He does differ from it because he values metanarratives but knowledge and truth are still regarded as socially constructed by discourse and rooted in feelings & lived experience. This is why people say his epistemology mirrors that of postmodernism.
-
-
-
Well, of course lived experience is one of the roots of truth. It's simply a form of Empiricism. Scientists' research is done as a subset of lived experience. Does that invalidate their work?
-
No, it's not. They do not talk about how they experience the results of experiments. They show the results. I need to go to bed. Enough now.
-
That's not true at all. They observe the results. Observation is a lived experience. If you never had the lived experience of observing an apple fall, you wouldn't be able to reason about theories and then conduct experiments with more dropped apples.
-
No, observation is not what is meant by lived experience. This is a much deeper thing which JPB refers to in terms of archetypes.
-
Well sure it goes deeper, but we're not at that level. We'd have to work up to it. Peterson's views are reducible to a rationalist, materialist, scientific, empiricist definition. I sincerely mean that, because I come from that camp. But it takes a bit to lay that out.
-
Archetypes are observable, because we see them repeatedly in cultures across time. What they are, like metaphysically, is tough to define. But it's hard to say what a number is metaphysically as well. But numbers are enormously useful, so we use them. Archetypes are similar.
-
That's where a touch of the Pragmatism comes in. No one knows what the hell math is - but we accept that it's useful and true and beautiful for whatever reason. But it's certainly not "false" just because it isn't composed of baryonic matter.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Because acknowledging that there are infinite potential interpretations of the world is not the same as saying they are all valid - he explicitly believes the opposite.
-
And claiming that there are eternal patterns that exist regardless of material substrate is the exact opposite of postmodernism as well - eternal, enduring, objective truths are as far way from postmodernism as you can get.
-
And the concept of eternal, enduring, divorced-from-the-material truths is not controversial when we refer to, say, mathematical patterns.
-
Because it is rooted in empiricism,
-
No, no it's not. Not even close. There's more mathematics with zero physical analogue than there is math that resembles the physical world.
-
I'm not qualified to have this argument with you.
@Goddoesnt is but he's probably sick of it too. -
I'm sorry you're sick of it. Some people here are making bad arguments. Would love to discuss in a neutral, productive way. But feel free to check out the philosophy beyond math - it's extremely platonic in many respects.
-
No. No to mathematical Platonism,
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t see what he says in that passage that’s incorrect. Myths are affective realities in the minds of those who believe them. The difference between PoMo and that idea, as far I can tell, is that PoMo elevates all myths to the level of objective truth, and all other myths. /1
-
No, it believes that too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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.