >>>>> with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were >>>>> "common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century >>>>> would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a >>>>> thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
for "cancelling".
--
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the
fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
Possible misunderstanding then; in the context of the discussion, I
thought your use of 'hagiography' was specifically in regard to
Teilhard de Chardin.
Would you call
to the expressed opinions about Darwin that you reference 9not that you
hold them) as "cancellation". Or has the term been devalued to the point
that it means 'criticizing someone in a way that I disapprove of'.
I take "cancellation" to mean that somebody's entire body of work
should effectively be discarded because of some perceived imperfection
in their character. That certainly doesn't apply to either Darwin or
Teilhard de Chardin in my opinion - see my "Two Questions" response to Hemidactylus.
[1] Some people NOT including me.
--
On Tue, 21 May 2024 16:48:12 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-20 6:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:05:46 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-19 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My complaint is with the use of the term "cancellation".
wrote:
On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling >>>>>> for "cancelling".
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950, >>>>>>> although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient >>>>>>> with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative >>>>>>>>> thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>>>>>> by the church.Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?: >>>>>>>> "Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>>>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the >>>>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre >>>>>>>>> Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and >>>>>>>>> science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>>>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>>>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>>>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four >>>>>>>>> countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>>>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public >>>>>>>>> Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>>>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with >>>>>>>> support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>>>>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows-[the Chinese]-have the same human >>>>>>>> value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present >>>>>>>> inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that >>>>>>>> this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>>>>>> natural racial foundation "[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic
groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despised-quite the reverse In other words, at one and the
same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude should the advancing >>>>>>>> wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? >>>>>>>> The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally >>>>>>>> still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life's rejects? To what extent >>>>>>>> should
not the development of the strong take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as >>>>>>>> 1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been >>>>>>>> defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623 >>>>>>>>
"common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century >>>>>>> would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a >>>>>>> thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
--
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the >>>>> fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
Possible misunderstanding then; in the context of the discussion, I
thought your use of 'hagiography' was specifically in regard to
Teilhard de Chardin.
Well, given the contents of this thread it is impossible not to consider
the upcoming biography of Teilhard de Chardin to be a possible exemplar
of the target of my complaint. *IF* Hemi's info concerning Teilhard de
Chardin's significant connections to eugenics is true then a biography
that omits any mention of it would fit my definition of a possible an article by a
hagiography. this would be true of any biography in my opinion.
Hemi's only "info" is an article by a recent doctoral graduate and an
extract from Teilhard's work that Hemi claims speaks for itself. I've
asked him what qualifications Slattery has that makes his views on
Teilhard worthy of weight and two aspects of the given extract that
seem to contradict Hemi's claim. He hasn't responded to any of that so
you can make up your own mind as to whether "significant" is the
appropriate word for his claims.
Would you call
to the expressed opinions about Darwin that you reference 9not that you >>>> hold them) as "cancellation". Or has the term been devalued to the point >>>> that it means 'criticizing someone in a way that I disapprove of'.
I take "cancellation" to mean that somebody's entire body of work
should effectively be discarded because of some perceived imperfection
in their character. That certainly doesn't apply to either Darwin or
Teilhard de Chardin in my opinion - see my "Two Questions" response to
Hemidactylus.
I may be missing some historical background here. Has Hemi called for
the dismissal of Teilhard de Chardin's entire body of work anywhere?
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't recall saying that Hemi called
for that.
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond >> to that.
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
it.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 16:48:12 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-20 6:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:05:46 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-05-19 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>My complaint is with the use of the term "cancellation".
wrote:
On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling >>>>>> for "cancelling".
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950, >>>>>>> although many still subscribe to the notion. That said, I'm impatient >>>>>>> with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were
(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative >>>>>>>>> thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced >>>>>>>>> by the church.Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?: >>>>>>>> "Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the >>>>>>>>> bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the >>>>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre >>>>>>>>> Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and >>>>>>>>> science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit >>>>>>>>> superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized >>>>>>>>> as the inspired genius that he was.
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard: >>>>>>>>> Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four >>>>>>>>> countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included >>>>>>>>> more than 35 interviews.
[?]
