Is Kafka's Metamorphosis Good? | Richard Dawkins Opens A Can Of Worms | A Conversation on Twitter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordp...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teach...
An interesting set of conversations has developed over the weekend on Twitter, spurred by a provocative tweet by Richard Dawkins, which read: "Kafka’s Metamorphosis is called a major work of literature. Why? If it’s SF it’s bad SF. If, like Animal Farm, it’s an allegory, an allegory of what? Scholarly answers range from pretentious Freudian to far-fetched feminist. I don’t get it. Where are the Emperor’s clothes?"
You can find the tweet (and thereby, the conversation) here on Twitter - / 1401239365678997506
I've been following this ongoing conversation, and gathered some of the more interesting responses into this video, providing a bit of commentary of my own. I hope you find it thought-provoking.
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/...
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Nietzsche's thought and works - click here: reasonio.wordp...
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
#Kafka #Twitter #Dawkins
“He who has read Kafka’s Metamorphosis and can look into his mirror unflinching may technically be able to read print, but is illiterate in the only sense that matters.”- George Steiner
Nice!
Steiner was a treasure. I was quite upset when he passed away last year, but at least he left behind a mountain of excellent books.
@@GregoryBSadler Maybe it is reaction to specific interpretations. I don't know, how is wiki relevant to discussion, but there are religious interpreters even feminist meant. I suggest there is no big trouble to met one with favourite version.
@@pavelpudivitr9531 I have zero idea what you're trying to say here
@@GregoryBSadler i thought i was the only one xD
Man who devotes life to convincing others to view life as an inherently meaningless, purely scientific affair doesn't understand critique of viewing life as an inherently meaningless, purely scientific affair.
Right? It’s like a man who is able to describe an elephant in words, but doesn’t recognize an elephant in a painting.
It can be purely scientific and still have meaning.
It is not a critique of that sentiment. I would say that it is rather an affirmation of it.
@Diamant of course there is the element of other people viewing you as worthless, but I don't think Kafka would disagree with the sentiment that life is inherently shite.
@@devanshrathore9112 Even if Kafka did view life as ultimately being meaningless or what-have-you (he probably did, to be fair to you), he still critiqued that view in _Metamorphosis_; he still called people with that set of views bug-men whether he was one or not.
-Dr. Dawkins: The Metamorphosis sucks.
-Dr. Sadler: Your free trial on academic credibility has expired. You may experience great existential pain in the process.
This is one of the funniest comments I've seen. Really, though, I can't take much credit, since I just aggregated all of these other people's Twitter responses
Gordon Ramsay's beef Wellington is called a major work of food. Why? If it's a burger it's a bad burger. If, like chicken pot pie, it's a pie, a pie of what? Food critics' answers range from pretencious meat to far-fetched deconstructions of a traditional dish. I don't get it. Where's the lamb sauce?
This is a good parallel
“As Richard Dawkins awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a dank meme.”
It's a heartbreaking story. Always reminded me my late grandmother. She was a widow for over fifty years and worked hard until her 90, helping almost everyone in her village. But when she became bedridden, she was really ostracized, apart from two cousins nobody would visit every now and then.
it's almost like she transformed into some repulsive, useless creature nobody had time for any more?
I'm an atheist, but I lost respects for neo-atheists like him. They don't know what they are missing out. The world isn't all about science. It's deeper and more complicated than everyone thinks. I really appreciate Kalfa's works. Metamorphosis is magical and unique. It's the reason why did I take English literature classes and became more passionate about English classical books.
Based emit pfp
Unfortunately, being a scientist doesn't disqualify one from being anti-intellectual
The Far-Fetched Feminist-be on the lookout for my punk band's next EP!
Let me join!
yeah... that part was little addressed. Is feminism such a boogeyman to Dawkins these days that he sees the hand of feminism everywhere? I certainly read kafka, and I can't ever recall thinking: oh, well this clearly is driven by feminist agenda. I mean... lolwut?
@@thomasneal9291 I don't care to dig into the circumstances that led to the...outburst we're all pointing and laughing at, but if I had to make a charitable guess, I'd assume he ran across some second-order analysis of the story and it riled him enough to bark about it. I'm "guilty" of arbitrarily deciding to read this or that media through this or that lens; and while it's fun and sometimes enlightening to do so, if taken too seriously it can lead to the kind of moon-brained discourse Dawkins has made a brand out of. If he really did consume the story at face value and come up empty, I'd find it hard to believe he'd jump to these conclusions. But then again, I'm not the meme man himself.
