[Cooper North]

Hi Christina,

You bring up an excellent point! I’d noticed the same thing – for both TMWT and TMAHE. That’s interesting that the same person created both pages… even more interesting than the “psuedo-neutral” tone, in my opinion. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

I’m intrigued by the praise-criticism ratio on both pages: it seems (at least to me) that the Wiki creator is grasping & searching for any criticism of Iain’s work, in an attempt to sow doubt in those approaching his ideas for the first time. Hence why much of the praise for both works is largely absent, and seemingly more is written under the “criticism” sections.

It relates to why I was surprised to see Robert M. Ellis’s critique featured there in the first place, given how (not to be rude, of course) obscure & minute of a thinker he is. He’s no Bernardo Kastrup or David Bentley Hart, is all I’m saying. I mean, to put him alongside the likes of Rowan Williams is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

I’d love to alert Iain to this. Maybe for the next Q&A? I’d submit the question myself, but I’ve already submitted one, & I don’t want to overload him. Would you consider submitting it, Christina?

Very best,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Hi James & Eleanor,

Happy to report I submitted a question, pertaining to this critique! Hopefully Iain addresses it in his next Q&A!

We shall wait & see!

Best,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Thank you, James! That’s incredibly kind of you to say!

[Cooper North]

Hi Eleanor,

Thank you for your wonderful & insightful response! I am in complete agreement. The “feverish sense of righteousness” is something both James & I have been discussing. James highlighted, especially when compared to Iain, Ellis’s staggering lack of humility. In my response to James, I remembered the Dunning-Kruger effect: the more you think you know, the less you actually know, & so on. Even though I lack the philosophy credentials Ellis boasts, still, his total lack of humility & self-righteousness clues me into suspecting I think the effect may apply to him here.

I agree with you that there may be some interesting nuggets of good ideas here, as well. However, I think many of Ellis’s points are misunderstandings & mischaracterizations (namely his treatment of intuition, Iain’s “idealizing the past”, and his critique of “metaphysics”). If he had watched Iain’s dialogues with Alex, I think some of these would’ve been cleared up, especially the metaphysics, & the way the hemispheres relate. I must admit, my knowledge of Popper is extremely limited, but from what I know, I think a discussion of his ideas with Iain may be incredibly fruitful & insightful. I’d love to hear Iain’s take on it.

Again, I appreciate your lovely response, Eleanor. I hope you have an excellent day!

Best,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Hi James,

Congratulations on the big eight-zero, & happy early-birthday to you! Thank you for the compliments in regards to my age! That means a lot, coming from someone as dignified such as yourself.

In regards to the critique, I couldn’t agree more with you more. Ellis profoundly lacks the humility Iain has in spades, as well as his eloquence & way with words. Also, I think it’s worth addressing Iain’s magnum opus is a collaborative effort, in the sense that, being the true polymath Iain is, strings together a bountiful symphony of thoughts & ideas from some of humanity’s greatest thinkers, as well as his own. In my opinion, this is a massive advantage over thinkers like Ellis, who, it seems to me, completely lacks the breadth, scope, wisdom & knowledge.

I’m reminded of, courtesy of Iain, the Dunning-Kruger effect. The more you think you know, the less you actually know, & so on. If I were Ellis, I’d give a pause for thought.

Best wishes,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Hi James,

Thank you for the kind words! I’m currently only twenty-three years old, so I absolutely recognize I have a lot to learn, to put it mildly. Haha.

But yes, that struck me too! Ellis’ frustration with TMWT‘s length was really amusing, meanwhile his own critique was ridiculously over-indulgent (his criticism of Iain not citing sources for lamenting the state of the modern world, as if it isn’t self-evident, is humorous).

I will say, I’m certainly glad he recognizes the value of and supports the hemisphere hypothesis. He just loses me when it comes to his critique of the metaphysics and his immature digs at Iain, personally. Like you said, there’s a certain arrogance, a “my way is right” about his writing that I find alarming… as if he didn’t make much of an effort to engage open-mindedly with Iain’s philosophy (the same can be said for Raymond Tallis, unfortunately). Did he even reflect on his own ideas? Did he, for one second, think, “maybe I’ve under-valued the left hemisphere here?” I don’t know. But, it certainly makes for good conversation here! I’d give anything to hear Iain’s response to this article, especially considering Ellis and Iain have interacted in the past.

But I’m thrilled to be here amongst friends! Honored to learn and grow around such great people.

Best,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Hi Eleanor,

Thank you for your response! I agree, it’s wise to engage with all sorts of criticisms. I look forward to your thoughts on the critique! I posted, in a response to James, my initial musings on the review, if you’re interested to take a look.

Very best,

Cooper

[Cooper North]

Hi James,

Thank you for your response! I’m in agreement with you: the arrogance & self-confidence in the critique was truly alarming. His personal digs at Iain for “idealizing the past” (which, I’ve noticed, Iain certainly does not), combined with his lazy attempt at picking apart Iain’s defense of intuition (Iain has never claimed intuition is infallible, rather it’s grossly underrated), all while calling the work “bad” and even, “dangerous,” had me shocked & amused. Finally, given his absolute and total rejection of metaphysics as whole, it seems Ellis, in typical left-hemisphere-fashion, demonizes… ironically… the left hemisphere.

Elllis writes, “metaphysics is a distinctively deluded left hemisphere construction, yet McGilchrist fails to face up to this contradiction. As a result, a large part of this book is self-deluded and contradictory.” I can theoretically see the thought process behind his conclusion, but it seems to me that Ellis missed the point: Iain’s metaphysics is born out of how the right hemisphere attends to the world… and then, Iain recruits the left hemisphere to communicate and articulate this view (in the form of the book), much like a good emissary serving his master.

But this is how it appears to me. I’m well-aware I am amidst far, far greater minds than my own here at Channel McGilchrist, so I’m eager to get more opinions and perspectives!

Very best,

Cooper