Re: Vogel on with Backyard Professor Again
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:21 pm
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Could be. Having spent my career in the persuasion business, including observing and participating in the legal equivalent of debate, I would never equate the ability to persuade with being right. See also any evolution "debate" and the effectiveness of the Gish Gallop.
doubtingthomas wrote: "Technically, no. I don’t even know where I was last night. Or where I am now, or even if I am."
So far, you have not responded to what I actually said about those concepts. Nor have you defended their use in historical analysis. I didn't ridicule you personally, only the use of those concepts when writing about history. I gave specific reasons for rejecting Jung's methodology, but you don't seem to want to talk about that. It's not just me, but the academy that rejects your use of those concepts. You understand that, right?DrNickLiterski wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:23 pm
Based on your comments thus far, I have no reason to believe that you personally understand Jung's theories of synchronicity or collective unconscious. You said nothing at all about these theories, other than your brief comments in the podcast, where you simply ridiculed us for mentioning either concept. Such ridicule, of course, is also regarded by many as ad hominem attack.
Ironically, for you to accuse me of ad hominem at this point brings to mind another Jungian concept, i.e., projection.
This is simply not true. You have characterized us as apologists, for starters---only to backtrack when pressed on it, and pretend you were criticizing the book, not the authors (a silly distinction). You have repeatedly insulted our qualifications, scholarly training, etc.
Again, this is simply not true. I did not "attempt to psychoanalyze" you whatsoever. It would be unethical for me to presume to do so, as (a) I am not clinically trained, and (b) I have never met with you in any clinical setting. Nor, for that matter, did I ever suggest you did not compliment our book "enough," as if such a measure could exist. Rather, I pointed out that you had literally nothing positive to say, other than noting that one point was "interesting."
What you have written here shows that you are so committed to "destroying" the book that you will take two minor mentions of Jungian concepts, pretend they represent the entirety of the book's approach, and then condemn them without knowing much of anything about Jung.
Are you certain of this?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:49 pmWho the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.
You sure seem to be.dastardly stem wrote:
Who the fuks certain of their positions? Our positions seem best explained as provisional if you ask me.