At this point, looking up to Tolkien seems like a likely result of the Halo Effect. His quotes make him seem way too overconfident in his philosophically dubious worldviews. I think I have a lot more respect for any random rationalist blogger than one who is that sure of himself but obviously wrong in some examples that are clear to us.
The comparison with random rat bloggers is ahistorical, lacks context, and simply doesn’t make sense to me. Tolkien was born in 1892, during the late Industrial Revolution. He had a tragic childhood and took refuge in his imagination. He fought in the trenches and was traumatized by WWI and the terrifying new machinery of warfare.
Later, as a father, he watched the world darken once more as evil returned with even more destructive technologies, V2 rockets falling on his country, and so on. He also witnessed the disappearance of the traditional rural world, replaced by cities and factories. Was he intrinsically anti-progress, given his era and context? I suppose that’s a question that is difficult to answer definitively. However, my impression is that much of his supposed reactionism is simply the standard worldview of an englishman born in 1892 and WWI veteran, just like the liberal progressivism of a random rat blogger is often the standard worldview of a man born in the 80s, 90s or 2000s and living in the San Francisco Bay.
I don’t think Tolkien was a saint, but I won’t blame him for being a man of his time and country.
Besides, I think he was somehow visionary on the environmental side, as were the romantics before him or biologists like Darwin.
The LotR and the Silmarillion also offers more interesting and positive female characters than many stories of this time.
I think writing one of the best selling books of your century is extraordinary evidence you’ve understood something deep about human nature, which is more than most random rationalist bloggers can claim. but yes doesn’t imply you have a coherent philosophy or benevolent political program
I think writing one of the best selling books of your century is extraordinary evidence you’ve understood something deep about human nature
Why do you think that? Many best selling books are worthless in rationally understanding human nature. Best selling positively correlating with good rationality would be an unlikely coincidence unless you have some good explanation.
For example, LW or SSC have been way more enlightening to me than Tolkien’s stereotypical conservatism wrapped in rationalized justifications. But sure, that could just be me, you do you.
At this point, looking up to Tolkien seems like a likely result of the Halo Effect. His quotes make him seem way too overconfident in his philosophically dubious worldviews. I think I have a lot more respect for any random rationalist blogger than one who is that sure of himself but obviously wrong in some examples that are clear to us.
The comparison with random rat bloggers is ahistorical, lacks context, and simply doesn’t make sense to me. Tolkien was born in 1892, during the late Industrial Revolution. He had a tragic childhood and took refuge in his imagination. He fought in the trenches and was traumatized by WWI and the terrifying new machinery of warfare.
Later, as a father, he watched the world darken once more as evil returned with even more destructive technologies, V2 rockets falling on his country, and so on. He also witnessed the disappearance of the traditional rural world, replaced by cities and factories. Was he intrinsically anti-progress, given his era and context? I suppose that’s a question that is difficult to answer definitively. However, my impression is that much of his supposed reactionism is simply the standard worldview of an englishman born in 1892 and WWI veteran, just like the liberal progressivism of a random rat blogger is often the standard worldview of a man born in the 80s, 90s or 2000s and living in the San Francisco Bay.
I don’t think Tolkien was a saint, but I won’t blame him for being a man of his time and country.
Besides, I think he was somehow visionary on the environmental side, as were the romantics before him or biologists like Darwin.
The LotR and the Silmarillion also offers more interesting and positive female characters than many stories of this time.
I think writing one of the best selling books of your century is extraordinary evidence you’ve understood something deep about human nature, which is more than most random rationalist bloggers can claim. but yes doesn’t imply you have a coherent philosophy or benevolent political program
Why do you think that? Many best selling books are worthless in rationally understanding human nature. Best selling positively correlating with good rationality would be an unlikely coincidence unless you have some good explanation.
For example, LW or SSC have been way more enlightening to me than Tolkien’s stereotypical conservatism wrapped in rationalized justifications. But sure, that could just be me, you do you.