uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 4:11 pmThen we know how you have spent your weekend:
Note that when I wrote "I have looked into Meyer's personal position" but then said
"If I understand correctly I think Stephen Meyer tends to a theological position at least personally. If that is so (and I have not looked into it)..."
what I meant is that at the time when I examined his general perspective it was revealed that he was, and that he remained, a Christian. But how he thinks of Christianity, or how he bridges its contradictions or its insufficiencies, is what I have not looked into.
I did notice but I failed to comment because it's a silly right wing trope.
Here is another evidence of your reductionist tendency in operation. It also reveals a political and sociological impetus or tendency that I wager would work its way to the surface, and likely does, in your general thinking. So once again I suggest: Turn the lens of examination around. Focus it on yourself.
Let me correct you which means to add a good deal more important perspective.
It is true that some 'right-wing' thinkers use the Marxian assertion and critique as a too-general weapon. They may and they also may not understand Marian theory and they may and they may not understand the distinction implied by the term Marxist-Leninist. Nevertheless they use the term as a weapon, and other people, more uniformed even, also pick it up and use it. The reference loses meaning.
It is also true that using the term 'Marxism' in this way is more and more common and it has seeped into the mainstream. That much is true. But those who do this, as I am trying to point out, engage directly with the reductionism I am critiquing. It is far too easy to resort of reductionism when really far more thorough and thoughtful modes of approach are needed.
But the fact that this does happen, that people do this, does not have much bearing on the truth of the matter. And what is that truth?
I stand by the assertion that Marxist-Lenninist modes of thought, or traditions of thinking, and reductionist, politicized modes of thought that arise out of too strict binary concepts, have substantially crept into Academia. These bad modes have also crept (or swept) into culture generally and they are 'ravaging' in their effects.
This issue has been talked about at length by people on all sides of the political aisles and from very different, often opposed, political orientations. That this has happened, and that young people are being exposed to, and even in a way of speaking trained up in these modes and methods, that is a fair and necessary statement based in objective observation. It is an idea highly relevant to pedagogy.
Yet it extends far beyond pedagogic concerns when one opens oneself up to the important issue at stake -- which are cultural and also 'civilizational'. To make this statement, and to make this statement from outside of some specific and tendentious political position, means that one believes there are more proper, or more advantageous, modes of thinking that
are possible.
That is my own view and the let's say ideal position I wish also to emulate.
So this is the ground from which I critique your sophomoric and often binary statements.
But look, though I may be going out on a limb here, I wonder if you have some writing that we could work on, you know, something a bit more creative and colorful -- I'll help you -- to come up with something like Wee Willy's Philosophy Hour but with a more artistic bent to it?
I was thinking
along these lines . . .
