Neither 'rubes' nor 'dupes' appears in that piece. This is clearly how you feel about someone giving a psychological explanation for the attraction to Peterson's rhetoric. It is v similar to how religious people feel when people look at the psychological reasons for their belief
-
-
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.
-
Having re-read James' piece, he makes sweeping statements & bases his critiques on unexamined assumptions about the negativity of religious thought without specifying the grounds for that judgment. Instead of a good-faith argument, it comes across as condescension--of course
-
these ideas are wrong. He's welcome to that opinion, but not to the idea that it's self-evident. That's what makes it a provocation. Please note that I'm not saying he should change his subject matter or tone, or questioning the devotion of JBP's followers, and I'm certainly not
-
proselytizing. I'm saying he should be clear about the position he's arguing from instead of presuming objectivity in order to punch down at his targets.
-
*along with "religious thought" I should have mentioned pragmatism & JBP's notion of "truth", which he mentions several times without elaborating.
- 1 more reply
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.