For me, Peterson advocates for personal responsibility. That message is so important, if he wants to tell Bible stories while presenting it, well so be it.
-
-
Replying to @darrylrichard23 @HPluckrose
I mean the Bible just seems like a story. And a story seems to be most simple way to transmit information to large groups of people. This story seems packed with moral and ethical guidance, depending on interpretation. Remain skeptical but to say there is no value seems wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VirgilMSW @darrylrichard23
We don't have to say that something has no value to say that it is not rational & evidence-based. Peterson says this explicitly. He calls it the affective (feelings) truth of the mythic world (narratives).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @darrylrichard23
I think my contention is the implication of saying something is irrational and lacks evidence. Usually it is implied there is no value and/or it is false. Or even that hyper rationality is preferable, which i am starting to disagree with.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VirgilMSW @darrylrichard23
There can be lots of value in feelings and stories. That's why I devoted my academic career to studying the Christian narrative and the meaning it had for women historically. It's just different to truth established by evidence & reason & the problem arises when this is denied.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @darrylrichard23
I think you put it better in that tweet. It is a different truth and different evidence. Those words are just so loaded, saying something irrational is almost always an insult. But you are %100 right it is not the same.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VirgilMSW @darrylrichard23
No, it's not truth and there is no evidence. Emotionally resonant narratives are important to us and they are how we consistently think about morality and psychology and emotion and relationships. But they are not true. Bible stories are not true. Jungian archetypes are not true.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I talked about this at the Post-Truth Initiative at the University of Sydney. Society is a mess of conflicting narratives that people find meaningful - religious and secular, ideological, political, spiritual, whatever. It makes us feel good to inscribe ourselves into a narrative
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Whether it's 'Make America Great Again' or Social Justice narratives, Islamic narratives about a Caliphate or Christian redemption ones, nationalism, Marxism etc. We make metanarratives to provide meaning, purpose and morality but its essential to step outside them & face facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @darrylrichard23
How do we quantify the patterns in stories? I guess I ascribe to different types of truths. I can't explain how these narratives fit my experience as a clinician and how my young disabled clients are able to get them instantly in a way "facts" are unable to reach them.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I've just had a thread about that. Evo psych is good here. We did not evolve to seek truth. We evolved to seek comfort, common understandings, tell stories. It's how we understand the world by default. Society functions better when we try to overcome it in seeking truth.
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.