I love your work. I agree with your perspectives much more often than his, and think yours are also better argued. But I am confused about what you are doing with this post.
The central accusation BSB makes against you in his most recent is to say that you have him blocked, that it is dishonorable to publish long replies to people you have blocked, and therefore you are dishonorable. In context the "easy mode" thing is presented as an extension of that. He isn't saying your life and career have been easy or hard overall, which he obviously couldn't know.
He is saying that preventing your adversaries and critics from easily reading or replying to your work is an easy mode hack. I think he exaggerates how much difference it actually makes, but that is the allegation.
If you actually want to fight the charges, argue why it is okay to respond to someone you blocked, or that he is not in fact blocked, or otherwise address the block situation.
Thanks. I don’t think it’s very clear what exactly he thinks is “easy mode.” I have addressed why it’s fine to respond to someone you’ve blocked as well. I’ve tried to cover all the bases.
I don't even know what you two guys are feuding about at this point. Some time ago in the moral realism debates I had a bit of discussion with both of you, and you both seemed to agree with a very similar picture of what's going on *on the ground* - basically a story of cultural evolution with a bit of convergence due to game theory, and lots of path dependency because 1) agreeing on a common set of expectations already brings most of the value, and 2) selection pressures are not even that strong, humans are good at surviving despite borderline shitty culture.
Once (and if) you've roughly agreed with that, what's the relevance of all this talk of reasons? As far as I can tell it's just an abstraction that breaks down in funny ways if you try to make a "thing" of it.
I stopped interacting with BSB some time ago. However, I recently discovered BSB had written a critique of the Unintelligibility Thesis. To my knowledge, I am the only vocal proponent of this view. There are others who’ve endorsed it, but I don’t know of anyone publishing or even blogging about the view. Given this, and given some of BSB’s comments in the post, it appeared to be a critique of my view.
The problem was that BSB misunderstood my view. He took my issue to be the unintelligibility of the conjunction of stance-independence and normative reasons, such that he interpreted my position to be that:
Normative reasons are intelligible, and stance-independence is intelligible, but the conjunction of these, “stance-independent normative reasons” is somehow not intelligible.
This is false. This is not my position and is not to my knowledge the position of anyone else on the matter (though I am fine granting that there probably are people who think this or say things like this).
My position is that:
Irreducible normativity is unintelligible.
I also think the notion of “counting-in-favor” relations and a handful of other terms and concepts aren’t intelligible.
So BSB wrote a whole post, apparently criticizing my views, but having totally misunderstood what my views were. And this misunderstanding was the basis for the critique, so the entire critique is irrelevant. It’s a critique of a combination of views few if anyone actually holds. Certainly not me.
What makes this all the more frustrating is that BSB didn’t mention me by name, or anyone else, yet made several remarks that implied multiple people held this view. When I noted this lack of clarity in my critique, BSB scoffed at this, pointing out that I blocked him. That someone blocked you does not mean that if you opt to write a critique of them, that you aren’t allowed to mention them by name, quote them, or otherwise reference them. This is all the more evident that BSB publicly stated that he circumvented the block to read my blog post. So clearly BSB is able and willing to read my work. So why was BSB willing to read my response to his critique, but couldn’t be bothered when writing the critique to actually quote me or engage with what I said?
There’s no good reason for this. It’s at best negligent and lazy.
> My position is that: Irreducible normativity is unintelligible.
Thanks for the clarification, that's pretty clear.
I guess this is the point where I'm happy not to be a professional; once the balloon has been successfully deflated, I'm really not hung up on the difference whether irreducible normativity is wrong, or "not even wrong".
I actually don't think it's that big of a difference, either, but apparently other people get absolutely apoplectic when you say view isn't simply false, but unintelligible.
