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.
-
-
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.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The essay of mine that I linked cites many sources that it is counterintuitive. The Enlightenment is when it became the norm to expect evidence and reasoned argument for truth claims. Before that, truth was understood to come largely from revelation.
-
Yep. Read that thanks. Honestly I think the issue is being dodged. Do you really think all our great composers post Enlightment (let’s go from Mozart to present day) were communicating only pleasure and meaning and not Truth?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the worst possible time to be claiming that things are true when we mean that they are narratives which resonate emotionally with us.https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ …
-
Seems like symantics here more than anything (am aware of epistemological debates, admire your insistence on drawing a line there given the dangers.) At the same time I might still call Hamlet “true”, in a human nature, “spiritual” sense. Think most get the distinction.
-
You do recognize the limits of rationality explicitly, wonder how you reconcile having so much faith in it as the grail. I still agree it's critical and a top tier value, but what beyond "the rational." The rational can't tell you "good" or "bad", only inform it.
-
Can see it your way, the "post-truth" idea is terrible and scary. Need better recognition of facts. That's worth concern. The concern from the flip-side is the simple question are there limits to the utility of reason, areas where it is impotent? I think so, balance is reqd.
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.