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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It seems the difference is sharper. Both accept that such "notions" exist. Harris denies they have any basis in reality, Peterson doesn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That does not make sense. You can't accept non-empirical truth and then claim the concept has no basis in reality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ThomasFriedman_ and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don't remember this segment off the top of my head but context here is key. If they're talking about society then Peterson is correct. A society cannot function without a common narrative. The factual validity of the narrative doesnt really matter. In that sense it becomes true
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, it doesn't. But this is what I was telling you both he and his followers argue. And so do postmodernists when they argue for different ways of knowing based on cultural narratives. eg Where Native Americans originated.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ThomasFriedman_ and
Their genes and their myths tell different stories. Postmodernists have argued that the myth is true because truth is subjective, not objective. Peterson argues very similarly but adds survival to the mix.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Peterson would not argue that their genes aren't real. Have you seen him argue FOR biology? Have you seen him warn against "gender studies" and it's anti-science? I really do think you don't know much about him beyond a few interviews. The interviews are just a small piece.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
He would argue that both things were true at the same time, thereby ignoring the rule of non-contradiction. Then he'd complain about postmodernists.
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.