Although I think this article does have some value, and that the information within the article should be meaningful to me, I had a difficult time getting through it and gleaning any kind of meaning from it. As a general rule, I think conspiracy theories are fascinating and should be examined but to be completely honest, Keeley lost me when he started talking about UCTs, or unwarranted conspiracy theories. I would estimate that I understood about 40% of the article, at the most. This, for me, is rather low considering I usually get used to an author’s writing style and my thinking in order to process what I am reading pretty quickly, but with this article, it was difficult to stay focused and keep track of what Keeley was trying to get across. I don’t necessarily blame this on him or his writing, but I also don’t completely blame myself for not being able to understand the article and later discuss it analytically.
I think part of the reason why I didn’t fully understand or grasp the point Keeley was trying to get across is because his argument was framed within a philosophical perspective. Although I think philosophy is interesting, I often find it hard to comprehend – for some reason, most philosophical discussion is too lofty and abstract for me and I usually have a hard time staying interested in the discussion. Keeley actually brought up the philosophical idea of absurdism – this past year, I read The Stranger by Albert Camus in my English class. Albert Camus was the originator of absurdism, the discussion of which I actually sincerely disliked. This is just a more specific example of how disinterested I am in philosophy. I think if his discussion of conspiracy theories had been framed within sociology or psychology, I would’ve found the article more interesting and easier to stay focused on.