Talk:This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom

[Untitled]
Saw that someone put a neutrality tag on the article because of an apparent overemphasis on religion, which makes me think that the article would benefit from a summary section for the book. (Though it's not apparent in the book's title, it's about 75% about religion and the thing that makes the book notable beside run of the mill books about secular humanism is its discussion of religious faith). Regarding criticism, it would definitely be worthwhile to add something like Robert Pippin's thoughts on it from his discussion of the book in the Point Mag. I put in the Church Life piece mostly because it's the only substantive responsive from a religious perspective that I've found so far. I'm relatively busy at the moment, but if no one does either of those things, I'll try to put them in at some point.--Staplesworth (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Point of view, general problems
This article is poorly constructed and has a POV problem. The opening description is trivial, merely repeating the phrases in the title, and the Reception and Criticism sections read as if written by a religious-sympathizer with an axe to grind. Negative reviews should be represented in the article, but they should be drawn from a broader selection of coverage. The Criticism section should not be an in depth reconstruction of one article but should be organized by representative criticisms. Jts6489 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, could definitely be improved. On re-reading my additions to the page, I can definitely see where you're coming from. Regarding the criticism section, I largely agree, though I should note that the two paragraphs I've put there aren't a reconstruction, but just a few of the more salient points from a very, very long rebuttal. If you've read any of the other more positive discussions of the book, I'd encourage you to add them in. Like I said above, I'll try to do that and more when I have a chance. In general though, thanks for the criticism and comments. --Staplesworth (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is that the article as it stands reflects the author's lack of familiarity with the most basic premises of the book. They claim that 75% of it is on religion, which is simply false. More than 50% of the book is devoted to developing a philosophical conception of freedom, as well as a new interpretation of Marx. The book does engage with religious thinkers from Augustine to Kierkegaard and Martin Luther King, Jr., but also with philosophers from Aristotle to Hegel and Marx, literary writers from Dante to Proust and Knausgaard, political economists from Mill to Keynes and Hayek, and so on.

The current "Reception" focuses exclusively on the book's religious element, altogether ignoring the reception of the second half of the text. This reception has been substantial. See the reviews in The New Republic, Jacobin, The Guardian, New Statesman, Critical Inquiry, Times Higher Education, The Boston Globe, Psychology Today, boundary 2, among others.

The criticism section should, again, be representative, rather than a reconstruction of (or series of citations from) one article. For a contrasting (and positive) in-depth review of the book, see in particular Conall Cash's piece in boundary2: http://boundary2.org/2019/06/conall-cash-socialism-for-our-time-freedom-value-transition-review-of-martin-hagglunds-this-life-secular-faith-and-spiritual-freedom/

Moreover, the description of the book in the first paragraph is inaccurate; spiritual freedom is not the politics corresponding to secular faith, even though the book does have a political vision grounded in the modern ideal of freedom.

I would suggest that the page be taken down, because a drastic overhaul is required. Virtually every section will need to be rewritten. Jts6489 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I've read the book and the second half, while focusing on politics, involves and invokes the preceding discussion of religion regularly. When you write that the book besides engaging with religious thinkers "also" engages with philosophers and writers like Hegel and Knausgaard, it's clear that you haven't read the book since his engagement with these and most of the thinkers in the book (even Marx) is often related to his discussion of religion. Regarding the lede, spiritual freedom is at the very least the basis of his politics (but feel free to edit if you think you have a better basic description). Also, you're repeating your earlier comments on the talk page. Yeah, both sections could use more stuff. Why don't you add some of the reviews you've mentioned or add some more of the criticism that you cited regarding the book's politics? You obviously care deeply about the page because your account's edit history only deals with this page and Martin Hagglund's. Wikipedia articles aren't solo authorship affairs, be bold, add some stuff.--Staplesworth (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, looking again at the reception section, about 50% focuses on the book's politics. Would love to also see a discussion of that Conall Cash piece though, I just skimmed it and it looks like there's a lot there.--Staplesworth (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: could Jts6489 be Martin Hägglund himself?
Jts6489 is quite right that this page should be taken down. Especially now when he has so extensively rewritten it. He? Yes, I am quite sure about the gender of Jts6489. The only contributions of Jts6489 is to this page, the entry for Martin Hägglund and to the Swedish entry for Martin Hägglund. His contributions include very specific information about prizes and fellowships and clear misinformation about Hägglund being ”a writer of the New York Times” and ”regarded as the most important young philosopher in the USA” (from the Swedish wiki).

Jts6489 also temporally removed the linking to this entry from the ”Martin Hägglund” entry until he had rewritten pretty much everything here. Sadly, Martin Hägglund - who I admired until seeing this - seem to fall into the same category as Pete Buttigieg, Stuart Anderson, Johann Hari and others who edit their own entries.--Inge Källgård (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)