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public >>>>>>>>> Television on May 19 and be available for national and international >>>>>>>>> streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with >>>>>>>> support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality, >>>>>>>> saying in 1929: "Do the yellows-[the Chinese]-have the same human >>>>>>>> value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present >>>>>>>> inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that >>>>>>>> this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the >>>>>>>> natural racial foundation…"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic
groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despised-quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the
same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude…should the advancing
wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups? >>>>>>>> The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally >>>>>>>> still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life's rejects?…To what extent >>>>>>>> should
not the development of the strong…take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as >>>>>>>> 1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been >>>>>>>> defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623 >>>>>>>>
"common knowledge" at the time. Very few people in the 19th century >>>>>>> would escape being called racist by modern standards. There is such a >>>>>>> thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
--
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the >>>>> fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
Possible misunderstanding then; in the context of the discussion, I
thought your use of 'hagiography' was specifically in regard to
Teilhard de Chardin.
Well, given the contents of this thread it is impossible not to consider
the upcoming biography of Teilhard de Chardin to be a possible exemplar
of the target of my complaint. *IF* Hemi's info concerning Teilhard de
Chardin's significant connections to eugenics is true then a biography
that omits any mention of it would fit my definition of a possible an article by a
hagiography. this would be true of any biography in my opinion.
Hemi's only "info" is an article by a recent doctoral graduate and an
extract from Teilhard's work that Hemi claims speaks for itself. I've
asked him what qualifications Slattery has that makes his views on
Teilhard worthy of weight and two aspects of the given extract that
seem to contradict Hemi's claim. He hasn't responded to any of that so
you can make up your own mind as to whether "significant" is the
appropriate word for his claims.
Would you call
to the expressed opinions about Darwin that you reference 9not that you >>>> hold them) as "cancellation". Or has the term been devalued to the point >>>> that it means 'criticizing someone in a way that I disapprove of'.
I take "cancellation" to mean that somebody's entire body of work
should effectively be discarded because of some perceived imperfection
in their character. That certainly doesn't apply to either Darwin or
Teilhard de Chardin in my opinion - see my "Two Questions" response to
Hemidactylus.
I may be missing some historical background here. Has Hemi called for
the dismissal of Teilhard de Chardin's entire body of work anywhere?
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't recall saying that Hemi called
for that.
[1] Some people NOT including me.
--
--
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*[snip]
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long >>>> quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond >>>> to that.
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
it.
I wonder what is the physiology of nations and races as would I suppose
my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos, >> because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the >> topics at hand.
Which was my query about what the physiology of nations and races might >> mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where Im
seancing with Nyikos since youre fixated on comparing me to him.
I guess you would rather stonewall on this the physiology of nations and >> races point too.
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
==============================
[You asked:]
First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's?
Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?
[I answered:]
When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an objectionable form of "credentialism".
==============================
[You asked:]
And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.
[I answered:]
When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:
<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]
Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on
a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at
its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?
[1] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
</unquote>
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*"John P. Slattery is the Director of the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*[snip]
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long >>>>>> quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
to that.
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about >>>>> it.
?I wonder what is ?the physiology of nations and races??as would I suppose >>>> my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the >>>> topics at hand.?
Which was my query about what ?the physiology of nations and races? might >>>> mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where I?m >>>> seancing with Nyikos since you?re fixated on comparing me to him.
I guess you would rather stonewall on this ?the physiology of nations and >>>> races? point too.
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of
sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
==============================
[You asked:]
First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's? >>>> Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?
[I answered:]
When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an
objectionable form of "credentialism".
Ethics in Science, Technology, and Law at Duquesne University. From
2018-2022, he served as a Senior Program Officer with the Dialogue on
Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC. An ethicist,
theologian, and historian of science, Slattery works at the intersection of >> technology, science, religion, and racism. He is the author of the 2019
Faith and Science at Notre Dame, the editor of the 2020 Christian Theology >> and the Modern Sciences, and a contributing author to the open access 2023 >> book, Encountering Artificial Intelligence. His essays have appeared online >> in Commonweal Magazine, America, Science, Religion Dispatches, Daily
Theology, and other outlets. The tiles below represent a selection of his
recent writings and lectures."
https://johnslattery.com
I was more interested in his qualifications at the time he wrote the
article (2017/2018), not what he achieved later.
