When I saw the word "apologetics" I knew it was going to be bad. We're talking a tightly knit world of people who share an intense loyalty to their religious affiliation, which explicitly tells them that they should be convincing other people. Even if they are able to summon a decent argument here and there, the whole time you're bringing your intellectual curiosity and your willingness to change your mind, to a bunch of people who will absolutely not do the same in return. I'd say not worth the trouble - certainly not worth crashing a bus over.
The linked article by Emerson Green makes the very good point, that the people involved on all sides of these sterile debates are far removed from actual terms of the current debate among actual philosophers of metaethics. If you're going to feed your intellect with this kind of materials, skip the apologists and go straight for moral realism vs. nonrealism, moral naturalism vs non-naturalism, etc. It may be a bit nitpicky, but at least it won't rot your brain.
I expected something more original than <insert Euthyphro here> 🤨
Btw when I saw the cover "Divine Love Theory", I immediately thought of Spinoza, whose Ethics miiiiight be given that name. But whose overall system is wholly naturalistic and therefore more scientifically respectable and taken-seriously-able. Might be up your alley!
The bus line had me hahah
Please continue this review! I'm loving the comedy so far.
Thanks! I’ll update you if I do :)
I hope your bus is okay
I just phoned the issue police on you dude you are way too funny. Keep it up.
When I saw the word "apologetics" I knew it was going to be bad. We're talking a tightly knit world of people who share an intense loyalty to their religious affiliation, which explicitly tells them that they should be convincing other people. Even if they are able to summon a decent argument here and there, the whole time you're bringing your intellectual curiosity and your willingness to change your mind, to a bunch of people who will absolutely not do the same in return. I'd say not worth the trouble - certainly not worth crashing a bus over.
The linked article by Emerson Green makes the very good point, that the people involved on all sides of these sterile debates are far removed from actual terms of the current debate among actual philosophers of metaethics. If you're going to feed your intellect with this kind of materials, skip the apologists and go straight for moral realism vs. nonrealism, moral naturalism vs non-naturalism, etc. It may be a bit nitpicky, but at least it won't rot your brain.
I expected something more original than <insert Euthyphro here> 🤨
Btw when I saw the cover "Divine Love Theory", I immediately thought of Spinoza, whose Ethics miiiiight be given that name. But whose overall system is wholly naturalistic and therefore more scientifically respectable and taken-seriously-able. Might be up your alley!