Good luck with that! Truth doesn't care much whether it serves the purpose of humanity or not. XD Otherwise we could just make all the unpleasant truths not true any more & then we'd never die, there'd be no war, famine, global waming etc. Better to acknowledge them & deal.https://twitter.com/CalabreseJuve/status/953812626689019904 …
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
JP did a poor job of explaining his position on this during the first Sam Harris interview; he’s cleared it up fairly well at this point. Does not deny the existence of factual truth but posits existence of meta truths, something more along the likes of Jung’s archetypal truths
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GenerationStraw @HPluckrose
Agree or disagree, I don’t care, fan of your work. Please don’t strawman him to death though. Too many people doing that already
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GenerationStraw
Thank you. It is not that I Strawman him. It's that people do not see the difference in our epistemologies as as vitally important as I do. They think it's trivial or semantic. I think it's fundamental.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
My position is that you’re misunderstanding him. If I believed what I think you believe about his epistemology I’d agree with you. He’s spent a good deal of time clarifying his position since that train wreck first go with Harris.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GenerationStraw
Yes but he clarifies it in the same way! Truth is what makes us survive. There is an affective truth found in mythology. Knowledge is constructed in language.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
If there is no God, words have no objective meaning, yes? So he can technically say “for the purpose of this conversation, ‘truth’ means a fart of not less than 2 seconds duration” and so long as his conversational partners agree, the word’s meaning has been temporarily changed.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Did I at least make you laugh? I’m not arguing words have no meaning, I’m saying they have no platonic form, if you will. They have enough meaning to be used scientifically, but only through general consensus. The word “gay” for instance, once meant one thing, now another.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, but I am not talking about semantics. You can change the word truth for the word peanut butter if you like. Epistemologies based on evidence and those based on emotionally resonant myths still produce very different results. I must sleep.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I agree, and I think Peterson does as well. That’s what I’m failing to communicate. Have a good sleep.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.