It's not automatic. It's to do with the ideas. If you think they are wrong, you necessarily think people who think they are right are mistaken. We don't have to believe all belief systems are equally valid. Some are just wrong & people who believe them mistaken.
Its not glossed over. Its not the subject of the essay. We've been here. Is your criticism that he should have addressed the beliefs of the movement rather than its psychological appeal? Do you make the same criticism of Murray?
-
-
I haven't defended Murray once.
-
Is that a yes?
-
I skimmed Murray's piece but I remember it striking me as a puff piece from a guy who already agreed with Peterson & wasn't really engaging deeply, so if I understand your question correctly then yes.
-
I've given up. I can't get to the bottom of your objection except that it seems to be that he should have both written from a different angle - an epistemic one rather than a psychological one - and acknowledged value in the ideas - even if he didn't think they had any.
-
No, that's not it, I don't feel I have the right to dictate his subject or tone. I'm out of ways to rephrase so I'll have to go think about it for a while.
-
OK. I really am genuinely confused. Not being difficult. Goodnight!
-
If I specify the grounds on which a critique is based, you can respond either on those grounds or by changing them. If I say, "there is no empirical evidence of God", you can either provide some or change the parameters of the debate. But either way we can have the debate.
-
But if I say, "the Qur'an is bullshit" without specifying grounds, I've taken the objective perspective & it's just a provocation. It might be justified, and I certainly have the right to do it, but I should expect nothing but hostility b/c there's no debate to be had.
- 5 more replies
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.