To riff into a different territory, I tend to think that foundational metaphysics are often like that: not just false, but based on a reification that evaporates when you look into it closely. Think of atomism a-la Democritus: we think we have a discernible idea of atoms because we're used to dealing with solid objects such as stones, but then at the same time we're grounding our idea of stones in those atoms. If you analyze what the concept itself rests on, you find a circular reference. So, "not even wrong". With thanks to Pyrrho and Nagarjuna :)
Alright, so I looked into it and no, I do not have Matt Whitely blocked, they have me blocked.
They also recently said about me that I am "a pedantic pompous ass, I wouldn’t waste your time." I'd be willing to talk to them anyway, mostly because I don't remember who they are or why they have an issue with me. I apparently forgot.
I didn't block BSB because he misrepresented me. I blocked him for making false accusations and neither retracting or substantiating them.
As far as it being lame and weak: I don't agree. Blogging is a hobby. If in the process of doing so I feel obligated due to social pressure to constantly have unpleasant exchanges, why would I want to keep doing it?
>>It means there is no more productive dialogue between you and them.
I don't think dialogs with BSB are productive.
>> Even if BSB accused you of lying, if he really did, blocking him just means I can not longer see a worthwhile person engage with you, which in turn makes me less interested in your posts.
I understand that, but my efforts to blog have to be appealing to me, not just valuable to you. Otherwise, what incentive do I have?
>>It is your perogative but I doubt I'm alone in this.
I know and I appreciate and am attentive to people's different perspectives on the matter. Given that I'm clearly willing to actively critique entire academic disciplines despite some people online not liking this very much (incidentally, academic philosophers are often quite fine with these kinds of critiques; look at the popularity of Wittgenstein!), I think you'll find I am unlikely to be especially moved by lots of people disagreeing with me about this.
>>Yet I cannot approve of the way you block people, didn't you also block Matt Whitely?
That name sounds familiar but they don't appear to be blocked. I might've blocked them at some point. In any case, do you know why I typically block people? When do you think someone should block other people? Would you be okay with it if I muted these people instead of blocking them?
>>This app is barely worth using when the few worthwhile people block one another.
I agree, and it's unfortunate. But i think the better thing to do is to criticize people for accusing me of lying or making other false accusations than to be upset with me for blocking them. I have no obligation to interact with people who can't meet basic standards for interacting with me.
>> It's unfortunate to the point where I don't bother logging in because I want to see actual discourse if I want to see anything at all.
I understand that, but look at it from my perspective. Why would I want to show up here if I felt obligated to constantly interact with people who call me a psychopath or a liar, who constantly try to psychoanalyze me, and who seem consistently incapable of actually responding to my views? For me, it is an exercise in patience and self-control that I find immensely unpleasant. It's a chore. Why would I go out of my way to make Substack into a chore for myself?
Thanks for acknowledging that! I don't even remember who he is so I don't feel especially aggrieved. I also just find it fun to be called a "pompous ass." It's like being insulted by English noblemen.
Yea, I can't stand the sun miracle stuff myself. I made sure to filter it all out so I wouldn't have to see it. I don't want or enjoy conflict or drama, but leaving false and critical remarks about me unanswered bothers me too much, so I decided this time to address it. What lends me confidence is that some of these people who are characterizing my views not only get it wrong, but it get backwards. Meanwhile my initial interpretation of BSB's position (irreducible normativity) was explicitly verified by him later. This shows there's a clear asymmetry in who is being more attentive to what the other side actually thinks.
I think the point is that someone who accuses other people of lying in a discussion is not a worthwhile person to engage with. That person has shown they don’t want a genuine conversation, they want to protect their beliefs by strawmanning and avoiding engagement with views they disagree with. That’s not someone I would want to talk with either.
Because he wrote an entire blog post misrepresenting my views. I don't agree it devalues my posts. In fact I think more people should block people for doing the sort of thing he did. People would do it less if there were more consequences. Engagement with him isn't meaningful. It's an unpleasant chore.
I missed thar you had posted this in the comments. But it should have been in the main post, near the top.
Man ...
I love your work. I agree with your perspectives much more often than his, and think yours are also better argued. But I am confused about what you are doing with this post.
