I have been watching the blogosphere debates between OOP and its detractors on the issue of politics for the last two months. For the most part, I have been at the sidelines, since I felt I had nothing to contribute. Finally, I do have something to note now that things have calmed down.
Why do I get the feeling that OOP is being hit with a beloved cudgel? You know, those common attacks that any tradition of philosophy enjoys leveraging against its opponents. Onto-theology. Correlationism. Dualism. Under/Over-mining. Lack of clarity. Unsupported by science. Honestly, I really cannot comment on those debates, but it has become obvious that the beatin’ stick is being wielded by many. Does OOP deserve it? I’m not sure, but I always get a little wary when your opponent selects their favorite petard before they hoist you up the flagpole.
There is the issue of valuation. I have brought that up, because it is unclear how OOP can speak of normative value without either merely asserting it, or running into the naturalist fallacy. I leave the issue to scholars with axes to grind.
What’s the take home point? Be skeptical when anyone leverages their favored critique, as they likely have spent more time wielding it than in identifying proper targets of their ire.