I don't think his general ideas or intentions are wrong or bad.
But - I'm starting to see his action of castigating ENTIRE subjects in the social sciences and liberal arts as beyond his critique and I wonder if he borders into contributing to cultural divisiveness. If you could stand to extrapolate that sort of speech and tone of his rhetoric, we start to enter militant and oppressive communication. How far is that from actually punishing professors in the public square?
What about his professional ties to social science and liberal arts? He is like many psychologists who use the notion of archetypes to classify ideal human behavior. Which is to say, he essentially cherry picks ideas of the "great virtues" of "humanity"1 based on his interpretation of the canon of Western Civilization.
That is not far off base from what postmodern thought actually argues for individuals to do on a subjective basis, but to do so without acknowledging that perspective reinforces a narrative that is the basis of postmodern critique2 - that other people have lived in the world and have their own experiences that have been drowned out by the colonizer, the oppressor, the barbarian who takes it all.
What do you think?
Footnotes
-
I put humanity in quotes not to degrade our species but to emphasize that these are all just stories that we use to create the narrative of our species and from those stories, we create directions for ourselves and others about what is "right action" so we can define virtuous action. Generally, the narratives, the stories that actually survive ("the classics" if you will) say something pretty potent. But the use of those narratives (by someone with an agenda) to direct the actions of others, arguably the basis of civilization, can get a little slippery. ↩
-
My best reference point for when this really starts is when anthropologists started recognizing that they were not inherently morally superior to the people they studied. ↩