Thoughtful reframing here. The idea of treating Pinker's work as myth rather than rigid science lets the comunity extract value without getting trapped in defending every flaw. Satanic Hope as you define it (doing the work to make the possible real) feels way more grounded than Pinker's whiggish inevitability. The deliberation approach you suggest is prob the strongest justification for keeping it, learning through critcal engagement beats discarding imperfect texts.
In another space a few people have talked about how one day, if we grapple with the text and write some of our own that address the why of this text's inclusion could find it no longer as a primary text. I like that application and see it as an outgrowth of your thoughts.
I find most writing is flawed to some extent. The writer does not privilege themselves in serving the reader, they are speaking to that which has inspired them to write. Ten years down the road they likely change their opinion - hence paving a way for another piece. If they are no longer alive, the work is historical and sheds light on perspective. I believe addressing newer perspectives inspired by these older viewpoints is lovely, but taking the original text out of context is an act no better than someone who quotes Bible verses without reading the entire book, or even dedicating themselves to a theology lesson.
I also believe superstitious thinking is (personally) something I do not tolerate, but magical thinking is an idea I do not always deviate from. Magic, to me, is the difference between a candlelit room and a room filled with fluorescent lights. The magic I perceive is not a trick I need to know the ins and outs of, it is a space from which I create, and the act of moving that from a mental perspective into real world experience.
Thoughtful reframing here. The idea of treating Pinker's work as myth rather than rigid science lets the comunity extract value without getting trapped in defending every flaw. Satanic Hope as you define it (doing the work to make the possible real) feels way more grounded than Pinker's whiggish inevitability. The deliberation approach you suggest is prob the strongest justification for keeping it, learning through critcal engagement beats discarding imperfect texts.
In another space a few people have talked about how one day, if we grapple with the text and write some of our own that address the why of this text's inclusion could find it no longer as a primary text. I like that application and see it as an outgrowth of your thoughts.
I find most writing is flawed to some extent. The writer does not privilege themselves in serving the reader, they are speaking to that which has inspired them to write. Ten years down the road they likely change their opinion - hence paving a way for another piece. If they are no longer alive, the work is historical and sheds light on perspective. I believe addressing newer perspectives inspired by these older viewpoints is lovely, but taking the original text out of context is an act no better than someone who quotes Bible verses without reading the entire book, or even dedicating themselves to a theology lesson.
I also believe superstitious thinking is (personally) something I do not tolerate, but magical thinking is an idea I do not always deviate from. Magic, to me, is the difference between a candlelit room and a room filled with fluorescent lights. The magic I perceive is not a trick I need to know the ins and outs of, it is a space from which I create, and the act of moving that from a mental perspective into real world experience.