Understood metaphorically, the "thetan hypothesis" might be partly true. It belongs with other psychoanalytic theories which, while out of vogue today, probably contain some truth.
With regard to Girdard, there's a broad pattern here where prominent thinkers realize something and then interpret everything in light of that realization (the article gets into this but I don't think satisfactorily). Obviously thinkers are making an error when they univerisalize their idea -- but that's what makes them great thinkers: they give us a new, strangely plausible way of looking at the world. People who are skeptical rarely make waves (unless they take their skepticism to extremes).
I'm not sure where this leaves us. Maybe every "great thinker" is a mountebank? I'd be more kind than that. It's probably good to have these highly idiosyncractic worldviews floating around, even if they're always partly false. Perhaps they cause us to reexamine the world or act as useful tools for us to navigate life with.
> People who are skeptical rarely make waves (unless they take their skepticism to extremes).
That's another case of "universalizing their idea".
> I'm not sure where this leaves us. Maybe every "great thinker" is a mountebank?
Almost certainly every "great thinker" who tortures the evidence to make it fit their theory is a mountebank, whether or not their views have some utility. Girard's total lack of honesty with his "evidence" makes him a mountebank.
> Understood metaphorically, the "thetan hypothesis" might be partly true. It belongs with other psychoanalytic theories which, while out of vogue today, probably contain some truth.
Abstracted into a sufficiently broad metaphor, almost anything can be partly true. But in this case, abstracted to the extent where it starts to make sense, there's none of the original thetan hypothesis left in the mix. You'd just toss out the thetan part and go with the metaphor part at that point.
> I'm not sure where this leaves us. Maybe every "great thinker" is a mountebank?
Maybe! To me, it seems like the problem usually starts with the followers. The great thinker makes a case, it's persuasive enough, then other people take the idea and turn it into a worldview, or an industry. Sometimes you find a philosopher with enough charisma or force of will to start their own cult, but more often than not it's someone at the margins of the original movement who latches on and makes it their thing. A student, a lover, a family member, a random billionaire, whatever.
With regard to Girdard, there's a broad pattern here where prominent thinkers realize something and then interpret everything in light of that realization (the article gets into this but I don't think satisfactorily). Obviously thinkers are making an error when they univerisalize their idea -- but that's what makes them great thinkers: they give us a new, strangely plausible way of looking at the world. People who are skeptical rarely make waves (unless they take their skepticism to extremes).
I'm not sure where this leaves us. Maybe every "great thinker" is a mountebank? I'd be more kind than that. It's probably good to have these highly idiosyncractic worldviews floating around, even if they're always partly false. Perhaps they cause us to reexamine the world or act as useful tools for us to navigate life with.