If by chance one of your writings strikes a chord, and is cited by folks decades later, your main reward may be to repeatedly hear the same misunderstandings and off-target counter-arguments that you’ve repeatedly tried to head off in your writings, but which critics apparently can’t be bothered to read. Sometimes, though not usually, I bother to respond. Case in point: Sunil Suri’s
The crux is 3. Standard Heideggerian philosophy holds that the ‘univocity of value’ is the core nihilistic problem associated with the Question Concerning Technology. The standard critical theory response to that is to object that Heideggerianism pursues a heteronomous state bereft of artistic subjectivity, but since Age of Em is weirdly Heideggerian (given your influences) I’m not sure you can support that sort of critique.
In any event, if we are to play the game of standard academic references to authority I don’t see any plausible way to credibly stack the Parfits against the Habermases. Which means we have a breakdown in discourse and the Habermases are right about at least that much and we must build from there. Which means that blog posts like this must be seen as dialectical, not as discursive. But while this post is a good discourse, it’s terrible dialectic.
So let’s use a different argument for item 3.
I hadn't written about the topic in a long while, and this gave an excuse to.
Probably wasn't worth responding to this person.
Haven't been a big fan of blindspotter so far- seems to often just be an indicator of peer-age-group, or peer-region, rather than a strong signal of actual ideology or interest. I'm sure it correlates a bit with ideology, but it just doesn't seem very useful.
We can't completely rule out the possibility that he has an agenda:https://ground.news/blindsp...