The RSA
Philosophical novelist Rebecca Goldstein and cognitive theorist Steven Pinker in conversation on literature, science and religion.
Source
Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein – Reason, Fiction and Faith
Similar Posts
Dan Dennett on creating meaning in life
CEO Secrets: Cybersecurity boss says ‘don’t try to be loved’
Tabla rasa – Steven Pinker || Parte final
30 thoughts on “Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein – Reason, Fiction and Faith”
Comments are closed.
@fabs038 not that it matters to me really :)) I would think intellectuals are more inclined to be open to the wonder medicine can do:)) don't all profane on my ass
Why does he have to introduce her?
Hmm, the things Pinker wrote in his books don't seem quite right to me… How is the language an instinct anyway, it simply doesn't fit. No this doesn't work for me at all.
I had been under the incorrect impression that atheists also do not accept or believe in the spiritual nature of humankind. It was good to hear both of these intellectuals affirm spirituality. So, really, those of us who practice meditation and prayer are really not so far apart from atheists. It seems that our concepts or definitions of God do vary greatly; definitions are where we could focus our discussions in the future. For example, I define God more like ancient sages: Suchness.
@g0d0fw4retje he's an evolutionary linguistic, he sees it as "process" and as so, adheres to the concept of not being "instinct", as processes are cognitive and cognitive differs from instinct… Myself consider communication an instinct, linguistic and written language tough it are not, as they are acquired, non-verbal language is instinctive… This is what I think…
Rebecca's book sounds like one I'd like to read. She and Steve make a fine couple in many ways.Their intellectual bond is appealing to me. And i do believe that given their DNA superiority and their penchant for academics and dialectics their children would necessarily be prodigies . Perhaps in an erstwhile life both were in fact the parents of Plato.
I love Harris, Dawkins, Bennett etc..But this type of endless blabbering hollow intellectualism irritates me. Can't help it. I had to stop watching after 15 minutes.
Thank you for posting this, theRSAorg.
@AndreaZ64
Hollow intellectualism? This woman is more qualified to speak on these issues than you will ever be. If you know about Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett, I'm sure your search for knowledge is over. They are obviously right and everyone else is wrong.
@writersblock26 not like FORA that charges
@ventura433 lol…true.
Strange that Plato would be associated with repugnance to literary arts… He didn't write prose himself, preferring "dialogues" that look more like stories or play scripts than philosophy
This was interesting. Also He did as we intellectuals put it "hit that."
Plato was talking about the Ideal State and apprehending the "Good", which is innate & accessible through reason. Being poetic or artistic is the very thing (or one of them) that prevents one from apprehending the Good. You cannot access it by looking at painting, which is an illusion of an illusion, or reading/ listening to poetry. Particularly with poetry his point seems to be that the poet (not being the craftsman, or user), has no knowledge of what they are writing about.
If ever there was a comment that deserved negative votes, yours is it.
Seems to me as if your academic interests are limited to a very small group of obvious characters (Harris, Dawkins, etc) who are popular on Youtube. Try reading and studying a little more widely.
Ritual placebo and religious impulses are of similar shade but they are not the same when one can be backed with repeatable evidence. Take for example building trust vs blind faith. Lustful feelings followed without rational thinking lead to bipolar relationships and what some people call love but are really faith based. If people earn one trust from one another over time and do not break it, this is what others call love but it is through a sense of actual security. Which is more healthy?
What a delightful couple 🙂
I would argue precisely the opposite, Pascal. Through art we can enter and explore metaphors and representations and arguments depicting good/bad. Through art — writing, drama, even the "inarticulate" (meaning linguistically mute) arts of painting and music — we have in fact a unique access to ethics and reason and our relationships with them. As Ellie, a scientist, notes in "Contact" when seeing a mind-bending, cosmic sight: "They should have sent a poet."
I was really just expounding Plato's view as I understand it. I personally don'y subscribe to it at all. I love art, it plays a huge part in my life, & my wife is a practicing artist. Art was the centre of my universe as a younger man, & I am also a musician. I am not unsympathetic to your view. I guess like Schopenhauer & Kant said, art can give you a sense of the transcendental. I'm not sure how far I would be willing to run with it though.
I understand, Pascal, and wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote — just putting in a good word for the arts. Each step in our philosophical evoution as a species raises new points of argument, which is as it should be. Thus I gently disagree with atheistkyo, who says "fiction is useless in theory." On the contrary, it is vitally and distinctly human. It is a measure and expression of intellect and emotion, inaccessible through any other venue. The power of story. Take care, folks.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Pinker is a moronic ideologue who arrogantly driven to dispute what he ignores. For example, energy. Some can feel it, and some are numbed to it. Pinker believes that if you can't see it, measure it, or prove it, it doesn't exist; rather than to include the position of the observer in the process.
Don't forget, "romantic love must be a delusion".
If he didn't make dogmatic conclusions based on insufficient evidence, I would consider him a scientist. Real scientists have premises.
I think her interpretation of Plato is quite controversial.
full of air. both
I’m all for privacy rights, but in the case of these two and the intellectual growth they provoke in their listeners, I think it would unethical NOT to publicly broadcast their home dinner table conversations
I like Rebecca's hair, and I like Dr. Pinker's hair, too. They were both having "good hair days!" I prefer to think of Rebecca as a novelist who has an amateur interest in philosophy, rather than a philosopher who does novels. For the latter, I think of Iris Murdoch, Mary Wollstonecraft.
Thinly veiled attack at Christopher Hitchens and his followers
Nice to see a husband and wife having a civil conversation with each other.
I find Goldstein to be simple minded and without logical connections to her beliefs. She has no basis for an objective morality and can't see it.
She is very pretty. I would not mind being married to her but I would disagree with nearly very word she would utter. Still it could be worth it.