I am a student of science bar none, but I have also learned from the larger sphere of culture and global diversity the limits of science and its failure so far to provide a world view that can stand beyond a provincial form of cliche/science in the realms of sociology, psychology, and finally evolution. And the ream of quantum science and beyond has failed to provide a world view in the way that the Newtonian era produced a very (dogmatic) fundamentalism of scientism. Marxism foundered in this legacy and is a dogmatic and out-of-date failed ideology. An urgent need for a replacement haunts the cult of Marx and his early nineteenth-century formulas for a ‘science of history’ as economic stages or epochs of production. The mood of reductionism is a curse for a revolutionary ideology that must speak to the largest cultural sphere but is self-condemned to the narrowest of science cultism that incidentally we might note spawned the great Romantic reaction.
The issue of ‘will’ is typical of the limits of the older dead paradigm, and in the end Marx so strangely condemned the left of his milieu to long-term failure against the larger and more flexible sphere of twentieth-century diversity of thought.
We have discussed multiple times the issue of ‘will’ in the context of scientism along with the question of evolution. The world of modern culture has been forced to pay its dues to science and then to ignore the vacuum of explanation in the realm of man as a whole: https://redfortyeight.com/?s=will%2C+bennett
The reality is that both religion and science spheres have lost their grip on the question of ‘reality’ and the general culture flounders in a curious incoherence of world views, not least the endless confusion over ‘free will’, the nature of man, and the question of will in general
The left is paralyzed by its Marxist axioms and cannot produce a real anthropology at this point. And citing Bennett, more or less a liberal thinker, we should note the way he became entangled in the ‘new age’ right’s attempt to outflank scientism with a potentially superior critique of the limits of science and in the process seeding the fascist right that we see coming into existence all over again in our own time: the world of Gurdjieff and various Sufis, not even religious traditionalists as such, promoted such an attack on modernity, freedom and democracy, yet had a far broader view of man than the sterile world of scientism stuck in its Darwinism, Newtonian fictions, etc….
This is a cogent critique, but perhaps misses the point in terms of the category of materialism: the result is as usual put in the context of a theological debate, but the real issue is, what are t…