"Slattery earned a B.S. in computer science from Georgetown University, a
master's degree in theology from Saint Paul School of Theology, and an
interdisciplinary PhD in the history and philosophy of science and
systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame."
https://www.duq.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-slattery.php
Which ties in with my description of him as "a recent doctoral
graduate" which I took straight from the description of him
accompanying the article in Religious Dispatches.
For the record, here are the qualifications of John F. Haught who contradicted Slattery's claims but whom you prefer to ignore:
<quote>
John F. Haught is an American theologian. He is a Distinguished
Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman
Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues
pertaining to physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and Christianity.
He has authored numerous books and articles, including Science and
Faith: A New Introduction (2012), Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin,
God, and The Drama of Life ( 2010), God and the New Atheism: A
Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008),
Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature (2007), Is
Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (2006),
Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life (2004), God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (2000, 2nd ed. 2007), Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation (1995), The Promise of Nature: Ecology and
Cosmic Purpose (1993, 2nd ed. 2004), What is Religion? (1990), What is
God? (1986), and The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest
for Purpose (1984).
In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and
Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in
2008 a "Friend of Darwin Award" from the National Center for Science Education. He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA "Intelligent Design Trial"(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of
Education).
</quote>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves what weight to give to
each writer.
Notre Dame? Never heard of it. Guess you're right then. He's on the level
of Ron Dean?
Yet again you try to cover up your failure to address the points I
made by making up something I didn't say.
==============================I think at this point it's significant if you acknowledge Teilhard was
[You asked:]
And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.
[I answered:]
When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:
<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]
Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on
a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at
its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?
[1]
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
</unquote>
contemplating eugenics.
Again you simply ignore my two questions. I guess you don't have
answers for them.
[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]
There were positive and negative versions and a
spectrum of views per application.
But I have yet to see that explicit
acknowledgment from you.
You haven't put forward a credible case for him being a racist or a eugenicist; do that and I'll willingly acknowledge whatever warrants
being acknowledged.
You also haven't explained what impact it would have on his broader
ideas even if it were true. We went through more or less the same
discussion over 3 years ago and I asked you then to explain the impact
but you never answered then either.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/j4LsnveCzCI/m/b94qzKFCAgAJ
I'm wary of interpreting isolated words or phrases from Teilhard as he
Now about that "physiology of nations and races?" >
often adapted words to his own meaning, but physiology normally refers
to activities and function, so I'd guess he means something about how
nations and races function. I can't see any interpretation that would
relate it to racism or eugenics; It might help if you elucidate what's bothering you about the phrase. If, for example, I talk about the
differences between how the people of America function as a society
compared to the people of Russia, do you think I am guilty of being a
racist or eugenicist?
And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
Slattery by Joshua Canzona:
"Having recently completed a dissertation on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I >> read John Slattery's RD article on Teilhard's "legacy of eugenics and
racism" with interest. I agree with some of the motivation for his essay
and in a recent paper I called for more work to be done "on the subject of >> elitist, ethnocentric, imperialist, and racist elements in Teilhard's
thought." Slattery provides a service by casting light on some of the most >> troubling passages in the Teilhardian corpus, but I strongly disagree with >> his method and conclusions."
He points out some errors made by Slattery.
He also, though taking some wind out of Slattery's sails, adds "there is
indeed prior scholarship on some of the issues raised by Slattery. In her
excellent dissertation, "The Kingdom of God as a Unity of Persons," Amy
Limpitlaw argues that Teilhard "openly espouses a kind of racism" and
provides an extended analysis."
I don't put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's
dissertation where the dissertation isn't available to check. All I
can find is an abstract which doesn't mention racism or eugenics, so
I'd assume that whatever she said wasn't a significant element of her dissertation.
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIMTKO
I think it speaks for itself that such a vague reference is all that
he has to offer in terms of prior scholarship on some of the issues
raised by Slattery.
