On the subject of what is true.
-
-
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.
-
Morality is subjective truth, so again I think you just fail to understand the topic all together.
-
No, I don't fail to understand it. I disagree that this is truth. I know that people call all kinds of subjective stuff 'truth' and 'knowledge' & therefore they deny the objective nature of truth. Includes postmodernists & Prof Peterson.
-
This is the nub of the criticism. You may not like being called the denial of objective truth. Perhaps you could live with 'The denial that all forms of truth and knowledge are objective.' Either way, it is what both PoMos & JP are criticised for.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ironically your claim that he rejects objective truth is objectively false.
-
I can't break this down any more. You mean that he accepts objective truths among other truths. I say that this means what he considers true is not always objective and neither is that his criteria. This is the criticism of him & of postmodernists.
-
The acceptance of objective fact derived from empiricism and the acceptance of truths that exist outside of that are not incompatible. He's not going to argue for Flat Earth because of some myth that says so. He does not argue AGAINST science, he goes where it cannot.
-
We are saying the same thing but you think this means he is a defender of objective truth because some of the truths he accepts are objective. I say he is not because his definition of truth includes things which are not objectively true.
-
He's a defender of science. In the USSR, pretty much any academic or scientist whose study went against the concepts of equality were arrested and probably gulaged. He sees that sort of behavior manifesting in the far left and wants to end it.
-
To a certain extent and yet we saw that he disagreed that the truth of square numbers would be scientifically established rather than by whether a belief about it aided survival.
-
You cannot cling to some obscure snippet of an interview completely divorced from context like this. Your narrative of his beliefs is wrong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
After so much abuse of purported truths, in what can be described as a Thrasymachian (?) fashion, it's not surprising that the status of truth itself becomes contested.
-
By that I mean the myriad of historical examples when "truth" was what served the powerful, and was so imparted. So skepticism of such uses becomes an acid that dissolves all notions of truthfulness.
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.