I think Feser's polemical style is fully justified in his book "The Last Superstition", in which he refutes extremely bad arguments with overwhelming force. Those arguments were made by very confident bullies who were also deeply ignorant of the subject matter. Feser was concerned about people getting bullied out of their faith, and he wanted to address that by meeting the new atheists with equal and opposite rhetorical strength. Feser's book is an excellent and wildly entertaining resource, and I think it's one of the best Catholic apologetics books written recently.
However, I more often think that excessive polemics end up choking genuine dialogue and respectful disagreement. It can end up blurring the distinction between an argument and the person making that argument in a way that ends up making a mockery out of public debate. What started out as a mutual search for truth between two people with different views quickly becomes a public spectacle that only interests those looking for "spicy" drama and gossip. Personally, I find that to be very lame, and I lose respect for those individuals who spend their time just trying to stir up controversy on the internet instead of engaging with ideas in meaningful ways.
The thing that annoys me the most is when writers make good arguments but then overdo the polemics ehich causes their opponents to rightfully leave the discussion and therefore wasting the great potential the arguments had. For instance: DBH came armed with some decent aguments for once in his book about universalism which could have made for thoughtful discussion but then he ruined it by accusing all his opponents of either having cognitive dissonance or being actual sadists. This makes it very hard for his opponents to engage the content of the arguments since they first have to prove themselves innocent of the (unwarranted) accusations thrown at them. It ruined what could have been a great mainstream discussion on something very important. (Thankfully there is still a great discussion raging on less mainstream platforms)
Based on the picture and the first quote, I thought this David guy was really angry about Alison Gopnik's arguments against nativism and universal grammar. I was excited to read the full polemic but sadly it's about something else.
I think Feser's polemical style is fully justified in his book "The Last Superstition", in which he refutes extremely bad arguments with overwhelming force. Those arguments were made by very confident bullies who were also deeply ignorant of the subject matter. Feser was concerned about people getting bullied out of their faith, and he wanted to address that by meeting the new atheists with equal and opposite rhetorical strength. Feser's book is an excellent and wildly entertaining resource, and I think it's one of the best Catholic apologetics books written recently.
However, I more often think that excessive polemics end up choking genuine dialogue and respectful disagreement. It can end up blurring the distinction between an argument and the person making that argument in a way that ends up making a mockery out of public debate. What started out as a mutual search for truth between two people with different views quickly becomes a public spectacle that only interests those looking for "spicy" drama and gossip. Personally, I find that to be very lame, and I lose respect for those individuals who spend their time just trying to stir up controversy on the internet instead of engaging with ideas in meaningful ways.
"Feser was concerned about people getting bullied out of their faith"
Weren't the New Atheists rightly concerned about people being bullied into faith?
> I was less prone to overblown polemicism when I was younger
more?
Oops fixed.
That Huemer block quote at the end is just devastating. It’s like a neutron bomb.
The thing that annoys me the most is when writers make good arguments but then overdo the polemics ehich causes their opponents to rightfully leave the discussion and therefore wasting the great potential the arguments had. For instance: DBH came armed with some decent aguments for once in his book about universalism which could have made for thoughtful discussion but then he ruined it by accusing all his opponents of either having cognitive dissonance or being actual sadists. This makes it very hard for his opponents to engage the content of the arguments since they first have to prove themselves innocent of the (unwarranted) accusations thrown at them. It ruined what could have been a great mainstream discussion on something very important. (Thankfully there is still a great discussion raging on less mainstream platforms)
Based on the picture and the first quote, I thought this David guy was really angry about Alison Gopnik's arguments against nativism and universal grammar. I was excited to read the full polemic but sadly it's about something else.