Strikes me how the most vulgar anticommunism is an almost immediate intuition, but a narrative of suffering, alienation, and powerlessness against unsatisfiable demands doesn't generate a single thought in him.
Seriously. I'm surprised no one commented on him using Animal Farm as his go to allegory. I guess Dawkins is too alienated to understand alienation.
@@BATTIS94 Right? I accept people not liking/understanding Kafka, psychologic novel or literature in general....but that reference is what I find truly symptomatic
Dawkin's mission lately seems to be to unrravel any and all good faith he may have gained throughout his life
You always have to wonder: was that crank there all long, or did it develop over the years?
@@GregoryBSadler yes
@@GregoryBSadler it developed in the 2000's
@@GregoryBSadler Maybe it was there from the start and slowy increased as his fame grew. Ironically, his distaste of philosophy and art may have ruined an entire generation of scientists. I'd rather have a single Niels Borh than 10000 of his kind.
@@GregoryBSadler "was that crank there all long, or did it develop over the years?"
well, my major prof, and everyone in the department of zoology at UCB in the 80s were already dissing him as a crank so (I can explain why his ideas of selection happening at the level of the gene were never supported by observations) ... I would amend to say it has just gotten WORSE over the years, as increasing public access has proven time and again the obvious holes in his reasoning that he believed were never there.
the man could turn a phrase though. it's odd how good he was at analogizing complex scientific theories, and how poor at doing so with nearly everything else. frankly, I think he is battling the ocean at this point. I can't even see why he tries to debate things on Twitter. it was never a good medium for him.
Richard Dawkins is the kinda person who reads poetry simply to analyze the rhyme scheme and go "I don't what the fuss is about!".
Or that it can't possibly be poetry cos it doesn't even rhyme.
I just read this book, so this is exactly what I needed in my life right now.
Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson should stop pretending they know a second thing about engaging with fiction
Yes, they probably should stay in their proverbial lane
I've seen more than a few scientists assume that scientist=smart so they instinctively know everything else because it's easy: "Of course I can write a history book, I'm a physicist!"
Meanwhile, historians who are working on something get input from scientists, archaeologists, linguists...
@@javiermerino7579 But education doesn’t necessarily translate into wisdom. A person can spend their whole life puffing themselves up with knowledge, yet if that endeavor is motivated by some selfish desire for glory or power, or by some pathological need to make others feel dumb so they can feel superior, then the whole of one’s journey would’ve been in vain.
Why should one place any trust in anything an individual has ever said on any topic, after it is revealed that this was their intention all along, since their ultimate goal, as it is evident now, was not the truth, but selfish aggrandizement.
On a related note, have any of you looked at what Bill Nye has to say about philosophy? It's quite… amusing, but it's a neat representation of the epistemological imperialism of scientists
@@rzLl_pz5 neither Dawkins, nor Nye, are scientists. Dawkins was ever BARELY a scientist (during his early postdoc days), and he was a poor, and rejected one at that.
why do you think he became a science communicator instead?
Replace "Kafka's Metamorphosis" in that tweet with the name of any major religious text and understand Dawkins' entire career as a public intellectual
Lol
Yeah, Hegel is good, but have you tried Dawkins’ twitter? This is quality content 😂
I don't fault him for asking the question. Look at all the different answers he got about it. I fault him for implying that since he doesn't get it it's bad. This is honestly fine as long as people realize that intellectuals outside their area of expertise are effectively normal nobodies like me and should not be treated as credible opinions critically. I wouldn't trust Isaac Newton's advice about writing a play.
This isn’t Dawkins first time around with this sort of bad take. Check out the actual Twitter thread linked to, and you’ll see some pretty amazing stuff
"I don't fault him for asking the question."
I do, since it was never intended as an honest question, but merely a bit of rhetorical setup up for his already made up conclusion.
He was never interested in hearing anybody else's opinion on the matter.
to be honest, I bet Isaac Newton would have better chances on that than Dawkins. he was a friend of Alexander Pope, who knows. Dawkins, on the other hand, just exhales cringe.
