I haven't really listened to Watts seriously in any capacity, but can you explain what you don't like about him? If I had to guess I'd wager that you explaining it might undo your own philosophy, which is something I'm sympathetic to, as expressing what's 'wrong' can often fall short of grace
While it's essential to acknowledge the impact of personal actions on family and responsibilities, it's also important to recognize the distinction between an individual's personal life and their professional or philosophical contributions.
Watts indeed had personal shortcomings, as many do -- judging his entire body of work based on his personal life can be limiting and narrow-minded.
I totally agree. I like reading Watts's work in the rare cases when I don't like his science.
> Understandingly frustrating if you just want to charge through and find out what happens.
"the device of art is that of ‘making things strange’ and of making form difficult, increasing the difficulty and time taken to perceive, since the process of perception in art is an aim in itself and must be prolonged" (Viktor Shklovskii, 1914)
The article isn't as aggressive as the headline, but it also doesn't really give a clear picture of Watts. He had a lot of issues in his personal life, but as the article parenthetically mentions, he helped a lot of people too. If you want to know more about Watts and what he means to people, I would suggest finding some of his lectures on YouTube (avoid the ones with new agey music).
Watts was a connoisseur of fascinating ideas. It's easy to criticize his syncretism as "watered down Buddhism", and you can't take everything he (or anyone) says as gospel, but there's plenty of insight in his lectures. And he will point you towards a hundred other thinkers with amazing ideas to share.
I don't like Blindsight or Echopraxia, I just get caustic misantrophic vibe from Watts' writing. The whole materialist/hyperintelligent/nonsentient thing tastes very Marxist.
One must consider that Alan Watts himself was a magnificent old rascal. He made no pretense about it and described himself as a "philosophical entertainer". When you verify his teachings (either by experience or by going to the source) you find a lot of deliberate bending. His interpretation of the Tao Te Ching is deeply idiosyncratic, for example. Though I suspect there's some degree of truth in his opinion of Gurdjieff, I wouldn't take his word for it.
That might be true in the abstract, as a theory. But when it comes to point-of-life I think it’s better to judge a philosophy based on how a person has lived it. And it doesn’t seem like Watts lived as good of a life as he could.
Sounds like you approach this debate as an exercise in argumentation, not as a discussion of Watts' life or his publications.
When I asked OP to name someone, I did mean someone well-known. That makes sense in the context of a discussion of a famous philosopher. Maybe a childhood friend gave you a good advice 40 years ago - we won't be able to discuss the character of that person here.
What kind of a person one must be for you to value their life advice?
> Was he an abusive alcoholic or not?
He drank heavily at the end of his life. Was he an alcoholic? Maybe. Was he abusive? I haven't heard anyone call him abusive before this comment.
A lot of criticism is leveled at Alan Watts, by people who point out how he conveyed many oversimplifications of religious teachings, or ideas that seem to be misunderstandings of teachings from an academic point of view.
I think what those people are either missing or ignoring is that his main motivation was to be a spiritual entertainer, as he described it, and I believe he's best interpreted and understood that way as well.
If people want to learn a rigorous deep understanding of certain philosophies and spiritual beliefs, there are innumerable other ways to dive into this, and better people to listen to. To me, his conveyance of ideas is better suited to impart interesting and different ways of looking at the world in a general manner and to pique one's imagination, not to learn spiritual concepts in a rigorous way.
I always felt he succeeded in that way, simply by attracting more people towards an interest in a spirituality and philosophy, and giving a starting point from which they can pursue serious ideas if their interest is sustained.
Watts was surely flawed in many ways, but his true value to humanity is an ongoing mystery, although such things often appear very much otherwise.
Woo woo!
reply