I think JP is just a bad communicator that is stuck in his professorial mode where every sentence has to be the deepest thought that makes your mind explode. Of course it usually comes off as over the top and lacking self-awareness. His ideas have some merit but only after you've listened to them explained again and again. They could easily be simplified, imho.
> So, in what way, if predator is real, in what way isn’t dragon real? Doesn’t take that much imagination to see the identity. And then wouldn’t the fundamental task of edible primates be to figure out how to overcome the dragon forever?
I watched this interview, and he literally just means that even though something may not be physically real it can still be real, i.e. Harry Potter is real but he is not physically real. For whatever reason JP beats around the bush trying to concoct some genius soundbite and instead just appears to not engage with the subject matter.
I'm a fan of Dawkins more than JP but Dawkins also lacks in imagination and philosophical skills to meet JP in the middle. JP's ideas aren't that complicated but I think the backlash he's getting for being dense is his own doing.
Very much enjoyed the writing in this article. Breath of fresh air.
An article that starts by simply mocking the target. I can't take such a juvenile writer seriously.
While there is plenty of valid criticism, the author is clearly doing their best to pump the article up with complex vernacular and sentence structure to dazzle the reader, without lending much to clarity, brevity, or understanding:
“The worst reactionary prose, on the other hand, is often the precise inverse, its most recognizable hallmark being the needless adornment of extremely banal thoughts or truisms with pompous verbiage designed to make them sound smart.”
This seems to apply to this article?