Posted on 05/31/2005 8:48:47 AM PDT by hinterlander
HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Good catch (the Adorno book).
Bill, you drink my kinda beer. Derrida, Foucault, Said and all of the other semiotic totalitarians have controlled Academia for too long. I remember reading a piece by some clown who wanted Thackeray shot from the canon of literature because his characters displayed too many racist and imperialistic sentiments. And they give these dopes tenure.
Ping
Indeed. Note how when someone defends Darwinian evolution, they are inevitably declared to "hate God" or some such.
But, that wouldn't be disagreement. It would be adherence to a belief.
When liberals call conservatives "haters" (as they always do), it just means that conservatives disagree with them.
As for bringing up "hate" in this context, you would have to bring that up to the person who introduced the word into the thread.
I did "see" a copy of "Mein Kampf" that was recovered from a salvaged [US] sub.
How is it that a book that proposes a theory of biological adaptation through mutation causes harm? Where are the killing fields?
Abortion IS a killing field, going on every hour of every day. Thanks in large part to the theory of evolution. If Darwinism simply proposed "biological adaptation", i.e. microevolution, it could be praised. But Darwinism proposes something much more (sinister) than simple adaptation: it proposes that one species evolved into another. How so? Well, by the additon of a special, unobserved ingredient. Time. First it was millions of years. Now, it is billions and billions of years, soon to be explained as trillions of years.
The argument against Mill is probably that he was playing at maintaining a scientifically impartial attitude towards competing theories but really intended to weaken older religious and traditional ideas. For a lot of people, his arguments would allow "progressive" restrictions on speech, while forbidding "traditional" limits. I don't know enough about the question to judge.
Nixon' Head: [Asleep] Hey Betty Friedan, send a little of that lotion my way.
Although I never read SILENT SPRING, I think it deserves credit for making people aware of environmental issues.
The other books listed, though, are really awful.
Thanks. Great list.
I second your nomination of Benjamin Spock.
Im sure the judges were afraid to even consider listing the Koran.
>> Note how when someone defends Darwinian evolution, they are inevitably declared to "hate God" or some such.
> But, that wouldn't be disagreement. It would be adherence to a belief.
I disagree. A disagreement on a point of fact leads to people being accused of "hating God," when a great many of those being so accused are devout believers. It's silly.
Darwin's books. Everything evil on that list, such as Communism and Neitzchiesm, spring from that.
No. I meant that the person who supports Darwinism is not necessarily disagreeing with anything. At least not in the context of the original post. That was my point.
In the Descent of Man Darwin "discussed perishing barbarians, the elimination of savages and the inevitable prospering of civilized nations," as reviewed in the June 2005 American Spectator.
Looks like a good book. I'm going to read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.