ps: no problem with clear, objective statement of contents, like fire does for free speech codes. it's useful for students.
What do you perceive to be the difference between his understanding of truth and Sam Harris' then?
-
-
Harris is strictly an empiricist to the point where he's entirely opposed to any sort of non-empirical conclusions as he associated them with theology. Peterson is a clinical psychologist. He lives in a world where empirical research mixes with human psychology to provide insight
-
On the subject of what is true.
-
I'm not sure what's unclear. Harris is strictly empirical and rejects non-empirical notions of truth. Peterson is empirical while accepting that non-empirical notions of truth exist.
-
It seems the difference is sharper. Both accept that such "notions" exist. Harris denies they have any basis in reality, Peterson doesn't.
-
That does not make sense. You can't accept non-empirical truth and then claim the concept has no basis in reality.
-
eg Britons think 21% of Brits are Muslim. The empirical truth is that 5% are. The 21% narrative is not the reality. For Peterson, if overestimating by 400% aided our survival it would become true. For Harris it wouldn't.
-
As Rogan pointed out, you don't have to say something becomes true because it is a dominant and helpful narrative. You can say 'This is a dominant and helpful narrative which isn't actually true.' Peterson rejected that.
-
I picked that example at random, btw. I don't think making such a huge mistake is or could be helpful.
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.