Imagine being so parochial about literary standards that you can’t even comprehend that magic realism is a thing.
I feel like it is a good example of "scientism" in the sense that since he is a scientist anything that doesn't conform even on a shallow level to the scientific worldview he is trained to have, is just wrong and irrational by definition.
@@Hooga89 Some scientists can be so religious with their science that goes to show that science isn't inherently scientific. In fact if one day those extremist adherents to "scientism" (as you called it, I never heard this one before thanks btw) become the overarching majority we'd probably end up having an enlightement-like rebellion to hegemonic scientism-filled thinking, and what is seen as the objective, rational, and moderate "scientific" thinking would end up getting a different name.
It's interesting to imagine that in the future those ultralfundamentalist scientists will end up similar to the very thing they hate in ultra-fundamentalist religious figures of the past millennium.
Oh Lord. Poor Dawkins.
Indeed.
Quite so.
**Sniffs his own fart**
Don’t criticise something unless you understand what it means to love it...
Is that Rilke or Last Black Man in SF?
I wouldn't go quite that far, but yeah, he probably should have used a bit more of his big old brain on this one. . .
@@GregoryBSadler of course I am not saying one NEEDS to love it - just grasp three dimensionally what pull it has over those who do.
@@friendoftheshow8117 oh I write that from me, but a late musicology colleague Charles Rosen once wrote that one needed to understand what made people love a piece of music before critiquing it.
Thousands of tweets and yet not one person has informed him that it's actually about BOFA.
😂
Didn't think Kafka was Woolf, or Asimov.
It's not like we are talking about LOTR or the Chronicles of Narnia. They might as well be written in Sanskrit for a man like Dawkins.
And in other news, a geriatric British man fails in his search for meaning.
Dawkins has the reader comprehension of a high school freshman😭
I mean, we read the Metamorphosis in middle school. . .
that is an insult to high school freshman. I was as much literal and science minded as Dawkins, and even I could see what Kafka was getting at.
Human bugs? But evolution! Humans can't bug!
Dawkisn is quite arrogant and probably somewhere on spectrum which makes this situation a bit sad.
I think he's both. He appears to read fiction literature like nonfiction.
Yes, I was told some years ago that he is in fact on the spectrum
I like how he says "pretentious Freudian" and "far-fetched feminist" - as if you couldn't find such interpretations for pretty much any famous work of fiction if you search long enough.
Or. . . just maybe, those are kind of standard put-downs for dorks who don't like Freudian or feminist theory
I'm an atheist/agnostic. I've always thought "militant atheists" to be mostly shallow and juvenile. This Twitter post tells me that some of them also don't understand art. I don't know if I'm surprised.
Tolstoy was not a fan of Shakespeare.
Orwell took care of that.
The next time someone says EQ doesn't exist, point them to Dawkins.
Metamorphosis sparked my love for Kafka, although I get why Richard hates it. The book goes against our modern views of humans as primarily rational creatures looking out for their own best interests and seeking maximum happiness. Gregory's situation is an attack on this idea and a denial of it's possibility. He is both metaphorically and literally alienated from himself and his first concern isn't for his own well-being, but for others, such as his employer and his family. His situation has no explanation and is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon him. It is irrational and absurd, full of despair, and no logic can make sense of it, but that was kind of the point to me. Metamorphosis's description of modern life is full of exaggeration in order to illustrate the world to us in ways only literature can.
"isn't for his own well-being, but for others, such as his employer and his family"
ah, I think you missed something. what ends up torturing Gregor the most is his realization that all he THOUGHT he was doing for others? they never actually needed, or even wanted.
@@thomasneal9291 You're right. It's been a while since I've read it so my memory is a little hazy. Thanks for pointing that out.
Very kafkaesque
Indeed
Dr Wittgenstein diagnosed this as Aspect-Blindness.
huh. very possible. judging by his relating "Metamorphis" to "feminism" though... I rather think the poor chap is suffering from severe delusions, and projecting that onto everything he thinks to write about. feminists were apparently the first to really challenge his grasp on reason, so I think he blames them for his rapid plummet in public opinion... not even realizing he did it to himself.
LOL! Remember when Dawkins tried to rebrand atheists as “Brights”? He’s always been a bit of a doofus. “If you have even a hint of poetry in your soul” indeed. I think it’s pretty obvious Dawkins doesn’t.
