define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Therapy, Criticism, and Heresy&#8212;Which Is UU?	</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/01/28/therapy-criticism-and-heresy-which-is-uu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/01/28/therapy-criticism-and-heresy-which-is-uu/</link>
	<description>One part facial hair.  Two parts moxy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:00:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: chutney		</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/01/28/therapy-criticism-and-heresy-which-is-uu/comment-page-1/#comment-15616</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/?p=1507#comment-15616</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Because that&#039;s why philosophers get paid the big bucks?  Making generalizations isn&#039;t a sin, after all.  We&#039;d be without 99% of the world&#039;s philosophy and theology without these sorts of generalizations.  If you don&#039;t like a generalization, you should argue why it&#039;s inadequate, or else never make any generalizations of your own, if that&#039;s even possible. 

Unfortunately, because the passage is so short, we can&#039;t know whether or not Zizek sees them as mutually exclusive options.  Knowing him, he&#039;d probably riff on some complex dialectical relationship between the two if asked about it directly. 

I&#039;ve always gained a lot from these sorts of typologies, and I don&#039;t think they&#039;re without nuance.  Zizek is certainly not without nuance (upon nuance, upon nuance) if you read more than this one short passage. And you can only expect so much nuance from four sentences in a book&#039;s introduction.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because that&#8217;s why philosophers get paid the big bucks?  Making generalizations isn&#8217;t a sin, after all.  We&#8217;d be without 99% of the world&#8217;s philosophy and theology without these sorts of generalizations.  If you don&#8217;t like a generalization, you should argue why it&#8217;s inadequate, or else never make any generalizations of your own, if that&#8217;s even possible. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, because the passage is so short, we can&#8217;t know whether or not Zizek sees them as mutually exclusive options.  Knowing him, he&#8217;d probably riff on some complex dialectical relationship between the two if asked about it directly. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always gained a lot from these sorts of typologies, and I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re without nuance.  Zizek is certainly not without nuance (upon nuance, upon nuance) if you read more than this one short passage. And you can only expect so much nuance from four sentences in a book&#8217;s introduction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bill_Baar@hotmail.com		</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/01/28/therapy-criticism-and-heresy-which-is-uu/comment-page-1/#comment-15615</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill_Baar@hotmail.com]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/?p=1507#comment-15615</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Why reduce the world&#039;s entire religous experience today into two buckets: the critical, and the therapeutic?  We lose much nuance and gain what clarity from that kind of simplification.  I&#039;m not sure why Zizek does it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why reduce the world&#8217;s entire religous experience today into two buckets: the critical, and the therapeutic?  We lose much nuance and gain what clarity from that kind of simplification.  I&#8217;m not sure why Zizek does it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>