Most of the comments I've seen in response to this post are either that "the author was wrong" or "the author didn't give enough evidence." I think that you are completely missing the point of what this guy Cecil wrote.
His point was that pg's essays on philosophy/art made him cringe. Ok? That's his whole deal. He goes on and tries to explain why, but I think that what is really valuable here is that Cecil (who I'm assuming is an artist) is expressing a point of view which has largely gone unstated.
To be honest, reading Cecil's post made me feel better in some way. I don't know anything about art, but I have been thinking about philosophy for freaking forever and I have to say that PG's essays often make me cringe when he traipses into topics which he really -does- seem naive about. Note I said "seem." I don't have examples offhand because I haven't read one of his articles for weeks. Also, the point of -this- post is not at -all- to talk about PG, it is to talk about my understanding of Cecil's post[1].
I think that in general my aversion to internet discussion comes from the fact that people seem to spend approximately 1 second understanding each other and 20 minutes formulating counter-arguments to what they are assuming/hallucinating their "opponents" -meant- (not said). They often miss the -point- of what others are trying to say (and yes, I recognize the massive potential hypocrisy in meta-meta-criticism). Have some heart.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
[1] I think that I could, in fact, explain why they make me cringe. (I assume that Cecil could, too, actually - I assume he could sit down next to you, read through them with you, and whenever you saw him cringing you could ask him why - I don't think he's making up the fact that he cringed.) I could go back and re-read his essays and write up long responses explaining what classic philosophical and logical errors he is making (most of which have to do with assuming context/over-generalization/etc.), but the problem is that his errors are very deep. His errors (like so many people's errors) have to do with his big complicated worldview - to reveal them would take a book. And frankly, I don't care - it's much more interesting and fulfilling to respond to someone who's really spent their whole life "thinking" about deep philosophical problems (Chomsky, Foucault, Nagle, Graeber, etc.)
His point was that pg's essays on philosophy/art made him cringe. Ok? That's his whole deal. He goes on and tries to explain why, but I think that what is really valuable here is that Cecil (who I'm assuming is an artist) is expressing a point of view which has largely gone unstated.
To be honest, reading Cecil's post made me feel better in some way. I don't know anything about art, but I have been thinking about philosophy for freaking forever and I have to say that PG's essays often make me cringe when he traipses into topics which he really -does- seem naive about. Note I said "seem." I don't have examples offhand because I haven't read one of his articles for weeks. Also, the point of -this- post is not at -all- to talk about PG, it is to talk about my understanding of Cecil's post[1].
I think that in general my aversion to internet discussion comes from the fact that people seem to spend approximately 1 second understanding each other and 20 minutes formulating counter-arguments to what they are assuming/hallucinating their "opponents" -meant- (not said). They often miss the -point- of what others are trying to say (and yes, I recognize the massive potential hypocrisy in meta-meta-criticism). Have some heart.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
[1] I think that I could, in fact, explain why they make me cringe. (I assume that Cecil could, too, actually - I assume he could sit down next to you, read through them with you, and whenever you saw him cringing you could ask him why - I don't think he's making up the fact that he cringed.) I could go back and re-read his essays and write up long responses explaining what classic philosophical and logical errors he is making (most of which have to do with assuming context/over-generalization/etc.), but the problem is that his errors are very deep. His errors (like so many people's errors) have to do with his big complicated worldview - to reveal them would take a book. And frankly, I don't care - it's much more interesting and fulfilling to respond to someone who's really spent their whole life "thinking" about deep philosophical problems (Chomsky, Foucault, Nagle, Graeber, etc.)