I do remember that, way back in the early 2000s
He may be a brilliant biologist - he also has a point about fundamentalism - but on any subject that involves the appreciation of ambiguity or metaphor, he’s a reductive nincompoop.
ironically... Guy expresses confusion with regards to a story about alienation and finds himself alienated xD
Now I'm gonna go on Twitter to whine about the fact that Gregory B. Sadler didn't read my tweet. I'm so offenced! :-P
Thank you for doing this
You're welcome!
Let's just try to make the internet a slightly better place whenever we have the opportunity. I'm sure there are many Twitterers who either have never read The Metamorphosis, or have read it but have not (yet) developed an appreciation for it. Those people came away from all of this completely unenlightened; the only thing they learned is that Kafka enthusiasts would rather indulge in internet dunking than rise to the challenge of changing someone's mind, even when that person asks for it in apparent good faith. This strikes me as bad karma and an absence of critical thinking.
Yeah... sometimes we can also joke around, even if it doesn’t “make the internet s better place” according to your plan
@Thus Spoke Films Dawkins has a long track record of precisely that
"they learned is that Kafka enthusiasts would rather indulge in internet dunking than rise to the challenge of changing someone's mind"
if that's your takeaway from this, it is quite a superficial and incomplete one.
Dont tell him anything about Ovid's Metamorphosis.
Nice!
Very good!
Thanks, Bruce!
Ive always found it interesting that a man who has such a distain for religious narratives also has the most literal interpretations of other stories. A story can be personally useful without Bertrand Russell jumping in to correspond it’s narrative to real world facts/events.
Tune in next week when Dawkins gives his opinions on Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich"
Reference game on point on the last tweet for sure.
OMG these were so funny!!! You made my day!!
I found them pretty hilarious as well
The allegory, as I read it, is one of human nature. The protagonist sacrifices much for his family and when he in turn needs others to sacrifice for him, it isn't there.
It's about pecking orders and societies and martyrs, with the moral being to be wary of whom you suffer for.
That’s certainly one take. Kafka nowhere says it’s an allegory, as far as I know
“If it’s as a scientist, he’s a has-been”
😂😂😂
perhaps he understands more about the life of poor Gregor than he lets on.... and rails against his own realization.
Beep-boop, I don't understand, Kafka bad. Bible too.
Let's be honest, he has been embarrassing ( on Twitter) at least since the airport honey incident.
oh he was embarrassing long, long before that. it's just that people weren't as aware of it before Twitter.
people who actually ARE evolutionary biologists (of which Dawkins is NOT), were rather embarrassed by him as soon as he started pushing the unsupported idea that selection acted at the gene level, instead of acting at the level of the individual in a population.
he HAS gotten progressively (heh) worse over the years though, I mark the whole "elevatorgate" issue as the one where he firmly and fully finally put both feet in his mouth and refused to remove them ever since.
@@thomasneal9291 I forgot Elevatorgate happened before that. It was the point when I looked at a lot of online atheist places and noped out of them. It has gotten so much worse since.
I guess it didn't resonate with him. The greatness of the book is that you get the feeling that what is described, how characters behave, and so on, are a quite exact prediction of what would happen to anyone if transformed into a disgusting thing. It is not science fiction in that sense, but pure realism. Ofc you don't need to be a bug to be Gregor. For our romantic expectations of family love to be crushed, it is enough to be ill or simply elder.
This reminds me of when Joyce Carol Oates said that His Girl Friday was a bad film. I don’t understand the drive to express such thoughts in a public forum hahaha
Well, Dawkins is known for a number of bad takes over the last few years.
Ofc Dawkins would say stupid shit like this. It's in his reductive physicalist/materialist blood.
A father should be proud of his children as some of those memes where quite inventive.
Imagine if he could just apply his skepticism to his own method of thinking
I think he's trying to... but the boogeyman he has created out of feminism just can't help but project itself into everything he considers to write any more.
I simply liked the book
Dawkins was never afraid to point to the fact the Emperor is naked. Good job.
Unfortunately, there's no emperor in that Kafka story
@@GregoryBSadler and no feminists.
some of these tweets are absolutely hilarious!
Indeed they are
Gee Greg, you ended at the beginning.
