Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
Dawkins is precisely the last sort of public intellectual we need - insensitive, boorish, divisive and arrogant at a time when there should be greater dialogues between disciplines. I'm wouldn't say intellectual cunts don't serve a purpose for society - someone like Zizeck, on the periphery of the popular conscious, is brilliant for antagonising people, inspiring debate - but I can only see Dawkins as a deleterious antagonism to the world, outside of his actual discipline. You can't fix cars with rhetoric.
|
Yes, I think you can call him insensitive and boorish but I'm not sure he's arrogant. He has strong opinions which he fights for those opinions. I do think he should widen his range of reading, he could benefit from reading some philosophy(though maybe he would be too arrogant to do that). His attacks on creationism/intelligent design have been necessary though.
I think Zizek is quite charismatic. But when I've see him tv, and the little bits I've read, I've responded first by thinking that I understand what he's getting at. Then, thinking about, I realise I don't. He does inspire debate though.