Do you believe this relative quantity is commensurate with the quality and significance of his thought?
I’m not sure, although comparing him with the examples you site in your next paragraph certainly makes him seem much more worthy. Seriously, could you have found someone whose philosophy does not contradict basic economics?
I predict that if I started making multiple Discussion posts focused solely on the social criticism of Althusser or Deleuze or Zizek, I would face a very negative reaction from this community, even if I gussied it up with talk of “map vs. territory” and “Bayesian evidence”. Yet for some reason the community seems far more tolerant of rampant Moldbuggery.
Could you site another example of a discussion post that’s a link to Moldbug?
Seriously, could you have found someone whose philosophy does not contradict basic economics?
I think the comparison is fair. Both the Austrian and the Marxist economic traditions are pretty fringe and severely flawed. Moldbug has interesting and occasionally accurate things to say about politics despite his bad economics, but so do Althusser et al.
Could you site another example of a discussion post that’s a link to Moldbug?
I’m not sure, although comparing him with the examples you site in your next paragraph certainly makes him seem much more worthy. Seriously, could you have found someone whose philosophy does not contradict basic economics?
Could you site another example of a discussion post that’s a link to Moldbug?
I think the comparison is fair. Both the Austrian and the Marxist economic traditions are pretty fringe and severely flawed. Moldbug has interesting and occasionally accurate things to say about politics despite his bad economics, but so do Althusser et al.
There are two of them linked in the comment by Konkvistador to which I was responding.