Does anyone other than Rationalists actually read his screed? I'm pretty sure they were they only ones who read James Damore's and thought it is serious scholarship too. They love their obscure manifestos that everyone else finds repulsive.
It's not particularly clever or well-written, and it takes thousands of words to say not much of anything.
There's a lot of overlap between Moldbug fans and people who want to make sure the teacher doesn't forget about last night's homework assignment.
I literally know people who think Moldbug's writing itself is good. Flows like poetry for them. These are people who read other things too. I'm like "uh"
Is he referring to that pathetic bait and switch, “An Open Letter to
Open-Minded Progressives”? Damn, the transparent manipulation and
gratuitous prolixity of that essay annoyed me.
I actually just did a section talking about Reformed Epistemology in
comparison to standpoint epistemology.
Oh for fucks sake.
For those not in the know…
Can I be bothered?
Yeah, anyway. Reformed epistemology is actually quite clever (though
not without its critics), and standpoint epistemology, though not
without its critics, is generally criticised for dumb pseudo-technical
reasons that miss the point. Ironically, the best criticisms of reformed
epistemology always seem to be of the “oh come the fuck on” kind, with
Plantinga standing on his high horse and going “ah, but technically” so
whatever.
James Lindsay, presumably, is unaware of the (epistemological)
significance of either.
Any chance you could give a brief overview of standpoint epistemology in the philosophy of religion? I tried searching and came up with feminist philosophy of science, and I'm guessing that's not what OP was referring to? Or maybe it is, in which case I'm morbidly curious as to what's there to compare except "DAE feminism is a religion"
> a brief overview of standpoint epistemology in the philosophy of religion?
Maybe /u/noactuallyitspoptart can omit the religion perspective, since Lindsay (in his scrubbed account) has said something akin to the following to say about metaphysics (pardon my memory lapses):
"I heard about it, and spent a lot of time researching it [describes his time as reading the SEP], and I decided it was a waste of time". Note that this discussion was a non sequitur response to people asking him to describe his personal beliefs about the nature of evidence.
Lindsay strikes me as an intuitive logical positivist, railing against the less 'empirical' ideas he encounters as 'religious'. Edit: Basically, I don't expect him to have studied religion.
Edit2: [Non-twitter source](https://areomagazine.com/2018/01/29/the-guru-appeal-of-jordan-peterson-in-our-post-everything-world/) of my assessment of his philosophical knowledge [please read with caution: I'm currently writing a thesis in a dry scientific field, and his writing style cramps my inured brain.]
>Lindsay strikes me as an intuitive logical positivist
Not even, really. He's just soaked in a particular network or thought-world of people who all have the same silly opinions and bad arguments as each other, loudly. In his case it happens to be the (New) atheist circle that thinks their petty prejudices are obviously because they were so right about God.
He's taking a whack at standpoint epistemology because he's dumb and loud and it sounds like "grievance studies" to him, not because of any commitment to empiricism.
Baby, meet bathwater, bye bye baby.
I don't know much about standpoint epistemology in the philosophy of religion, or indeed the philosophy of religion. I know about reformed epistemology due to an interest in epistemology, not religion. Lindsay is definitely pulling the "DAE feminism is a religion" card and that's it.
He had a long, scrubbed, history of bad New Atheist twitter takes under the *amazing* handle of @GodDoesnt. It was [literally this](https://i.imgur.com/lUtkskm.png), but as an assertion, repeated at least once week, for any topic that didn't fit his personal standard of evidence.
Nah, that's definitely one of the other two, if anything he's the bright spark of the bunch.
Still a fucking moron. (Another one who hard blocked me on twitter some petty reason).
Keep in mind, this thread originally had nothing to do with his
religion paper, and everything to do with his favourably referring to a
white supremacist in Moldbug.
Rationalists want to be neo-reactionaries and neo-reactionaries want to be Rationalists.
“I formally request permission to become an asshole.”
I never understand how they can take a weird manifesto by someone who calls himself “Mencius Moldbug” so seriously.
Is he referring to that pathetic bait and switch, “An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives”? Damn, the transparent manipulation and gratuitous prolixity of that essay annoyed me.
Oh for fucks sake.
For those not in the know…
Can I be bothered?
Yeah, anyway. Reformed epistemology is actually quite clever (though not without its critics), and standpoint epistemology, though not without its critics, is generally criticised for dumb pseudo-technical reasons that miss the point. Ironically, the best criticisms of reformed epistemology always seem to be of the “oh come the fuck on” kind, with Plantinga standing on his high horse and going “ah, but technically” so whatever.
James Lindsay, presumably, is unaware of the (epistemological) significance of either.
What a cunt.
I love how you all just dismiss the point, bravo! 😂
His work seems the exact opposite of NRx. In fact I think he is regularly exposing frauds that ARE a threat to enlightenment.
The hate directed at this academic is telling.
Look guys, it turns out that a real adult who is interested in Real Conversations thinks you’re a serious threat.
Keep in mind, this thread originally had nothing to do with his religion paper, and everything to do with his favourably referring to a white supremacist in Moldbug.