The central accusation BSB makes against you in his most recent is to say that you have him blocked, that it is dishonorable to publish long replies to people you have blocked, and therefore you are dishonorable. In context the "easy mode" thing is presented as an extension of that. He isn't saying your life and career have been easy or hard overall, which he obviously couldn't know.
He is saying that preventing your adversaries and critics from easily reading or replying to your work is an easy mode hack. I think he exaggerates how much difference it actually makes, but that is the allegation.
If you actually want to fight the charges, argue why it is okay to respond to someone you blocked, or that he is not in fact blocked, or otherwise address the block situation.
Thanks. I don’t think it’s very clear what exactly he thinks is “easy mode.” I have addressed why it’s fine to respond to someone you’ve blocked as well. I’ve tried to cover all the bases.
Yeah I saw the edits later on. Seems reasonable.
I don't even know what you two guys are feuding about at this point. Some time ago in the moral realism debates I had a bit of discussion with both of you, and you both seemed to agree with a very similar picture of what's going on *on the ground* - basically a story of cultural evolution with a bit of convergence due to game theory, and lots of path dependency because 1) agreeing on a common set of expectations already brings most of the value, and 2) selection pressures are not even that strong, humans are good at surviving despite borderline shitty culture.
Once (and if) you've roughly agreed with that, what's the relevance of all this talk of reasons? As far as I can tell it's just an abstraction that breaks down in funny ways if you try to make a "thing" of it.
I stopped interacting with BSB some time ago. However, I recently discovered BSB had written a critique of the Unintelligibility Thesis. To my knowledge, I am the only vocal proponent of this view. There are others who’ve endorsed it, but I don’t know of anyone publishing or even blogging about the view. Given this, and given some of BSB’s comments in the post, it appeared to be a critique of my view.
The problem was that BSB misunderstood my view. He took my issue to be the unintelligibility of the conjunction of stance-independence and normative reasons, such that he interpreted my position to be that:
Normative reasons are intelligible, and stance-independence is intelligible, but the conjunction of these, “stance-independent normative reasons” is somehow not intelligible.
This is false. This is not my position and is not to my knowledge the position of anyone else on the matter (though I am fine granting that there probably are people who think this or say things like this).
My position is that:
Irreducible normativity is unintelligible.
I also think the notion of “counting-in-favor” relations and a handful of other terms and concepts aren’t intelligible.
So BSB wrote a whole post, apparently criticizing my views, but having totally misunderstood what my views were. And this misunderstanding was the basis for the critique, so the entire critique is irrelevant. It’s a critique of a combination of views few if anyone actually holds. Certainly not me.
What makes this all the more frustrating is that BSB didn’t mention me by name, or anyone else, yet made several remarks that implied multiple people held this view. When I noted this lack of clarity in my critique, BSB scoffed at this, pointing out that I blocked him. That someone blocked you does not mean that if you opt to write a critique of them, that you aren’t allowed to mention them by name, quote them, or otherwise reference them. This is all the more evident that BSB publicly stated that he circumvented the block to read my blog post. So clearly BSB is able and willing to read my work. So why was BSB willing to read my response to his critique, but couldn’t be bothered when writing the critique to actually quote me or engage with what I said?
There’s no good reason for this. It’s at best negligent and lazy.
> My position is that: Irreducible normativity is unintelligible.
Thanks for the clarification, that's pretty clear.
I guess this is the point where I'm happy not to be a professional; once the balloon has been successfully deflated, I'm really not hung up on the difference whether irreducible normativity is wrong, or "not even wrong".
I actually don't think it's that big of a difference, either, but apparently other people get absolutely apoplectic when you say view isn't simply false, but unintelligible.
To riff into a different territory, I tend to think that foundational metaphysics are often like that: not just false, but based on a reification that evaporates when you look into it closely. Think of atomism a-la Democritus: we think we have a discernible idea of atoms because we're used to dealing with solid objects such as stones, but then at the same time we're grounding our idea of stones in those atoms. If you analyze what the concept itself rests on, you find a circular reference. So, "not even wrong". With thanks to Pyrrho and Nagarjuna :)
Yep.