I'm glad that now, not only philosophers, but the whole world knows how limited in intelligence Dawkins is.
He has an IQ of 160 so he is probably much more intelligent than you.
Those public pseudointellectuals and their retinue are worse than mosquitoes. You swat and spray left and right but, over and over again, from some moist corner of the internet, Harris and Dawkins keep reappearing with more stupid buzzing.
I loved the work,but i think a book is completely completely subjective opinion
If that was true there'd be almost no point in talking about literature. So, you'll probably want to rethink that hyperbolic claim
"is completely completely subjective opinion"
uh, how can you say that literally presenting an observation is an opinion? I say: I see the sky is blue. that's an observation, not an opinion, even IF the sky does not appear blue to your eyes. Kafka observed things in human society that had a particular pattern to them, an ugly pattern. he chose to relate those observations as a metaphor. whether you LIKE how he represented his observations or not is an opinion, that he observed these things is not.
@@GregoryBSadler sorry sir i actually misread the situation, i think its not subjective to say something should not be a part of literature, its subjective only to say that i didnt liked the book
@@thomasneal9291 i didnt understand, how you can compare sky is blue with a persons sociological point of view, sky is blue it is known by science, and the other is not, science gives us certainty which other things cant,
We shouldnt compare science with any other filed of study
Science >>> Philosophy
dawkins is really barking up the wrong tree...he tries to make everything about religion...but kafka has nothing to do with religion or animal farm (which is so random probably because it is the only other book he read)
This is likely more him just being a sourpuss
Scientists should keep their opinions to themselves. We don’t see engineers talking about these things. And usually it is engineers that really make science useful.
"We don’t see engineers talking about these things. "
ROFLMAO are you fucking KIDDING? engineers are the absolute WORST at this. the absolute fucking WORST.
you obviously have never met an engineer who is also a creationist... and they are disproportionately represented in that field.
@@thomasneal9291 well, ok you’re right about some of them. But they aren’t militant preachers, or i haven’t heard of one.
Dawkins can be rather dense, occasionally. Especially the way he relentlessly attacks religion as the sole cause of humanity's troubles. Never a single attack on ideology, nihilism, narcissism, greed, or the corporation. It hardly surprises me that he wouldn't understand Kafka. He thinks science has all the answers.
uh, that's not why he doesn't get kafka. but thanks for playing. here's a hint though: it has fuck all to do with science, and no, he nor anybody else follows the strawman of scientists people like yourself like to paint. not the least of which is that he isn't actually a scientist.
@@thomasneal9291 uh, yes. It is. He's an evolutionary biologist. A theorist. I never said he wasn't good at science, but he's terrible at literature. He's very critical of religion (not that I care), but to the point that some points he tries to bring up are misinterpretations of bible text. One doesn't need to be skilled in hermeneutics to realize his errors. And for a clever few it might be obvious that he was overzealous in his analysis. (Ex. his criticism of the story of Jeptha. The moral of the tale was lost on him, yet, he used it as a prime example of the cruelty of God, when it was the stupidity of man being depicted).
And people like myself? Wow, talk about irrational judgments based on your faulty reasoning of half a paragraph that you blew completely out of context. But what, praytell, is your excuse for being so obnoxious?
@@thomasneal9291 Why are you weighing in on so many of the comments here?
@Rowan Sharkey About the sterilization based on IQ, for people who value science over other forms of knowledge, that goes on the "bad science" bucket, as it was politically promoted by groups to enforce their pre-determined ideas and the many questions that should arrive before such a conclusion (What is the mechanism that causes these differences? Is the data biased? Are these results even replicable? Etc) must have been ignored.
When we look at the critique of reason and rationalism, it seems to me that it rarely has anything to do with the method of understanding reality (science asking how?) and much more to do with rationalisations of other issues, usually moral. The facts that you can derive from science will always only be information. Moral choices are left for the interpreter. They will always be political. If politics is changing the science, that goes on the "bad science" bucket.
In this sense, religious text are presented not only as information, but as moral guidance for the reader. Which is okay. However, there are people pushing it as the "moral Truth". I think here is where Dawkins failed: he is so used to dealing with people selling moral Truth, that he failed to recognize Metamorphosis as moral discussion and actual literature.