He also wonders: "From thousands of pages of Teilhard's manuscripts,
Slattery has picked out eight troubling passages. While there are certainly >> others he could have chosen, we're still looking at only the tiniest
portion of Teilhard's work. If eugenics and racism were as central as
Slattery would have us believe, why do they so rarely come up?"
I haven't been able find anyone who independently comes to the same conclusions as Slattery about Teilhard; anyone else who makes the
accusation seems to simply draw from Slattery's piece. Looks to me
like he was on a solo run.
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/teilhards-legacy-cant-be-reduced-to-racism-a-response-to-john-slattery/
Eugenics at least comes up in *The Phenomenon of Man* which is Teilhard's
best known book. In the context of technofuturism Teilhard may be
foreshadowing transhumanism and the allure of augmentation.
The only place it comes up is in the extract quoted by you earlier.
I've asked you several times to explain how "In the course of the
coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human
form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed" translates to support for eugenics as it was understood at the time he wrote Phenomenon, involving the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion. You seem unable to offer any such explanation.
Joshua Canzona is a recent PhD though and not of Haught's eminent stature. >> Indeed we should "take into account their qualifications relevant to the
subject upon which they are pronouncing", but since he is arguing against
Slattery >>
And Slattery the PhD from an unknown school
That sort of childish attempt at sniping does nothing for your
argument.
called Notre Dame responds:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/author-responds-to-criticism-of-teilhard-eugenics-essay/
Can it be that all of us who have indulged in the questionable practice
of reproduction have had eugenic thoughts or hopes?
On 5/27/24 5:29 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Can it be that all of us who have indulged in the questionable practice
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Qualifications are not arguments made.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*"John P. Slattery is the Director of the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for >>>> Ethics in Science, Technology, and Law at Duquesne University. From
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*[snip]
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
to that.
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about >>>>>>> it.
?I wonder what is ?the physiology of nations and races??as would I suppose
my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the
topics at hand.?
Which was my query about what ?the physiology of nations and races? might
mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where I?m >>>>>> seancing with Nyikos since you?re fixated on comparing me to him.
I guess you would rather stonewall on this ?the physiology of nations and
races? point too.
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of >>>>> sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
==============================
[You asked:]
First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's? >>>>>> Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?
[I answered:]
When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which >>>>> they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on >>>>> Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on >>>>> our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an >>>>> objectionable form of "credentialism".
2018-2022, he served as a Senior Program Officer with the Dialogue on
Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program of the American Association >>>> for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC. An ethicist,
theologian, and historian of science, Slattery works at the intersection of
technology, science, religion, and racism. He is the author of the 2019 >>>> Faith and Science at Notre Dame, the editor of the 2020 Christian Theology >>>> and the Modern Sciences, and a contributing author to the open access 2023 >>>> book, Encountering Artificial Intelligence. His essays have appeared online
in Commonweal Magazine, America, Science, Religion Dispatches, Daily
Theology, and other outlets. The tiles below represent a selection of his >>>> recent writings and lectures."
https://johnslattery.com
I was more interested in his qualifications at the time he wrote the
article (2017/2018), not what he achieved later.
"Slattery earned a B.S. in computer science from Georgetown University, a >>>> master's degree in theology from Saint Paul School of Theology, and an >>>> interdisciplinary PhD in the history and philosophy of science and
systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame."
https://www.duq.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-slattery.php
Which ties in with my description of him as "a recent doctoral
graduate" which I took straight from the description of him
accompanying the article in Religious Dispatches.
For the record, here are the qualifications of John F. Haught who
contradicted Slattery's claims but whom you prefer to ignore:
<quote>
John F. Haught is an American theologian. He is a Distinguished
Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman
Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues
pertaining to physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and
Christianity.
He has authored numerous books and articles, including Science and
Faith: A New Introduction (2012), Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin,
God, and The Drama of Life ( 2010), God and the New Atheism: A
Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008),
Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature (2007), Is
Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (2006),
Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life (2004), God After Darwin: A
Theology of Evolution (2000, 2nd ed. 2007), Science and Religion: From
Conflict to Conversation (1995), The Promise of Nature: Ecology and
Cosmic Purpose (1993, 2nd ed. 2004), What is Religion? (1990), What is
God? (1986), and The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest
for Purpose (1984).
