<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="blosxom/2.0" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
  <channel>
    <title>Notebooks   </title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks</link>
    <description>Cosma's Notebooks</description>
    <language>en</language>

  <item>
    <title>Intellectual frauds, I: Famous and profound</title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks/1994/10/03#fraud-1</link>
    <description>
Hegel, Heidegger, &lt;a href=&quot;teilhard.html&quot;&gt;Teilhard de Chardin&lt;/a&gt;, Foucault,
Spengler, Fichte, Lacan...

&lt;P&gt;This entry is a symptom of my positivistic temperament.  Probably none of
them (except Heidegger and Fichte) were &lt;em&gt;conscious&lt;/em&gt; frauds; but they
were all also fit for nothing.  So why in the names of Minerva and all the
Muses did people take these metaphysical wind-bags seriously?  Why do they
still take most of them seriously?  And is there anything to be done about it,
other than wait for them to meet the fate of Herbert Spencer or the Sibylline
Books?

&lt;ul&gt;See:
	&lt;li&gt;Gross and Levitts, &lt;cite&gt;Higher Superstition&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;li&gt;Karl &lt;a href=&quot;popper.html&quot;&gt;Popper&lt;/A&gt;, &lt;cite&gt;The Open Society and Its Enemies,&lt;/cite&gt; esp. vol. II
	&lt;li&gt;Leonard Woolf, &lt;cite&gt;Quack, Quack&lt;/cite&gt;
	&lt;/ul&gt;
</description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>