Countless historians have spend generations debunking this sort of simple-minded Whig view of history but Pinker doesn't care because he writes off the humanities. https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/962011654346043394 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
And yet, you can’t possibly deny things have improved in lots of respects, right? He cites a lot of data. It’s not as clear-cut and unilinear as he claims, but a useful reminder to appreciate improvements, is it not?
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @DamonLinker
A declinist view of history isn't the only alternative to a Whig view of history. There's also the possibility some things are better, others are worse.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Of course. That’s my view, too. And I agree that Pinker is Panglossian. But also a needed corrective. Even if an overcorrection.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DamonLinker @HeerJeet
I'm planing to read "Enlightenment Now" and "Why Liberalism Failed" back to back. Should be an interesting experience :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @HeerJeet
A good pairing. When I reviewed WLF, one of my criticisms was the need for Deneen to take account of the Pinker position. My own position is some incoherent amalgam of them both!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Larger issue goes beyond whether things better or worse. Earlier societies existed for their own reasons & not simply as prelude to us. That's what historical awareness teaches. Pinker lacks that
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.