Have you even read the two articles? I found them interesting and they very much are his intellectual products. I’m sorry but I think you are being consistently less charitable to Moldbug than some other sources I won’t list right now because I want to avoid political mindkilling. I don’t see a good reason for this.
Does this comment about the first article you linked respond to your concern?
Regarding the second article, I just don’t find it that interesting. Yes, it is worthwhile to notice how the ideas of the Protestant Reformation impacted later social justice movements up to the present day (i.e. morphological analysis). But there are lots of Reformation ideas, and not all of them transferred over to modern liberal thought (either the classical liberalism of Locke or the Fabian socialist liberalism of the community organizer).
And there’s lots of ideas in modern social justice movements that doesn’t descend from the Protestant side of the Reformation. Some Reformation ideas oppose later social justice ideas. That’s my biggest problem with Moldbug—he constantly describes conflicts as two-sided when a more useful analysis would describe them as multi-sided. And, as shown by his whole Cold War = State Dept. v. Pentagon theory, Moldbug isn’t particularly accurate at correctly labeling even if we grant a conflict only has two sides (I don’t grant that about the Cold War, but that’s probably a discussion for another day).
To pick another example, Moldbug’s discussion about taking the political middle ground. His first observation—what currently is middle ground was quite radical for most of history—is true. And obvious to any serious student of history. The conclusions that Moldbug draws from that accurate and insightful point just don’t follow at all.
Have you even read the two articles? I found them interesting and they very much are his intellectual products. I’m sorry but I think you are being consistently less charitable to Moldbug than some other sources I won’t list right now because I want to avoid political mindkilling. I don’t see a good reason for this.
Does this comment about the first article you linked respond to your concern?
Regarding the second article, I just don’t find it that interesting. Yes, it is worthwhile to notice how the ideas of the Protestant Reformation impacted later social justice movements up to the present day (i.e. morphological analysis). But there are lots of Reformation ideas, and not all of them transferred over to modern liberal thought (either the classical liberalism of Locke or the Fabian socialist liberalism of the community organizer).
And there’s lots of ideas in modern social justice movements that doesn’t descend from the Protestant side of the Reformation. Some Reformation ideas oppose later social justice ideas. That’s my biggest problem with Moldbug—he constantly describes conflicts as two-sided when a more useful analysis would describe them as multi-sided. And, as shown by his whole Cold War = State Dept. v. Pentagon theory, Moldbug isn’t particularly accurate at correctly labeling even if we grant a conflict only has two sides (I don’t grant that about the Cold War, but that’s probably a discussion for another day).
To pick another example, Moldbug’s discussion about taking the political middle ground. His first observation—what currently is middle ground was quite radical for most of history—is true. And obvious to any serious student of history. The conclusions that Moldbug draws from that accurate and insightful point just don’t follow at all.