In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and
Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in
2008 a "Friend of Darwin Award" from the National Center for Science
Education. He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA
"Intelligent Design Trial"(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of
Education).
</quote>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves what weight to give to
each writer.
You were diminishing Slattery’s stature, something you gravitate toward. I >> was using sarcasm to pop that stature bubble. Shouldn’t it be Slattery’s >> arguments not his accolades or lack of such?
Notre Dame? Never heard of it. Guess you're right then. He's on the level >>>> of Ron Dean?
Yet again you try to cover up your failure to address the points I
made by making up something I didn't say.
1. You are narrowly focused on one connotation of eugenics. Slattery seems >> to be too. But did Teilhard invoke a form of eugenics in his writing?==============================I think at this point it's significant if you acknowledge Teilhard was >>>> contemplating eugenics.
[You asked:]
And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.
[I answered:]
When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:
<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of >>>>> methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]
Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on >>>>> a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at >>>>> its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?
[1]
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
</unquote>
Again you simply ignore my two questions. I guess you don't have
answers for them.
2. “[A] nobly human form of eugenics” is eugenics. Full stop.
So I do have answers.
Also I had admitted Ernst Mayr, who alongside eugenics supporter Julian
Huxley was a crafter of the Modern Synthesis, contemplated eugenics too. It >> didn’t seem the worst kind but was eugenics nonetheless. You are incapable >> so far of doing even that basic admission for Teilhard, perhaps due to your >> personal investment in him.
[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]
There were positive and negative versions and a
spectrum of views per application.
“[A] nobly human form of eugenics” is eugenics. Full stop. Nuance is not >> your strong suit.
But I have yet to see that explicit
acknowledgment from you.
You haven't put forward a credible case for him being a racist or a
eugenicist; do that and I'll willingly acknowledge whatever warrants
being acknowledged.
At the time that Teilhard had entertained eugenic views came as a shock,
You also haven't explained what impact it would have on his broader
ideas even if it were true. We went through more or less the same
discussion over 3 years ago and I asked you then to explain the impact
but you never answered then either.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/j4LsnveCzCI/m/b94qzKFCAgAJ
but an aside to my reading about his acquaintance Huxley’s views on the
same topic. You failed to actually grapple with the use of eugenics in
Teilhard’s work then and are still doing so now. Still too soon?
It seems weird to refer to physiology in such a collectivized manner, butI'm wary of interpreting isolated words or phrases from Teilhard as he
Now about that "physiology of nations and races?" >
often adapted words to his own meaning, but physiology normally refers
to activities and function, so I'd guess he means something about how
nations and races function. I can't see any interpretation that would
relate it to racism or eugenics; It might help if you elucidate what's
bothering you about the phrase. If, for example, I talk about the
differences between how the people of America function as a society
compared to the people of Russia, do you think I am guilty of being a
racist or eugenicist?
isn’t that what the noosphere is about? A collectivization over time?
People focus on collectivization when crediting Teilhard with anticipating >> cyber internetworking. The thinking layer.
Physiology seems an individual level thing based on normative ranges, like >> body temperature per hypothermia and fever. Is there a national temperature >> or racial temperature?
What is physiology of races? Why go that route?
Also from that quoted passage in *Phenomenon* Teilhard asks “are we not
undergoing physical degeneration?”. Degeneration was a bugbear of
eugenicists. It was the underlying them of *The Time Machine* by HG Wells
for instance.
Also he says “So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at
random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what
medical and moral factors *must replace the crude forces of natural
selection* should we suppress them.”
And: “‘Better not interfere with the forces of the world !' Once more we >> are up against the mirage of instinct, the so-called infallibility of
nature. But is it not precisely the world itself which, culminating in
thought, expects us to think out again the instinctive impulses of nature
so as to perfect them?”
So…?
And I botched the transcription where it should read: “Reflective substance
requires reflective treatment.”
