It seems the difference is sharper. Both accept that such "notions" exist. Harris denies they have any basis in reality, Peterson doesn't.
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 hearing JP on why
#metoo
shows that sex confined to marriage is a great thing, I wouldn't care if he were entirely a realist. Still a reactionary, no matter what his philosophy.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.