3 ms·
This reads more like a vaguely passive aggressive ad hominem attack against McLuhan being a conservative Christian primarily motivated by dreams of stardom rath
by wu-ikkyu 10y ago
This reads more like a vaguely passive aggressive ad hominem attack against McLuhan being a conservative Christian primarily motivated by dreams of stardom rather than an analytical critique of his ideas and writings, which is finally made plain after a long rambling in the last sentence.
>McLuhan’s probes, taken as truth-indifferent provocations, really are good to think with. It’s just that the man — rewarded for closeting his gloom — is more instructive than his books.
- fourthark 10y agoI guess it's talking about the medium rather than the message? I kept expecting it to return to the ideas but it was only about the hype.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoYour critique is itself an ad-hominem. The article gives plenty of examples, including his outlandish disparagement of Blondie. Saying that the article is a passive aggressive attack against a conservative Christian thinker is no more convincing than saying an article about Miscavige is a passive aggressive attack against a Scientologist thinker. You must explain why their ideas have any merit.
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoIndeed. But the important ideas at hand here are of technical design, rather than subjective private metaphysical beliefs. Many scientific and philosophical advancements have come cultures with wildly varying religious beliefs. >You must explain why their ideas have any merit. McLuhan does so if you read his books. Equally so you must explain why ideas do not have merit without ultimately dismissing them because of private metaphysics.