Not everything has to have an agenda. Fortunately
Yeah, Dawkins focuses too much on religion, as he sees it as the epitome of anti-scientific thinking. Which it kind of is.
But, if his problem with religion is really over people denying reality based on dogma, of course the problem should extend to narcisim, nihilism, corporate greed and government power. Other people who acted as science communicators better addressed this (Carl Sagan did a better job, IMHO). Dawkins is very short-sighted in this regard.
Of course, we -know- that not all problems from humanity derive from not knowing better. A lot of them do! But sometimes people will know all the exact facts and still do terrible things to themselves and to others. Reason is not enough for happiness, obviously.
I don't think however that he is naïve enough to think that science had all the answers - it intrinsically has not, and he knows this very well and has made it clear over the years. He is just overzealous of science as an empirical method, as "The Method" for deriving facts from nature. And I can understand and even agree with him in that regard. We gotta be skeptical when looking at the world.
For him, however, this preoccupation with how people get their facts makes him enter self-defense mode even when reading Kafka. Which is a shame, really.
And who among you can say you are an expert on Richard Dawkins?
And who among us would want to be?
@@GregoryBSadler Right? Unless Dawkins is here, that is :) But I do hope my larger point was not missed.
"And who among you can say you are an expert on Richard Dawkins?"
*raises hand*
what do you want to know? his failure at being a scientist? his early childhood abuse at the hands of the English primary school system?
if you want the short version: the man has been living in denial for decades, and projecting his anxiety about that denialism onto everything and everyone that publicly challenges him.
It’s hype vs reality - the book isn’t as good as the hype. Dawkins is right in this regard
I teach it pretty often, and it measures up to the hype for me and my students
@@GregoryBSadler Appreciate the response. I mean this is Dawkins - due says stuff just to be a douche.
@@xalian17 " due says stuff just to be a douche"
interesting. can you not think of any other hypothesis than spite?
Oh this makes me cackle
Only if Oumuamua isn't a tumbling cockroach carcass sent by film critics from another galaxy to announce they've seen Men in Black.
Lovely 😂
Well, sometimes someone asks a question.
Sometimes that somebody is a scientist. Sometimes it's a construction worker.
Sometimes a dealer in absolutes. It's okay.
Deeply disturbing.
How so?
@@GregoryBSadler I had no idea an intelligent neurotypical person could get into Oxford without having a basic understanding of what literature is about.
@@joejohnson6327 Elite schools are more about connections that actually being intelligent
I respect his right to an opinion, but not the opinion. I liked the story. It's absurd. It's a dream but it isn't. It's the world working against you. It's a Rorshach test at times. He shouldn't be looking at literary critics' views to get it. They're mostly speculating and they are too diverse to get. I think he should look back at Kafka himself and start from a blank slate. He'll find the "emperor's clothes" by then. I think it's good for a reason. But Dawkins will never find that reason because years of defending his gene-centered view of life and militant atheism has rigidified his imagination. He's also too old. Maybe Daniel Dennett can lend him a helping hand. He's more literary since he makes various references, that a novice like me doesn't get, from time to time when I get to read his articles or blog posts.
There are no emperor’s clothes here
Richard Dawkins has not much good to say outside of biology. The selfish gene is a pretty good book though.
It's decent, yes
This is so embarassing for him 😐
this made made my day, thank you
You're very welcome!
He didn't like the Bible either.
yeah, but at least he wrote an entire book about that, clearly explaining his views and opinions on the subject and backing them up with evidence along with the rhetoric.
this? this was a brainfart smeared with fears of feminism.
God dawkins is so cringy
Ugh. All around.
God I hate Dawkins so much.
pity him, don't hate him. that will really grind his gears.
@@thomasneal9291 no pity, only scorn.
Oh yes, Richard Dawkins my favorite pseudointelectual
Dawkins really needs to log off
been saying that for about 15 years now, myself. He has no idea how to remove his feet from his mouth, and hasn't for about that long.
Franz Kafka was a modern-day Golem of Prague. His book, The Metamorphosis, is a symbolic account of his awakening and subsequent treatment by his family and friends, to whom he had become an awkward homunculus. The story of his death is that he was interred in a sanatorium for tuberculosis and ended up dying from not being able to eat. When he died, he was working on his short story, A Fasting Artist.