Being an atheist absolutely does not rule out being gullible & easily misled. This is shown by the number of atheists who take on irrational & unevidenced beliefs on the far-left, far-right, spiritual, postmodern, pseudoscientific & Jungian-archetype-mixed-with-bible-stories. https://twitter.com/scarce_sense/status/985448699084992518 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Lol. I like my Jungian archetypes. I mean, the original Star Wars trilogy was amazing. But some people seem to have a need for what I'll charitably call deeper meaning in their lives. Simple dismissal of religious or dogmatic thought may not be the wisest thing. Maybe.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @darrylrichard23 @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
Helen - I’d highly recommend spending some time with Peterson’s book Maps of Meaning. In the Sam Harris podcasts, his health was suffering and he failed to effectively articulate his claims about truth.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maloneype @HPluckrose and
His thesis in Maps of Meaning is that there are two modes of construing the world. The first is that the world is a place of things. The second is that the world is a forum for action. The former is the domain of science. The latter is the domain of arts.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maloneype @HPluckrose and
The second mode of construal is the world of meaning (defined as significance for action) and is superordinate to the first mode (aka the objective world.) Stated differently, we orient and act before we categorize.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maloneype @HPluckrose and
To support his thesis, Peterson constrains himself to rational and objective argument and employs three levels of analysis: prosaic life, neuropsychology, and comparative religion/mythology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maloneype @HPluckrose and
Peterson technically defines “affective valence” as “motivational significance” which further means “significance for motor function (i.e. action.)”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, I know. If you don't see any problem with Maps of Meaning, we're not going to find common ground.
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.