Sure and they had success but people should recognise the event for what it is- advocacy. To say it is non-political and non-ideological is naïve. Boghossian might say he is just pro-science/critical thinking but his actions suggest otherwise or at least broader motives.
-
-
Yes I understood that but I’m not naive about these issues. You are from the UK? I went to SOAS for undergrad/first masters, I know very well influence of critical thinking/postmodernism in humanities. It’s part of why I switched to do cognitive anthropology at Oxford.
-
My disagreement doesn’t stem from naivety or not having considered such issues. Or not understanding what you were trying to achieve.
-
I'm sorry if you thought I implied it did. Its always annoying when people do that. Its more that this group need convincing to see it as something they should take as a serious threat to the left's credibility when it needs it most.
-
"Aims are good" is what I see. Period. Nor do I really feel your politics, or Dr. Conceptual's politics, or Boghossian's politics are particularly relevant to an examination of academic rigor. I think it sad you even have to say you are left leaning.
-
I think we need to because we are addressing politics and it matters from what perspective. We criticise the left differently from how the right will. We won't confuse postmodernism with Marxism, for example.
-
Honest question Chris. What are your biases, and how do they affect your reading of Helen's work?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.