That's what Rogan said, you'd have to watch the podcast to get the gist, Weinstein agreed with Peterson.
When it would be so easy to just say 'This myth is important & meaningful to this group for these reasons but it's not true.'
-
-
It's not just myths though... He's knows you can't get an ought from an is... he wants to know how to find the oughts...
-
So do we all. I say it should be evidenced-based & worked out according to principles, not archetypes &narratives that are meaningful to ppl
-
Well you're right that he agrees with pomos on one thing, there are an infinite number of interpretations as to what you ought to do.
-
Yes & these are best set out by making clear arguments based on consistent ethical principles, facts & consequences.
-
Which going on about eg, male archetypes of the individual & female archetypes of the mother only gets in the way of.
-
If we want to look at gender differences, we do better to go with facts about the brain & data sets & apply principles of non-discrimination
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The stories they have in mind have a sort of basis of factual truth and utility, like the porcupine example
-
And malaria. So it's kind of a subtly different claim from 'anything goes' and respecting different ideologies
-
It comes from a different angle. But the PoMos do too. They don't actually believe anything goes & respect all ideologies either.
-
They also prioritise certain narratives & beliefs having done away with the idea that knowledge is evidence-based. Difference is which ones.
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.