so I think this is right, and that there are two points to make:
1. I do think we live in a fairly mediocre intellectual climate. It's not so much that there aren't smart or sincere people, but that there are real disincentives for thinking that pushes imaginative limits
2. that said, I'm not sure that agreement is exactly the goal but ins…
so I think this is right, and that there are two points to make:
1. I do think we live in a fairly mediocre intellectual climate. It's not so much that there aren't smart or sincere people, but that there are real disincentives for thinking that pushes imaginative limits
2. that said, I'm not sure that agreement is exactly the goal but instead "risk"—arguments that get serious enough about the gravity of the world—including our moral duties— that they are willing to take the chance on deep understanding. It's funny, I've come to think of Kierkegaard as one of the main exemplars of the kind of writing I'm after—ambitious enough to unsettle one's priors, but then non-didactic, pressing the audience to have to cope with the world for themselves
so I think this is right, and that there are two points to make:
1. I do think we live in a fairly mediocre intellectual climate. It's not so much that there aren't smart or sincere people, but that there are real disincentives for thinking that pushes imaginative limits
2. that said, I'm not sure that agreement is exactly the goal but instead "risk"—arguments that get serious enough about the gravity of the world—including our moral duties— that they are willing to take the chance on deep understanding. It's funny, I've come to think of Kierkegaard as one of the main exemplars of the kind of writing I'm after—ambitious enough to unsettle one's priors, but then non-didactic, pressing the audience to have to cope with the world for themselves