It's not the take anyone is disagreeing with tho. We disagree that 'truth' is defined by assistance in survival rather than what is objectively true whether we believe it or not, whether it helps or not.
-
-
This is what is usually referred to as denying the objective nature of truth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I know he wouldnt call it truth, I have maintained that the entire time. A strict empiricist who rejects intangible truth would call it "non-substantiated beliefs". Peterson would agree it is not scientific fact but truth for being; the truth morality.
-
Hence truth stops being objective and criticisms that Peterson denies the objectivity of truth in the same way as postmodernists are substantiated.
-
He does not DENY objective fact. That immediately makes him NOT a postmodernist. He accepts science wholeheartedly and defends it all the time. He also accepts that some truths are not empirical but embedded in ideas, in stories, in literature, etc.
-
Yes, he does. This doesn't make sense.https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/929420602687016961 …
-
If your understanding of truth includes things which are objectively true and things which are objectively false and things which are unknown to be true or false you are not a believer in objective truth in the sense in which it is meant.
-
And neither are postmodernists. They also accept as true some things which are objective and some which are subjective narratives. Robert Eaglestone calls this 'the metaphysics of correspondence' & 'primordial truth.' The former is a subcategory.
-
So you will then agree Peterson is indeed not a Postermodernist?
-
He's not a postmodernist, no. He just has the same rationale for subjective truth being constructed in narratives.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How did appreciation of human's ability with limited resources to make their environments livable, delightful even become that cant phrase "different ways of knowing"?
-
An aim to bring about a false equality. I was being told about 'epistemic injustice' recently where we believe things that are evidence over things that aren't.
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.