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.
You keep telling me I fail to understand and then agreeing with me. I think this is unproductive and best left here.
-
-
You cant claim he accepts objective truth while also claiming is rejects the objective. You cannot say he is like Postmodernists when he does not reject objectivity. Accepting that science has limitations and that truth can exist outside of it =/= objective truth doesn't exist.
-
'I believe cats are mammals & that other mammals exist that are not cats'. Then you believe in mammals but not the 'catness' of mammals. 'I believe in objective truth & that other truths exist that are not objective'. Then you believe in truth but deny the objectivity of truth.
-
That was my last attempt to explain. I have set out this distinction clearly several times and if the analogy does not make it clear what PoMos & JP are criticised for, I will have to accept that you are determined not to understand.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No I tell you that you don't understand, tell you why, then you just double down and repeat yourself.
-
We are saying the same thing with different framing. You say he accepts objective truth but also subjective truth. I agree with you & point out that truth for him is therefore not objective.
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.