Not a bad effort here, to lay out what decent thinking *could* be, but it’s mostly tilting at windmills.
“to make it possible for us to put ourselves, at least to some extent, in the shoes of another….
she wants to adopt a much more pluralist discursive model of political solidarity, where what you have is people with very different experiences, who with grace and compassion, rather than a kind of *hostility*, test each other's claims”.
Seeing as the vast bulk of the constituency for standpoint epistemology is all about *everything but* grace and compassion, the best that this effort here can do is, to help warn decent folks of the ploys which this constituency will deploy.
I've been looking for a good explanation of standpoint theory for a long time, as it's obviously a central part of woke ideology. This is it. I just read the transcript -- didn't listen. I think that may be helpful as it gets a bit "philosophical" at some points, and you might need to read something twice. But the "philosophy" part actually is sensible, for a change.
A thought about the whole idea of privileging the perspective of the victim: In recent years, the concept of trauma, originally a medical concept, has been expanded to take on a political dimension, such that people talk about certain groups having undergone, and continuing to suffer from, "historical trauma" and the like. It seems to me that this line of thought pulls against the privileging of the victim standpoint endorsed by standpoint epistemology. When someone has PTSD, most of us think we should empathize with the sufferer's plight, but we certainly DON'T endorse the veridicality of their perceptions--for example, when a veteran dives under a desk at a crash of thunder.
This doesn't necessarily count as an argument against standpoint epistemology; it might just as well count against this kind of "trauma inflation." In any case, the two don't fit well together.
I was looking forward to this but found the discussion too gobbledygook to really follow and understand. Would have helped me if more examples had been used to describe the concept(s). I felt like Homer Simpson in the principal’s office being lectured to about Bart. Blah...blah...blah. Wake up Mr. Simpson!
Reading the transcript might help. As someone else mentioned, it's easier to follow this one when you can re-read certain parts. I think I enjoyed reading it much more than I would have just listening.
Not a bad effort here, to lay out what decent thinking *could* be, but it’s mostly tilting at windmills.
“to make it possible for us to put ourselves, at least to some extent, in the shoes of another….
she wants to adopt a much more pluralist discursive model of political solidarity, where what you have is people with very different experiences, who with grace and compassion, rather than a kind of *hostility*, test each other's claims”.
Seeing as the vast bulk of the constituency for standpoint epistemology is all about *everything but* grace and compassion, the best that this effort here can do is, to help warn decent folks of the ploys which this constituency will deploy.
I've been looking for a good explanation of standpoint theory for a long time, as it's obviously a central part of woke ideology. This is it. I just read the transcript -- didn't listen. I think that may be helpful as it gets a bit "philosophical" at some points, and you might need to read something twice. But the "philosophy" part actually is sensible, for a change.
A thought about the whole idea of privileging the perspective of the victim: In recent years, the concept of trauma, originally a medical concept, has been expanded to take on a political dimension, such that people talk about certain groups having undergone, and continuing to suffer from, "historical trauma" and the like. It seems to me that this line of thought pulls against the privileging of the victim standpoint endorsed by standpoint epistemology. When someone has PTSD, most of us think we should empathize with the sufferer's plight, but we certainly DON'T endorse the veridicality of their perceptions--for example, when a veteran dives under a desk at a crash of thunder.
This doesn't necessarily count as an argument against standpoint epistemology; it might just as well count against this kind of "trauma inflation." In any case, the two don't fit well together.
This argument is social philosophy’s nod to Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
Will do and thanks for suggestion
I was looking forward to this but found the discussion too gobbledygook to really follow and understand. Would have helped me if more examples had been used to describe the concept(s). I felt like Homer Simpson in the principal’s office being lectured to about Bart. Blah...blah...blah. Wake up Mr. Simpson!
Reading the transcript might help. As someone else mentioned, it's easier to follow this one when you can re-read certain parts. I think I enjoyed reading it much more than I would have just listening.
Very interesting discussion of standpoint epistemology and its' ally intersectionality. Thanks