4 ms·
The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psycho
by calf 2y ago
The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself.
It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
- skrebbel 2y ago> the philosophical-industrial complex what's this?
- calf 2y agoIt's in the article.
- skrebbel 2y agoHardly.
- calf 2y agoHow obnoxious and rude. It was in the article, it's a nice clever analogy that the authors used, it's an allusion that's not that deep or complicated to get. If you finished high-school English and/or did well on the SAT you should have the reading comprehension skills to infer the meaning from that passage, despite it being a term not defined anywhere. Furthermore, you are free to disagree/skeptical with their notion of a "philosophy-industrial complex" being true or valid, but that issue would be a different matter and does not warrant your passive-aggressiveness toward me.