It’s rationalist god-botherers like Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad who need the trigger warnings
-
-
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.