This book explores the fusion of myth; history and geography which leads to ideas of primitivism; and looks at their construction; interpretation and consumption in Western culture. Contextualized by Susan Hillers introductions to each section; discussions range from the origins of cultural colonialism to eurocentric ideas of primitive societies; including the use of primitive culture in constructing national identities; and the appropriation of primitivist imagery in modernist art. The result is a controversial critique of art theory; practice and politics; and a major enquiry into the history of primitivism and its implications for contemporary culture.
#3261424 in eBooks 2006-05-23 2006-05-23File Name: B000Q35THK
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Interesting but not quite compellingBy P. SeltzIts ok. Makes some interesting points and the "romantic" perspective is unique and keeps the atheist attackers at bay. It would have been better if he had taken time to flush out his argument and go a little deeper.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. A great book to read; but difficult to summarize. A relief to read when life seemed a bit too mechanistic.By C. Good_The Science Delusion_ by Curtis White is a bit of a rant. But itrsquo;s a good rant; and the topic is contained in the subtitle; ldquo;Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answersrdquo;.The ldquo;Easy Answersrdquo; he is referring to are the answers provided by scientists and popular science writers; who talk as though all the questions of life can be solved by scientific research and scientific theories.Points in the bookrsquo;s favor:- Many interesting and funny comments and footnotes. The footnotes in particular were always interesting.- Lots of quotes; lots of different sources; good arguments. Even at times I didnrsquo;t agree; following the arguments and logic was worth my time and gave me a lot to think about regarding to my own views.- Fascinating discussion about Romanticism and its historical roots.- Visually a pleasure to read; nice line spacing; paragraph spacing; font; and font size. This is something that isnrsquo;t always true of all books.- Table of Contents; footnotes; and a good index. All are present in this book; and again this is not true of all books.Things I didnrsquo;t like:- I wish it was longer and went into more detail. _The Science Delusion_ often reads like a long letter from White to a good friend of his whorsquo;s been having a hard time grasping why White has become so irritable.- White is a bit more enamored with 1960s hippy culture and the recent Occupy movement than I am.- I think there is a beauty to physical objects things which are well designed. I think the beauty seen by myself and others doesnrsquo;t depend on whether the thing wersquo;re admiring is lethal or not. I can admire a nicely designed knife or sword or firearm; but that doesnrsquo;t mean I think itrsquo;s great for people to be stabbed; cut or shot with it. People can go to airshows and enjoy the displays of current fighter jets and other older military planes; but that doesnrsquo;t mean they think itrsquo;s great when someone gets bombed or shot. I donrsquo;t think White would agree.mdash;-Summary and comments about each chapter:- Introduction; where White explains why he is writing this book. White writes ldquo;So Irsquo;d like to ask; lsquo;In whose interest do these science popularizers and provocateurs write? And to what end?rsquo; They would like us to think that their only interest is the establishment of knowledge. What I will suggest is that their claims are based upon assumptions many of which are dubious if not outright deluded; and that the kind of political culture their delusions support is lamentable.rdquo; White spends the rest of the book doing exactly that.- I. ldquo;Whatrsquo;s a Good Lunch?rdquo;; where White talks about a discussion between Richard Dawkins; author of _The God Delusion_; and Francis Crick; who discovered DNA along with James Watson. Dawkins tells Crick some people donrsquo;t see a conflict between science and religion. Crick replies there is no ldquo;higher purposerdquo; in life; wersquo;re all just products of evolution; and viewing life that way isnrsquo;t bleak because he and Dawkins are ldquo;having a good lunchrdquo;. Over the course of _The God Delusion_; White repeatedly alludes to scientists glossing over a lot of questions about life and philosophy and purpose and aspirations and dreams by saying ldquo;science explains it allrdquo; or ldquo;science answers it allrdquo; and then saying ldquo;itrsquo;s okay; science gives us a good lunch."- II. ldquo;Romanticism as Counterculturerdquo;; where White discusses the historical; social and psychological roots of Romanticism as a reaction against a very rigid system of social class and intellectual endeavor. White also discusses how Romantics can make great changes in the world and in their own lives; but often do so out of a pain which comes from always feeling like a misfit; and a desire to become more than they are. If _The Science Delusion_ was nothing but this chapter; Irsquo;d still recommend it.- III. ldquo;DNA: A Parasite That Builds Its Own Host?rdquo;; where White further discusses the bleak; meaningless; mechanistic; predetermined world described by many scientists and science writers. White argues that a society of scientists is still a society of humans; yet far too many scientists want to believe they as a group have risen above regular human weaknesses and believe they as scientists have special insights most non-scientists do not. White opposes this with arguments that all humans are symbolic creatures who live in a world of symbols and metaphor; and much of the pain and threat we feel from others is the threat to our own symbolic systems. White comes back to Romanticism as the rebellion against various symbolic systems.- IV. ldquo;This Bit of Neural Matterrdquo;; where White laments how the mind and thoughts and emotions have been reduced to neurological connections that are good if a commercial use can be found for them; and thatrsquo;s all there is to life. Science argues emotion comes out of brain chemical interactions and neuron interaction; not out of language; art and creativity and weirdness are great for developing new advertisement campaigns and new products; but not questioning authority or proposing new ideas or pondering the big questions.- V. ldquo;We Insidersrdquo;; where White gets pretty deep into philosophy. He found a book by a science writer; Rebecca Newberger Goldstein; who had also become disillusioned by sciencersquo;s tendency to claim science explains all of reality. However; White is disappointed because even Goldsteinrsquo;s writing describes the world as ldquo;science explains all with math; except the things science canrsquo;t explain with mathrdquo;. White argues that for anything to be experienced; there has to be someone doing the experiencing; but science writing and theories donrsquo;t like to think too much about that requirement. Therersquo;s a long discussion of German Idealism and how it has a European Continental outlook which thoroughly considers and critiques empiricism and mechanical materialism; which is different from the preference for logical positivism and analytic philosophy shown by Anglo-American schools of thought since the early 1900s.- VI. ldquo;In Praise of Play; Dissonance; and Freaking Outrdquo;; where White writes a short final chapter about the wonders and beauty of both science and art; and warns that each destroy themselves and the culture around them when they decide they have The Answers and there is no room for change or dissent. White also argues that it is mostly Romantics who realize humans are storytellers first and foremost. White argues that new ideas in art and science become beautiful because they are part of a story about overcoming uncertainty or breaking taboos or resolving old conflicts; but the story is part of what makes the new idea important to other humans.3 of 9 people found the following review helpful. Nearly got it.By Mr. Arthur J. RobeyI was hoping for ammunition to blow up the foundations of science as it floats on a cushon of belief. What I got was a howl of indignation from a Romantasist.He skirted the truth; which is that we have two physically seperate brains that are alien to each other.