Professor Keith Peterson’s lecture was deep i have to admit. KP as many refer to him, went into serious philosophical evidences of why we as a society have never been revolutionary at all.  He made me re-think the whole concept of revolution and the different connotations of what actually being revolutionary is.



KP confidently stood and presented a lecture that contradicts the whole revolutions series Colby has been emphasizing this fall semester. He sure did back his points primarily through quoting Latour Bruno.  According to KP, we as a society have been modern not revolutionary.  His style of linking up up tremendously different aspects of life with one another justifies his argument.  He suggested new dimensional thinking that i never heard of before such as : the politics of nature. KP described how it was possible to bring sciences to democracy and make inquiries into modes of existence.  He insisted on dualism and science and observed that westerners cannot afford to be one  culture among others, since  westerners also mobilize nature.

Professor Peterson argued a fascinating point that, one’s claim to being revolutionary means disregarding the individuals in that particular field who did it before you. Is claiming to be revolutionary a little too ‘cocky’ of a claim to make.  I recently heard a professor of mine also make a point that kind of drove me into the same sort of thinking. She claimed that, presidential candidate always have a “problem”.  She thought that for an individual to actually believe in himself to the point of considering presidential position, he/she must have an ultra ego that pushes them into believing themselves to be better than everybody else.  Connecting this to KP’s claim, do the scientists and philosophers who claim to be revolutionaries share the same ego with the mentioned politicians.

KP displayed a complex image that showed a pie-chart. He pointed out that for one to fully fit into the class of revolutionaries, they would have to complete each level on that chart. His chart’s title was the principle of symmetry generalized. Inside it had portions that read: Asymmetrical explanations, first principle of symmetry, and generalized principle of symmetry.  He encouraged me to really re-think those individuals that i personally deem as revolutionary.