Well he must have had some familiarity with the reference. I guess we can
And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
Slattery by Joshua Canzona:
"Having recently completed a dissertation on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I >>>> read John Slattery's RD article on Teilhard's "legacy of eugenics and
racism" with interest. I agree with some of the motivation for his essay >>>> and in a recent paper I called for more work to be done "on the subject of >>>> elitist, ethnocentric, imperialist, and racist elements in Teilhard's
thought." Slattery provides a service by casting light on some of the most >>>> troubling passages in the Teilhardian corpus, but I strongly disagree with >>>> his method and conclusions."
He points out some errors made by Slattery.
He also, though taking some wind out of Slattery's sails, adds "there is >>>> indeed prior scholarship on some of the issues raised by Slattery. In her >>>> excellent dissertation, "The Kingdom of God as a Unity of Persons," Amy >>>> Limpitlaw argues that Teilhard "openly espouses a kind of racism" and
provides an extended analysis."
I don't put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's
dissertation where the dissertation isn't available to check. All I
can find is an abstract which doesn't mention racism or eugenics, so
I'd assume that whatever she said wasn't a significant element of her
dissertation.
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIMTKO
I think it speaks for itself that such a vague reference is all that
he has to offer in terms of prior scholarship on some of the issues
raised by Slattery.
discount it out of hand because it lacks the authority of Haught.
As Canzona offers: “[Slattery] overstates the enthusiasm for Teilhard
He also wonders: "From thousands of pages of Teilhard's manuscripts,
Slattery has picked out eight troubling passages. While there are certainly
others he could have chosen, we're still looking at only the tiniest
portion of Teilhard's work. If eugenics and racism were as central as
Slattery would have us believe, why do they so rarely come up?"
I haven't been able find anyone who independently comes to the same
conclusions as Slattery about Teilhard; anyone else who makes the
accusation seems to simply draw from Slattery's piece. Looks to me
like he was on a solo run.
studies. While Teilhard was extremely fashionable when his work first burst >> onto the scene in the 1960s, there was a significant downturn afterward.” >>
“Slattery asks why scholars have not written about Teilhard and racism. The
most obvious answer is that too few scholars are writing about Teilhard in >> general.”
Aside from uncritical groupies not many are that interested in Teilhard. >>>>
Yet it is an incorporation of eugenics into his best known work, no?https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/teilhards-legacy-cant-be-reduced-to-racism-a-response-to-john-slattery/
Eugenics at least comes up in *The Phenomenon of Man* which is Teilhard's >>>> best known book. In the context of technofuturism Teilhard may be
foreshadowing transhumanism and the allure of augmentation.
The only place it comes up is in the extract quoted by you earlier.
I've asked you several times to explain how "In the course of the
coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human
form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be
discovered and developed" translates to support for eugenics as it was
understood at the time he wrote Phenomenon, involving the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion. You seem unable to offer any such explanation.
It’s called sarcasm and it serves a purpose here that went over your head. >>>
Joshua Canzona is a recent PhD though and not of Haught's eminent stature. >>>> Indeed we should "take into account their qualifications relevant to the >>>> subject upon which they are pronouncing", but since he is arguing against >>>> Slattery >>
And Slattery the PhD from an unknown school
That sort of childish attempt at sniping does nothing for your
argument.
called Notre Dame responds:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/author-responds-to-criticism-of-teilhard-eugenics-essay/
of reproduction have had eugenic thoughts or hopes?
[snip for focus]
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.
Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?
On 2024-05-27 12:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:
[gigantic snip]
But what if its got *my* looks and *your* brains?Can it be that all of us who have indulged in the questionable practice
of reproduction have had eugenic thoughts or hopes?
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[Mercy snip]
Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
May not be available outside the US. Didn't delve much into a critical
assessment of Teilhard's views. Eugenics was of course absent from the
discussion.
Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:39:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]In the part you conveniently snipped there was a specific bumping of heads >> I mentioned based on the very documentary in your OP:
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang >>>> heads with science.
Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?
Teilhard got in hot water with Jesuits for his essay on original sin in
light of evolution.
This essay by David Grumett elaborates:
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-theological-trouble
During the 1920s, Teilhard wrote an essay on how the doctrine of original >> sin could be reconciled with the theory of evolution. The essay, meant for >> private circulation, was passed on to church authorities in Rome, who saw
in the essay an alarming deviation from orthodoxy.
