Library: publish a retraction of my Real Essentialism review

site/library/Real Essentialism.md

@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@ subtitle: >
    A(n attempted/asserted) defense of Aristotelian metaphysics.
 
 qualifiers:
+    retraction:
+        url: /library/retractions-and-revisions-my-review-of-real-essentialism/
+        title: "Retractions and Revisions: My Review of <cite>Real Essentialism</cite>"
     audience: >
         People interested in philosophy and metaphysics.
 
@@ -24,8 +27,11 @@ tags:
     - philosophy
 
 date: 2024-11-24T09:58:00-0700
-updated: 2024-11-24T15:43:00-0700
+updated: 2025-01-23T11:05:00-0700
 updates:
+    - at: 2025-01-23T11:05:00-0700
+      changes: Published a retraction of this review as insufficiently charitable and insufficiently well-read.
+
     - at: 2024-11-24T15:33:00-0700
       changes: >
         Tweaked the wording of the review to clarify that I did not mean there are no good defenses of Aristotelian metaphysics; only that this book is not that, and added a note about the recommended alternative (Wiggins).

site/library/Retractions and Revisions My Review of Real Essentialism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Retractions and Revisions: My Review of <cite>Real Essentialism</cite>"
+subtitle: >
+    Learning to be a better reader (even of books I dislike).
+
+summary: >
+    I still dislike the book, but I’m not well-studied-enough to review it meaningfully, and I can do better as a reader and reviewer!
+
+date: 2025-01-23T11:07:00-0700
+
+tags:
+    - reading
+    - retractions and revisions
+
+---
+
+A few months ago, I published [a rather harsh review][review] of David S. Oderberg’s <cite>Real Essentialism</cite>. On my reading, the book seemed tendentious, rude, and full of motivated reasoning. The same friend who suggested the book to me recently described my review as “ill-tempered and misguided”, which prompted me to revisit it.
+
+I cannot say the book made a different impression on me than it did; but I can say two things:
+
+1. I am not well-studied enough in the field to review a book like this in a meaningful way. I spent a bit of time this morning looking at other reviews of the book, and other folks who *do* know the field well (Ed Feser, for example, no slouch in academic philosophy) recommend the book highly.
+
+2. Better to say that *I dislike* Oderberg’s style of writing and argumentation—which I do, very much—than that it is *not an argument*. This is, I think, a blind spot for me, because I have had the same kind of allergic reaction to other books in the past. To be a good reader of books is to read them on their own terms, even if I don't much like those terms!
+
+Between the two of these, I don’t think I *should* have published that review—but as a matter of principle, I am leaving it up for posterity, but adding a retraction note that points to this post.
+
+Going forward, I will aim to be more precise and careful in judging what it is I dislike about a writer’s argumentation, and simply to acknowledge more honestly (including with myself!) the limits of my knowledge and what I can and cannot reasonably review.
+
+[review]: https://v5.chriskrycho.com/library/real-essentialism/