I don’t know about you, but I’m becoming heartily sick of being told the obvious nonsense that “myths” are just as valid an approach to the truth as science, just different. No they aren’t. If there were a better way of getting to the truth, science would adopt it.
-
-
I will. Thanks. And I hope I find out why RD is so happy to define any “truths” from myths (or any other kind of non scientific approach) as “nonsense”? Cos it kind of belittles what I, or any other creative person.
-
Because he's an empirical scientist. It doesn't belittle art to say it isn't true. We don't love Hamlet for its truth value but for the beauty of its language and the complexity of its characters. It wouldn't have that if it were a true rendition of events.
-
I love Hamlet for its truth value!
-
Hamlet is not true. It's a story. If it were to be a true account, it would be a report of some monarch who was mentally disabled and look like a police report. He'd be much less interesting and definitely not speak in beautifully crafted iambic pentameter.
-
You love Hamlet for its beauty and meaning. This is different to truth. It is so easy to say 'This is a beautifully moving play about something which didn't happen.' Don't have to claim it to be a true story.
-
Let’s jump off Hamlet (cos it’s a “narrative”) and move back to Beethoven/Coltrane/ insert favourite composer. What’s your argument here? Is music just melody, rhythm and harmony? Do I love it for its beauty and meaning? Does it therefore contain no “truths’?
-
Please answer Helen if u can. It bugs the shit out of me. And I’m also serious about the question I raised earlier. As an atheist, who believes that there is Truth in Art as well as in Science, does that, by definition, make me a Post Modernist?
-
No. This belief is also found in other forms of philosophy, theology & metaphysics particularly but a failure to distinguish was is from what feels meaningful is actually our default position. Going on evidence & reason is counterintuitive.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is absolutely no reason why understanding that truth is obtained via evidence should mean that profound appreciation of the arts is not also very important and meaningful to humans.
-
It’s more than important or meaningful though. It’s not a hierarchy of truths, with Science at the top and the Arts as simply important. They are different and equally valid windows to view the world. (And believe me, I say this as a happy atheist)
-
Well, we agree then. People tend to think that saying that science is about establishing what is true and art is not means that art is lower but they are not on a hierarchy. They are just different. Science tells us what is true about the world. Art opens up a different world.
-
There’s that problematic word then- “truth”. No wonder JBP n SHarris bogged down for so long on that one. So, I’m really interested in your definition then of someone who holds my position. I call them both truths, just different ones. Am I a fucking post modernist?

-
You just don't believe in objective truth. I wish you would. You don't have to think something is true to value it. See short thread.https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/999999120038383616 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.