Many times I've come across other bloggers in person, or activist types who can be very lucid about their chosen subject, but they are asymmetrically dull and irrational about some other discourse. Or, their frame of reference on the world is so totalised by a single issue (such as Gender, social justice or some specific cultural movement) that even issues that are tenuously related fail to capture the nuance of the issue beyond their single issue or frame.
This can sometimes be understood as the general fallacy of "appeal to limited pool of knowledge". I'm also reminded of the term by RM Hare, which describes a person who construes their worldview by a single notion or perspective. One of the ways in which the 'religion versus new atheists' discussion can be framed is in terms of two incompatible bliks. So long as the bliks are immune to criticism, they are always antagonistic. Consider for instance, the specific claim that religious belief is tantamount to child abuse, or that it is because of religious and non secular education that fuelled Islamist terrorism. In some respects this evidentially false. Many of the plotters were university educated in subjects such as engineering. Talk about having an evidenced based approach!
I'm always self conscious about whether I have a blik on the world. Writing in multiple blogs and with multiple voices helps me be reflective and self conscious. This is my blog for venting, but having time to walk away from this blog and whatever everyday tasks I'm doing also helps give me perspective. I suppose that inspires the thought that is more succinctly stated by Nietzsche when he says: Many of my best thoughts came to me when I was walking.
No comments:
Post a Comment