Scientism and anti-science in 1920! All mixed together for a startling soufflé. The more things change the more they remain the same.
These days we are taught to greatly fear a mild virus (because Science), greatly fear catastrophic CO2 (because Science) but greatly accept a man that says he's a woman. Where'd the Science go?
Sorta like Einstein the 'Anti-Zionist' was the greatest weapon of Zionism. Good cop bad cop? Cowabunga
I saw! Help yourself. Only Yesterday is excellent, and the author, Frederick Lewis Allen, wrote a sequel about the 1930s, Since Yesterday. https://amzn.to/4ilcjTC
This is a fascinating read. I'm intrigued by the impact science had on religion. With the popularisation of Darwin's theories, followed by Einstein's relativity and then Freud's ideas, all happening against the backdrop of a world at war, it's no surprise the cultural zeitgeist shifted toward moral relativism. Afterall, if one believes a naturalistic account of origins, and is told that nothing in the physical universe is absolute, it seems like a natural progression to believe that objective truth does not exist.
From this perspective, it’s a positive development that science has been losing some of its authority in recent years. People are recognising that the philosophical foundations of science are quite shaky and need to be transcended by absolute truth.
The whole thing was something of a revelation to me - how science is in part an elaborately constructed myth engineered to serve desired social narratives. Freud has already largely fallen. Now Darwin and Einstein are both on unstable ground.
What about Isaac Newton? He supposedly invested a lot of money (millions in today's money) in the South Sea company and lost it all. At that time, he was 77, did not have a spouse or children to support, and was Master of the Royal Mint. That means his job was to intensify the bubble. He worked for the deep state. Many financial bubbles were used since to transfer assets and establish a control over the population. So, I suspect that some of his achievements were either not that great or not his but attributed to him to strengthen his credibility.
It's possible. I'm aware of some claims to that effect. As best I know, there's ample evidence that he did actually do most if not all the work attributed to him.
My dad told me this when I started studying Psych at college in 1982, … that Freud was a fraud … I was young & still dumb … but he’s gonna be 90 on Saturday and your article will be one of his gifts 🎁…
Scientism and anti-science in 1920! All mixed together for a startling soufflé. The more things change the more they remain the same.
These days we are taught to greatly fear a mild virus (because Science), greatly fear catastrophic CO2 (because Science) but greatly accept a man that says he's a woman. Where'd the Science go?
Sorta like Einstein the 'Anti-Zionist' was the greatest weapon of Zionism. Good cop bad cop? Cowabunga
Excellent point about playing both sides at all times
Excellent article. I hope you do not mind if I borrow a quote.
I could say the same to you, you know.
https://x.com/johncwright2001/status/1902755015682306284
I saw! Help yourself. Only Yesterday is excellent, and the author, Frederick Lewis Allen, wrote a sequel about the 1930s, Since Yesterday. https://amzn.to/4ilcjTC
This is a fascinating read. I'm intrigued by the impact science had on religion. With the popularisation of Darwin's theories, followed by Einstein's relativity and then Freud's ideas, all happening against the backdrop of a world at war, it's no surprise the cultural zeitgeist shifted toward moral relativism. Afterall, if one believes a naturalistic account of origins, and is told that nothing in the physical universe is absolute, it seems like a natural progression to believe that objective truth does not exist.
From this perspective, it’s a positive development that science has been losing some of its authority in recent years. People are recognising that the philosophical foundations of science are quite shaky and need to be transcended by absolute truth.
The whole thing was something of a revelation to me - how science is in part an elaborately constructed myth engineered to serve desired social narratives. Freud has already largely fallen. Now Darwin and Einstein are both on unstable ground.
What about Isaac Newton? He supposedly invested a lot of money (millions in today's money) in the South Sea company and lost it all. At that time, he was 77, did not have a spouse or children to support, and was Master of the Royal Mint. That means his job was to intensify the bubble. He worked for the deep state. Many financial bubbles were used since to transfer assets and establish a control over the population. So, I suspect that some of his achievements were either not that great or not his but attributed to him to strengthen his credibility.
It's possible. I'm aware of some claims to that effect. As best I know, there's ample evidence that he did actually do most if not all the work attributed to him.
My dad told me this when I started studying Psych at college in 1982, … that Freud was a fraud … I was young & still dumb … but he’s gonna be 90 on Saturday and your article will be one of his gifts 🎁…
Club 26 vibes.
“Absolutely!”