The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself.
It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
Related:
Nothing Personal: How ideas made Derek Parfit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 - Dec 2023 (26 comments)
Derek Parfit: The Perfectionist at All Souls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 - April 2023 (21 comments)
How to Be Good: The Philosopher Derek Parfit (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 - Jan 2020 (6 comments)
Why anything? Why this? (1998) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 - Jan 2017 (77 comments)
Derek Parfit has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 - Jan 2017 (38 comments)
How to Be Good: Derek Parfit's Moral Philosophy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 - March 2016 (16 comments)
The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself.
It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
> the philosophical-industrial complex
what's this?
It's in the article.