Ah yes, but of course. As if on cue, it's the self-willed Will Self, wilfully willing himself into print again. What a hero of thoroughly sound self-regard Mister Self is! He's truly the middlebrow's middlebrow, the smug bourgeois's smug bourgeois, the very epitome of blithely conformist liberal common sense. Not only does he know nothing about anything and care even less about any of it, he wears that dull ignorance like a medal of honour, or an old school tie. If Will Self didn't exist, the Guardian would have had to invent him.Maybe it actually did. I suspect the entire article is a Turing test.
Fucking hell. I've got three Will Self books, the more recent of which was the best, in that it actually rises above mediocre J G Ballard pastiche: I will not get another.Kicking conspiracy theory nutters is easy. Hooray for the Straw Man...But kicking Michael Moore and Marxists. Fuck off.Has the New Statesman always been so reactionary or only since Tony Bliar?He clearly has never read any David Hume but if he'd read as little as I have he'd understand that watching a conspiracy theory video would be an excellent illustration of his problem with the theory of knowledge: i.e. how can you say you know that one thing caused another to happen when the causal connexions are "invisible"? How can any theory lay a claim to representing knowledge when theories always deal with "invisible" unverifiable conjectures?Where this person's Philosphy lecturer uses Loose Change to illustrate the above, Hume uses bouncing billiard balls.
Post a Comment