I’ll post a more thorough engagement of this post later, and thanks again for breaking it into chunks. But I have a repeated question of the authors—can you please define what a “deep critique” is? How does it differ at all from a normal critique?[1]
I think you’ve used that term in all the Doing EA Betterposts, along with other comments. But I couldn’t find where the term was defined at all, and the examples given seem not to actually point me towards an understanding. After a bit of (admittedly very brief) Google-Fu, the best reference I could find was the title of Chapter 7 in this book—but on the two pages there you can view for free the term also isn’t defined!
If this is just a linguistic/definitional term then fine, but I think you’re trying to point out something more. I’d definitely appreciate the authors helping me clear up my understanding a bit more so that I can engage with DEAB more productively :)
My vague impression seems to be that it’s a critique that contradicts the fundamentals of a belief-system. In which case fine, but in that case any organisation accepting a deep critique would end up undermining itself. It would be like the Catholic Church accepting “Jesus was not the divine and he is not the son of God, plus we’re not that confident in this God business anyway...” or is that me being uncharitable?
I’ll post a more thorough engagement of this post later, and thanks again for breaking it into chunks. But I have a repeated question of the authors—can you please define what a “deep critique” is? How does it differ at all from a normal critique?[1]
I think you’ve used that term in all the Doing EA Better posts, along with other comments. But I couldn’t find where the term was defined at all, and the examples given seem not to actually point me towards an understanding. After a bit of (admittedly very brief) Google-Fu, the best reference I could find was the title of Chapter 7 in this book—but on the two pages there you can view for free the term also isn’t defined!
If this is just a linguistic/definitional term then fine, but I think you’re trying to point out something more. I’d definitely appreciate the authors helping me clear up my understanding a bit more so that I can engage with DEAB more productively :)
My vague impression seems to be that it’s a critique that contradicts the fundamentals of a belief-system. In which case fine, but in that case any organisation accepting a deep critique would end up undermining itself. It would be like the Catholic Church accepting “Jesus was not the divine and he is not the son of God, plus we’re not that confident in this God business anyway...” or is that me being uncharitable?
Hi JWS,
The term is explored in an upcoming section, here.