[ybinator604g3]

Thanks for the link. I watched the first 20 minutes and will watch the rest now. It's very interesting.

A small note, popularity (being generally recognized) is not a good indicator of the validity of any view point and it certainly does not mean we cannot challenge them.

> It's also more nuanced than hot takes suggest.

I believe as an Iranian and a history enthusiast, what I expressed was one of those these nuances which is presumably being labeled as hot take, or am I mistaken and you referring to something from somewhere else?

edit: fixed typo

[dredmorbius]

Adamson's work generally is excellent. I've been following the podcast for about 4--5 years now, and have worked through the entire mainline backlog (I'm now revisiting parts), though I'm still catching up on the Indian and Africana Philosophy track. Very highly recommended.

"Islamic World" replaces several earlier-prevalent terms. Again, Adamson makes the case against several proposed alternatives.

On which point, what specifically is yours?

[ybinator604g3]

Yes, he seems well spoken and very articulate.

While his reasoning about his world view and consequently the name of the book is sound, he is not establishing a causal relationship between religion and anything outside the realm of philosophy. He argues that this is the best common trait for philosophical work of those people in that era in the region. It's also natural that he sees everything through a philosophical lens.

> "Islamic World" replaces several earlier-prevalent terms. Again, Adamson makes the case against several proposed alternatives.

We don't have to cover it under the same _umbrella_ term. In the clip (around 11:07) he shows the slide again and says "As an American, I am a born marketer". Imagine if we were to apply the same argument with a comparable time frame (important distinction) and call him a Christian European. Maybe being good at marketing does was not one of their traits. This is the missing nuance.