Boghossian is infamous AGAIN for attacking anti-rational pseudo-academic work in what he calls "grievance studies."
He tells @peternlimberg that he's had a deluge of "I never thought I'd say this to you of all people but I'm 100% with you" support from fundamentalists.
-
Show this thread
-
Boghossian suggests that, in a Great Realignment, the major axis of politics may be shifting to rational vs anti-rational, systematic vs anti-systematic, collapsing the old left/right distinction. I suggested something similar in 2016: https://meaningness.com/metablog/communal-vs-systematic-politics …pic.twitter.com/MKoetzBkAI
5 replies 4 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
He points also to developing alliances between groups that ignore their left/right differences to join in anti-rational causes. He cites a divisive "wokeness" movement within fundamentalism (first I've heard of this). Feminist-Islamist alliances might be another example?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Boghossian says he thinks the anti-rational insurgency will necessarily collapse because it has no structure of justification. I am less optimistic: Removing any feeling of need for justification is exactly why it is powerful and attractive! https://meaningness.com/metablog/communal-vs-systematic-politics …pic.twitter.com/rhFxvWSRlL
3 replies 4 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
The fact is, most people don't care about rational justifications. Those were always an elite affectation. Elites conspired to keep political discourse within systematic rules, but twitter ended that. Boghossian wrings his hands over this loss; I imagine 4chan & SJWs laughing.pic.twitter.com/gIMuv4Ql5X
2 replies 6 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Given a choice between rationalism & anti-rationalism, I will unhesitatingly choose the first. Until we create something better—which I hope we will—rationalist institutions are absolutely necessary to our survival. But the age of rationalism has passed.https://meaningness.com/metablog/rationalism-critiques …
3 replies 3 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Interviewing
@peterboghossian, I would have been less polite than@peternlimberg, and pressed him with "yes, and"s. Standpoint epistemology is not entirely wrong; we do all have limited knowledge and understanding, which is partly a matter of social position; this does matter.3 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness @peterboghossian
Chalk up my lack of “yes anding” to my Canadian politeness, also to the telos of the podcast. I would like to explore what Peter and other rationalist atheists think of the possibility of a healthy postmodernism or if pomo done right can serve as a bridge to something new.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @peternlimberg @peterboghossian
Thanks, this is an interesting format! (Are there examples as podcasts?) I'd be interested to try it at some point (with some interlocutor, and I admire
@peterboghossian's work, so he'd be a good one).1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The difficulty I have in talking with rationalists is that there's no good explanation of meta-rationalism anywhere yet. (Which is, obviously, entirely the fault of meta-rationalists; one I'm trying to rectify but I'm to blame more than anyone.)
-
-
That means there's realistically no way the rationalist can follow the discussion I would like to have. There's no way they can prepare short of reading a dozen famously difficult books in disparate fields, which is unreasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Then the rationalist seems ignorant and stubborn to onlookers who have acquired a meta-rational view; whereas the meta-rationalist in the discussion seems obscurantist and arrogant to those who have not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 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.