Vonnegut

[Marvin the Martian]

Yesterday, 11/11, would have been Kurt Vonngut's 100th birthday. NPR's Morning Edition ran a 2007 interview Steve Innskeep did with Vonnegut.



So they touch on several Vonnegut books. One was Player Piano about the destruction of work due to machines taking over.

Another book discussed was Slapstick on the Balkanization of America.

The interesting part for me came out of that discussion. He discusses tribalism. Vonnegut proudly admits to being a secular humanist, but also points to scientists as being tribal on Intelligent Design. He says it should be taught simply because everyone wonders if it is true.

Oh, he also points out that he believes even a Pat Robertson doesn't doubt evolution is real, but Robertson has to represent his tribe.

I find the interview fascinating and Vonnegut fascinating since he clearly doesn't fit nicely into the box we conceive for him.

I have only read Slaughterhouse, I need to read Breakfast of Champions and a couple others.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Yesterday, 11/11, would have been Kurt Vonngut's 100th birthday. NPR's Morning Edition ran a 2007 interview Steve Innskeep did with Vonnegut.

View embedded media

So they touch on several Vonnegut books. One was Player Piano about the destruction of work due to machines taking over.

Another book discussed was Slapstick on the Balkanization of America.

The interesting part for me came out of that discussion. He discusses tribalism. Vonnegut proudly admits to being a secular humanist, but also points to scientists as being tribal on Intelligent Design. He says it should be taught simply because everyone wonders if it is true.

Oh, he also points out that he believes even a Pat Robertson doesn't doubt evolution is real, but Robertson has to represent his tribe.

I find the interview fascinating and Vonnegut fascinating since he clearly doesn't fit nicely into the box we conceive for him.

I have only read Slaughterhouse, I need to read Breakfast of Champions and a couple others.

I find him hit and miss. He has a book of short stories that is pretty good. Also Cats Cradle.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I find him hit and miss. He has a book of short stories that is pretty good. Also Cats Cradle.

Interesting, given your interest in other education mentions I thought the intelligent design mention with scientists being tribal would lead to some discussion.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Interesting, given your interest in other education mentions I thought the intelligent design mention with scientists being tribal would lead to some discussion.

I'd be fine with public schools teaching why Intelligent Design is not needed in biology. I'm a big proponent of teaching more evolution in schools. I never heard one word about it in K-12.

As for scientists being tribal, I'd have to agree but on this point, I'm on Team Darwin. Just as we shouldn't teach astrology to kids as a counter to astronomy, we don't need to be teaching Intelligent Design as a competitor to natural selection or evolution.

As for general separation of church and state, I've been an atheist since a young boy. Overt religion never set well with me (although I am now much more sympathetic to, and tolerant of, and admiring of aspects of religion outside the supernatural beliefs). But even I think some of church and state legal decisions have been overboard against religious showings or schools associated with a religion.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Yesterday, 11/11, would have been Kurt Vonngut's 100th birthday. NPR's Morning Edition ran a 2007 interview Steve Innskeep did with Vonnegut.

View embedded media

So they touch on several Vonnegut books. One was Player Piano about the destruction of work due to machines taking over.

Another book discussed was Slapstick on the Balkanization of America.

The interesting part for me came out of that discussion. He discusses tribalism. Vonnegut proudly admits to being a secular humanist, but also points to scientists as being tribal on Intelligent Design. He says it should be taught simply because everyone wonders if it is true.

Oh, he also points out that he believes even a Pat Robertson doesn't doubt evolution is real, but Robertson has to represent his tribe.

I find the interview fascinating and Vonnegut fascinating since he clearly doesn't fit nicely into the box we conceive for him.

I have only read Slaughterhouse, I need to read Breakfast of Champions and a couple others.

Another interesting avenue here is Vonnegut's ideas. As you say, you can't fit him in any political box. He was very anti-war, was liberal about sexuality, but his ideas in Harrison Bergeron are anathema to the current left, as were his anti-tribalism views (I can't remember which book he came up with the word granfalloon, but I think about it all the time). I could see him identifying with some aspects of today's SJWs and I could see him being blisteringly critical of a lot of it, too. I'm sure he would have lampooned the proud know-nothings on the Right, too.

 

[DrHoops]

Yesterday, 11/11, would have been Kurt Vonngut's 100th birthday. NPR's Morning Edition ran a 2007 interview Steve Innskeep did with Vonnegut.

View embedded media

So they touch on several Vonnegut books. One was Player Piano about the destruction of work due to machines taking over.

Another book discussed was Slapstick on the Balkanization of America.

The interesting part for me came out of that discussion. He discusses tribalism. Vonnegut proudly admits to being a secular humanist, but also points to scientists as being tribal on Intelligent Design. He says it should be taught simply because everyone wonders if it is true.

Oh, he also points out that he believes even a Pat Robertson doesn't doubt evolution is real, but Robertson has to represent his tribe.

I find the interview fascinating and Vonnegut fascinating since he clearly doesn't fit nicely into the box we conceive for him.

I have only read Slaughterhouse, I need to read Breakfast of Champions and a couple others.

I really liked Galapagos. The gist is that humans have evolved too big a brain and we destroy ourselves.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Another interesting avenue here is Vonnegut's ideas. As you say, you can't fit him in any political box. He was very anti-war, was liberal about sexuality, but his ideas in Harrison Bergeron are anathema to the current left, as were his anti-tribalism views (I can't remember which book he came up with the word granfalloon, but I think about it all the time). I could see him identifying with some aspects of today's SJWs and I could see him being blisteringly critical of a lot of it, too. I'm sure he would have lampooned the proud know-nothings on the Right, too.

Wasn't Harrison Bergeron about making everybody the same and basically robots? Based on the publishing date of 1961, I'm guessing Vonnegut was making a statement about communism. Common Vonnegut themes are whether people are robots or not (or both), whether people have free will or not, and the inherent unfairness in life, all of which the story touches. I don't think the current left is all in on communism, unless I've missed something.

I read Breakfast of Champions in high school and remember it knocking my socks off: well worth the read.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Wasn't Harrison Bergeron about making everybody the same and basically robots? Based on the publishing date of 1961, I'm guessing Vonnegut was making a statement about communism. Common Vonnegut themes are whether people are robots or not (or both), whether people have free will or not, and the inherent unfairness in life, all of which the story touches. I don't think the current left is all in on communism, unless I've missed something.

I read Breakfast of Champions in high school and remember it knocking my socks off: well worth the read.

Harrison Bergeron has nothing to do with robots. Nor is it a direct commentary on communism, which does not inherently ignore or punish talent differentials in humans.

Go read some literature on today’s equity dogma. Then go read that story. You’ll find Vonnegut eerily prescient.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Harrison Bergeron has nothing to do with robots. Nor is it a direct commentary on communism, which does not inherently ignore or punish talent differentials in humans.

Go read some literature on today’s equity dogma. Then go read that story. You’ll find Vonnegut eerily prescient.

I didn't mean an actual metal robot, but the characteristics of a robot: manufactured by something bigger, only capable of performing, thinking, behaving, etc. in a predetermined and limited way, not capable of free, original action, etc.

The communist system is big on equality and treating people the same, which was enforced by the government. I can absolutely see that in Harrison Bergeron.