Doing philosophy on easy mode is a compliment. You’re so good at it that it looks effortless.
Alright, so I looked into it and no, I do not have Matt Whitely blocked, they have me blocked.
They also recently said about me that I am "a pedantic pompous ass, I wouldn’t waste your time." I'd be willing to talk to them anyway, mostly because I don't remember who they are or why they have an issue with me. I apparently forgot.
I didn't block BSB because he misrepresented me. I blocked him for making false accusations and neither retracting or substantiating them.
As far as it being lame and weak: I don't agree. Blogging is a hobby. If in the process of doing so I feel obligated due to social pressure to constantly have unpleasant exchanges, why would I want to keep doing it?
>>It means there is no more productive dialogue between you and them.
I don't think dialogs with BSB are productive.
>> Even if BSB accused you of lying, if he really did, blocking him just means I can not longer see a worthwhile person engage with you, which in turn makes me less interested in your posts.
I understand that, but my efforts to blog have to be appealing to me, not just valuable to you. Otherwise, what incentive do I have?
>>It is your perogative but I doubt I'm alone in this.
I know and I appreciate and am attentive to people's different perspectives on the matter. Given that I'm clearly willing to actively critique entire academic disciplines despite some people online not liking this very much (incidentally, academic philosophers are often quite fine with these kinds of critiques; look at the popularity of Wittgenstein!), I think you'll find I am unlikely to be especially moved by lots of people disagreeing with me about this.
>>Yet I cannot approve of the way you block people, didn't you also block Matt Whitely?
That name sounds familiar but they don't appear to be blocked. I might've blocked them at some point. In any case, do you know why I typically block people? When do you think someone should block other people? Would you be okay with it if I muted these people instead of blocking them?
>>This app is barely worth using when the few worthwhile people block one another.
I agree, and it's unfortunate. But i think the better thing to do is to criticize people for accusing me of lying or making other false accusations than to be upset with me for blocking them. I have no obligation to interact with people who can't meet basic standards for interacting with me.
>> It's unfortunate to the point where I don't bother logging in because I want to see actual discourse if I want to see anything at all.
I understand that, but look at it from my perspective. Why would I want to show up here if I felt obligated to constantly interact with people who call me a psychopath or a liar, who constantly try to psychoanalyze me, and who seem consistently incapable of actually responding to my views? For me, it is an exercise in patience and self-control that I find immensely unpleasant. It's a chore. Why would I go out of my way to make Substack into a chore for myself?
Thanks for acknowledging that! I don't even remember who he is so I don't feel especially aggrieved. I also just find it fun to be called a "pompous ass." It's like being insulted by English noblemen.
Yea, I can't stand the sun miracle stuff myself. I made sure to filter it all out so I wouldn't have to see it. I don't want or enjoy conflict or drama, but leaving false and critical remarks about me unanswered bothers me too much, so I decided this time to address it. What lends me confidence is that some of these people who are characterizing my views not only get it wrong, but it get backwards. Meanwhile my initial interpretation of BSB's position (irreducible normativity) was explicitly verified by him later. This shows there's a clear asymmetry in who is being more attentive to what the other side actually thinks.
I think the point is that someone who accuses other people of lying in a discussion is not a worthwhile person to engage with. That person has shown they don’t want a genuine conversation, they want to protect their beliefs by strawmanning and avoiding engagement with views they disagree with. That’s not someone I would want to talk with either.
Also, I don't block people for disagreeing. I block them for violating specific rules or standards, like accusing me of lying.
Because he wrote an entire blog post misrepresenting my views. I don't agree it devalues my posts. In fact I think more people should block people for doing the sort of thing he did. People would do it less if there were more consequences. Engagement with him isn't meaningful. It's an unpleasant chore.