[friendlybus]

Certainty is defined as an intellectual thing. It is an epistemic property of beliefs closely related to knowledge. The author is wrong, not that he minds.

The author is trying to move knowledge off facts of things and intellectual processes and into the realm of emotion and kind compassion. A kind compassion is simply a mask which hides a different form of power seeking. Which is on-point for the current cultural shifts we are going through, he mirrors the nature of humans at this very moment.

The author seeks to replace existing knowledge in the reader, destroying all the knowledge of facts and feelings in an attempt to keep relationships on track. It is a mistake.

You can disagree and be right in a calm manner and also in an angry manner without changing the content or aim of your speech. The article aims too low at a reader who is willing to accept what is written without thinking critically or taking a higher perspective gleaned from education. Like most psychologists he risks undermining those that are experiencing these mental processes as a function of striving to achieve a goal. The undermining of useful definitions is supposedly necessary for maintaining a relationship without looking at other solutions first.

[foobar_]

I don't think the author is trying to destroy anything. Even in maths you find people taking extremely arrogant positions on things. Newton vs Leibnitz, Intuitionism vs Logic ... If any the author is warning how passion overrides reason and the biochemical approach is quite empirical.