In his paper, Teilhard argued that traditional teachings about the fall of >> Adam and Eve into sin were difficult to reconcile with science for two
reasons. First, fossils suggested that the human species emerged out of
several different evolutionary branches, not from a single pair of
ancestors. Second, an earthly paradise from which death, suffering, and
evil were absent was scientifically inconceivable, given that the tendency >> toward physical disintegration is a condition of existence.
And: It was the fourth proposition that caused Teilhard great difficulty. >> It read: The whole human race takes its origin from one first parent,
Adam. In a letter to his mentor, Teilhard wrote: I am able to subscribe >> to it in faith only with the implicit or explicit reserve that I regard the >> proposition as subject to revisions (and, what is more, essential
revisions) of the kind to which belief in the eight days of creation, the
flood, etc., has been subjected; and I do not see how anyone could forbid
me this position.
So Teilhard himself was bumping heads with authority based on his
interpretation of science.
And see:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve
I tried sending a reply like this earlier but it hasnt shown up.
So the best you can come up with is from 100 years ago with a priest
falling out with his superior over a *theological* argument; a priest
whose ideas have since been praised by 3 consecutive popes.
Sounds like your Teilhard itch is playing up again.
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[Mercy snip]
Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
May not be available outside the US. Didn't delve much into a critical >>>> assessment of Teilhard's views. Eugenics was of course absent from the >>>> discussion.
Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.
Teilhard addresses eugenics.
Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where
Teilhard wrote:
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the >> phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context >> can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more >> advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth. >>
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the >> hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus >> of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends) >> with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of >> sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?
I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Does your idea of eugenics differ?
Another essay "A Major Problem for Anthropology" had Teilhard saying:
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must >> come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general >> research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement >> of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development >> of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?
See my reply above.
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's noteI have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where >>>> Teilhard addresses eugenics.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[Mercy snip]
Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
May not be available outside the US. Didn't delve much into a critical >>>>>> assessment of Teilhard's views. Eugenics was of course absent from the >>>>>> discussion.
Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make >>>>> his views on Telhard of any significance.
Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging >> the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go >> by.
That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'
I realise that you don't like being compared to him but it would help
if you would explain the difference in approach between you drawing
the conclusion about Teilhard being a racist and eugenicist contrary
to Teilhard experts and RD drawing the conclusion that Darwin was
driven by a desire to overturn Paley contrary to Darwin experts.
That is a very one-sided depiction of what eugenics meant.
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where >>>> Teilhard wrote:
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social >>>> totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context >>>> can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which >>>> makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to >>>> ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more >>>> advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever >>>> more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the >>>> hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated >>>> forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite >>>> rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends) >>>> with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate, >>>> within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of >>>> sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no >>>> longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which >>>> is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the >>>> elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion >>>> Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is >>>> connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?
I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Does your idea of eugenics differ?
Then write to the National Human Genome Research Institute and tell
them they have got it wrong too.
Alternatively, you could explain what your understanding of eugenics
is that you seek to apply to Teilhard.
I think
Slattery's polemics may have gotten in the way of assessing what Teilhard
was getting at with eugenics and you, ironically, are following him on
this.
Of course there is no possibility of you letting your own polemics get
in the way of rational analysis!
Crickets.Eugenics is much more nuanced than the post-Nazi view of it allows in
Another essay "A Major Problem for Anthropology" had Teilhard saying:
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must >>>> come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that >>>> henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective >>>> reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the >>>> problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on >>>> every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in >>>> the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection >>>> upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least >>>> concede that point?
See my reply above.
popular thought. It was not confined to sterilization and euthanasia. As
the wiki says:
"Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5]
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the
genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent,
the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and >> political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization,
egg transplants, and cloning.[109] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate,
through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or >> morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other
methods of family planning.[109] Both positive and negative eugenics can be >> coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women
deemed by the state to be fit.[110]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#:~:text=Positive%20eugenics%20is%20aimed%20at,%2C%20egg%20transplants%2C%20and%20cloning.
Ernst Mayr was leaning toward positive eugenics in his letter to Crick:
"I have been favoring positive eugenics as far back as I can remember." and >> "If I may summarize my own viewpoint, it is that positive eugenics is of
great importance for the future of mankind and that all roadblocks must be >> removed that stand in the way of intensifying research in this area.
