Right, but that's not the issue. It's not the degree of passion or the numbers, it's the automatic (and deeply nihilistic) assumption that people experiencing intense connection with anset of ideas are being duped. That's the bad faith--you can disagree with him, fine, but
Right. Is that not OK? Must we pretend this kind of thing has worth? Obviously people will be annoyed if they think it does. Same with anything some people think true & others don't. And of course, people feel annoyed if they think they're right & others don't.
-
-
It seems like more than this tho. You're not just pointing out that people get annoyed when other people don't believe the same thing as them? Its like you think James shouldn't have written from an angle of not sharing those views.
-
I think he should have acknowledged that he was writing from one side of the empiricist/pragmatist divide instead of feigning objectivity.
-
Another different claim. First he wrong for thinking Peterson was wrong. Now he is wrong for not acknowledging he thinks Peterson is wrong. This is really silly. You are all over the place and keep changing what the problem is. You just want to have a problem for some reason.
-
I never said he was wrong for thinking Peterson was wrong. You interpreted me that way a number of times, but I didn't say it. I know this because I don't actually think it's true--disagreement is fine, which I did say. I don't know why we're not communicating, and I don't know
-
how to phrase it any more clearly so perhaps we've reached an impasse.
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.