Word: self
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...unquestionably a moral and scholarly basis for agreement. The U. S. Army has presumably been fighting more than ghosts for seven years, and the goals and motivation of the forces that have withstood that onslaught, the National Liberation Front, are at least worthy of respect. In any event, the self-righteous claim to wisdom fo the Harvard experts cannot be taken seriously...
...since no self-respecting black academician would accept the post." Harvard had to take Guinier, "whose only postgraduate work was in the Law School and who ran unsuccessfully for Manhattan borough president in 1949 as candidate of the Communist-dominated American Labor party...
...abiding the inconveniences and hassles with which the technocracy keeps us under control. Although Roszak does not go into it, it is clear that people in the universities are the ones who can take really effective action: they are in a position to ruin the technocracy's system of self-preservation and fairly secure of the necessities of life if they try. It is time to stop tolerating such important strictures as selective admissions, examinations, grades, depart-mentalization, and degrees. This will require action by great numbers of people, but it simply must be done...
...counter culture must proceed, then, with the understanding that it may not be a counter culture forever. In the long run, it could conceivably found the culture of post-technocratic, post-Western man. This consideration should not make people in the counter-culture self-righteous and oracular; but it should make them less flippant about what they are doing. Their experiments and explorations have barely begun. They cannot be allowed to stagnate or degenerate. The people in the counter have to assume a new intentness in their quest for human happiness, and a new earnestness in their vision of what...
...single argument against it. Rather the implication is that such an ignorant editorial ("simplistic," "shoddy") merits not argument, but counter-assertion and contempt from informed scholars, amongst whom the professors clearly place themselves. This is arrogant nonsense. There are plenty of scholars, at least as well-informed as our self-esteeming professors (albeit of a different persuasion, thank God), who would, I'm sure, find far more to defend in the editorial than in the views of Thomson and his crew...