Shockley with his racist views is unfortunately the worst roadblock at this >> time, at least in this country; hence, his sharp rejection by some of us
who are very much in favor of positive eugenics."
But this was very offputting on top of that support for eugenics by Mayr:
"As I get older, I find the objective as important as ever, but I
appreciate also increasingly how difficult it is to achieve this goal,
particularly in a democratic western society. Even if we could solve all
the biological problems, and they are formidable, there still remains the
problem of coping with the demand for "freedom of reproduction," a freedom >> which fortunately will have to be abolished anyhow if we are not drown in
human bodies. The time will come, and perhaps sooner than we think, when
parents will have to take out a license to produce a child. No one seems to >> question that it requires a license for such a harmless activity as driving >> a car, and yet such an important activity as influencing the gene pool of
the next generation can be carried out unlicensed. A biologist will
understand the logic of this argument, but how many non-biologists would?" >>
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc
So given that range of meaning for eugenics I wonder what Teilhard meant by >> the term.
I've elsewhere given you two examples which I believe would
comfortably fit in with Teilhard's idea of "a nobly human form of
eugenics [that] should be discovered and developed". I await your response on them. (That is not a whinge about your lack of response so
far - I realise the 'wonkiness' of TO at the moment, this is my second attempt to post this.)
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's noteI have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where >>>> Teilhard addresses eugenics.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[Mercy snip]
Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
May not be available outside the US. Didn't delve much into a critical >>>>>> assessment of Teilhard's views. Eugenics was of course absent from the >>>>>> discussion.
Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make >>>>> his views on Telhard of any significance.
Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging >> the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go >> by.
That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[cutting to the quick again]Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes >> you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting >> squid ink to cloud that issue.
So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:23:35 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:50:40 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 6/1/24 5:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[ ]
I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied >>>> to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was >>>> incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea >>>> what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging >>>> the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I >>>> have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.
That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'
Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.
There is nothing wrong with going to the source.
Absolutely! There is nothing whatsoever wrong with going to the
source, that is what I generally do myself. It is why, regarding
Joshua Canzona's six-word quote from Amy Limpitlaw, I said "I don't
put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's dissertation
where the dissertation isn't available to check." For some treason,
that annoyed Hemi - maybe your advice should be directed to him.
There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.
There is equally something wrong in deciding that people who have professionally studied a subject for many years have simply got it
wrong and that your own interpretation of someone's writing, based on
limited study, is the correct one - especially in the case of the
obscure type of prose for which Teilhard de Chardin is well known. It
becomes hubris when you expect other people to discard the experts and
accept your opinion. That is the error that Hemi and Ron Dean both
make.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[cutting to the quick again]Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes >>>> you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually >>>> incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting >>>> squid ink to cloud that issue.
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me >>>>> of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are >>>>> curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies >>>>> to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you >>>>> are prepared to state what you actually think.
So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the >> doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be >> shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slatterys polemics as he may >> have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics aint that great
either.
Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Thats a bit of a reach. At least you admit to Teilhards use of eugenics >> concepts but turn around and insinuate Im ok with FGM.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[cutting to the quick again]Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me >>>>>>> of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are >>>>>>> curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies >>>>>>> to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you >>>>>>> are prepared to state what you actually think.
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually >>>>>> incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.
So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want >>>>> me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need >>>>> to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the >>>> doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be >>>> shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery?s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain?t that great >>>> either.
Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.
Yet again, when you have nothing to attack, you just make something
up.
I've had enough of your crap.
All that from my
providing numerous quotes where Teilhard references eugenics.
Did Teilhard ever make explicit references to somehow curing Downs trisomy >> or ending FGM? The latter cultural practice has little if any connection I >> can see to eugenics. You are a spinner.
So thats your uncritical fanboy takeaway?
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:35:43 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[...]
What I think Ive done is upset a hornets nest
WOW, an argument involving your opinion vs my opinion is stirring up a hornets nest. Whoulda thunk either of us was so important!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:16:52 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,252 |