2 ms·
By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Critique works of communica
by pessimizer 3y ago
By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings.
Critique works of communication or argument for failing to communicate or argue what they wish to communicate or argue. Don't critique them for not communicating or arguing for your values. Engaging with the argument is fine, but don't mistake it for engaging with the work itself.
The work has succeeded when it gives you an argument to engage with. If you have an argument against turning the other cheek, or religion in general, take it up with one of the other billion people who agree with the author, and choose the one who has presented their arguments with the most ability.
Tbh, I'm not confident in the ability of the average American to make a coherent antislavery argument. Because it's a lot harder than pointing at someone who says something nice about a slaver, or makes an observation about the reality actual slavery that isn't a vapid re-condemnation, and saying "slavery is bad folx, glad I could help."
- bccdee 3y ago> By that logic, people should really value my review of the Bible where I excoriate it for encouraging a belief in invisible beings. Many celebrated works of philosophy has been written critiquing religion. Take Nietzsche, for example, or Camus. Your review would be unoriginal, but hardly wrong-headed. > The work has succeeded when it gives you an argument to engage with. No, being incorrect is a failure worth criticizing. I wouldn't celebrate (e.g.) a creationist text for being internally consistent and well-argued. No matter how good the writing is, it's still wrong. In fact, well-argued but incorrect arguments are the most important to critique, because (unlike incompetent arguments) they can deceive readers.