1- You think that his writings are too abstract for you and not grounded more in the sociocultural realities of today's America, right?
2. Seriously, I don't know who his associates are or his political orientation is (right or left), I just happen to agree with his thesis outlined in this essay and probably would disapprove of some of his past/future views if I happen to find them unreasonable, that's all.
See my rebuttal to that other comment. And please elevate your discussion from the realm of feelings about people. Let’s say he is thin-skinned. So? That doesn’t change how helpful and eye-opening his delightful books are.
I called him a bozo not because we don't share values, but because:
(a) he doesn't seem to have any particularly profound values aside from "avoid the discomfort of working" and "it's nice to travel", and
(b) he devoted large amounts of his post to slag off most of the rest of the world (including his ex-wife - and there's of course even more to read, if you're a masochist) in astonishingly adolescent terms. If you're looking for "unkind and uncharitable" takes, you might try rereading the article.
Ahh, I see now. So it is not just Views. It is the wrong kind of Views. The guy basically the kinda guy that kicks puppies and worships Hitler. And anyone who associates with him is as bad or worse for being complicit nay culpable..
And the only thing that is not asked is whether he was good at what he did.
Was he good at what he did apart from being bad bad anti-homosexual?
I don't believe any of this is true. Read the middle essay in _Consider the Lobster_ about his engagement with his church in Normal, IL and hanging out with his neighbors watching the newscasts during 9/11. He's not a recluse withdrawn into his own head.
I think, based on the unfortunate tone you set with that first dumb comment, that you're drawing sophomoric extrapolations from a single essay that you are actually misreading.
Respectfully, this is a wall of text and it isn't really about me and my opinion. I suspect you're maybe too deep in the personality cult.
I've seen it mostly on the internet, and Watts is one of those that evokes heavy denial from adherents. People will defend mild criticism of their heroes very fervently like you've done. They can do no wrong. But no human being is perfect and that's all I said, with brief reference to the parts I liked least.
I don't like 100% of what Watts said and did, I think a bit of it is misguided or the wrong emphasis, and we're all human and sometimes we misguide ourselves, that's not a huge problem or harsh judgment. I'm not denying that he had interesting and good things to say as well.
> The association between him and me in the public mind has already gone quite as deep as I wish
Perhaps he is talking about The Screwtape Letters[0]? I find that book to be awesome stuff. It is definitely Christian moralism, which I could do without, but it is mainly guidance on basic self-appraisal; regardless of the religious (or non-religious) context.
It's been in the newspaper for the last year or so that the woke crowd is reevaluating his legacy. He had a number of writings that today are considered anti-gay. In one very public letter to a gay teen (published in a newspaper, IIRC) he told the teen that he needed mental health counseling to correct himself.
It's a pretty famous letter. Should be an easy Google search.
I have not. I don't know him personally. What about him repulses so many people? I am genuinely curious. Please share, I'm sure a lot of us are wondering the same thing.
Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure that strengthens your case against him - while there may be dissenting voices his work is still considered mainstream I think?
I read everything he writes. The only time I have had a problem with anything he said was in "Under the Banner of Heaven" he partially blamed the Mormon church for the kidnap and rape of Elizabeth Smart. I suspect that the guy that kidnapped her would have been a piece of shit no matter what religion he was born into.
Or something like that. Essentially his problem is mixing history with histrionics. He's not a documentarist, he's an entertainer. A music video director.
Could you point me to some good criticism of him? I've sought it before because he does feel that way to me, reading him, but what I've found has mostly been low-quality.
>That its community idealized and gathered around a man with no moral center
You make it sound like SBF was the prophet/leader of effective altruism, but I don't think that's the case. The wikipedia article certainly doesn't paint him as some sort of leader, and only gives a passing mention to SBF.
Here's the article I think you meant. I remember reading it, he comes across as a giant scumbag.
He doesn't do a very good at justifying his behaviour, though, which I think is weird. Most people at least try to justify the things they do, so as to not have an internal struggle. He doesn't seem to have any problems with it.
I don't think these people in the HN thread are trying to convert you and make you accept Watts, I think they want to understand what isn't resonating and how.
I myself found Watts helpful a few years ago, but I got a little tired of what I perceived as his egotism and how he sort of defends selfishness. I imagine some of the issues in his personal life vaguely alluded to in this thread overlap with that. Still an interesting character.
I think it's probably dangerous to go "all in" with a guy like Watts. Seems like it would put you vulnerable to a personality cult. He has things to say and he's flawed.
2. He does extend empathy to others. Have you read his writing?
3. Freddie is repentent of his sins, whereas many in the PC/woke crowd are not. There can be no real forgiveness where there is not first repentance.
reply