Hence truth stops being objective and criticisms that Peterson denies the objectivity of truth in the same way as postmodernists are substantiated.
We have been here. I have broken down the difference in our perceptions and spelled out what Peterson is criticised for in relation to objective truth - denying the objective nature of truth and including other ways of knowing.
-
-
Except he does not DENY science. Good God.
-
I have not claimed he did. He accepts scientific facts as truths and also narratives which are unscientific as truths. Like postmodernists. If I haven't got you to understand this basic distinction yet, I never will. Let's leave it, shall we?
-
Postmodernists completely deny the idea of the objective. They would pursue studies that are covered by science and create their own nonsense, like Gender Studies. Peterson does his work mostly in psychology. He does his best to being science to it but there are limitations.
-
No, they don't. Some do but most believe in alternative ways of knowing as well. Therefore knowledge and truth to them are not objective.
-
If they do not reject the idea of objectivity then they are not Postmodernists even if they claim to be.
-
Righto. Not very many postmodernists then. I consider Foucault a prime example of a postmodernist but he's chucked out now.
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.