Me and you both see a tree; both are objective truths,but with different subjective http://experiences.You can see a heart carved on a tree, an objective truth from your vantage point, but relative to the position to which I’m viewing the tree, would be outside of 2.
That's silly. There are people who believe in secular, liberal democracy, science, reason and liberty everywhere. This just isn't the point of the essay. The Enlightenment was something that brought all this together here and it is here we want to retain it.
-
-
You say “reason” like we’re beings of reason. That’s like saying we’re beings of happiness. We may idealize the notion of reason, but there are times that we are not. And this isn’t just a function of tribal identity.
-
No, I don't. You keep reading things into my words that aren't there. You're not hearing me. I spoke about reason here:https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ …
-
I have to go spend time with my daughter before bed. Nice talking to you.
-
I’m not reading things into your words. But the implication of listing “reason” suggests that were are Cognitive Angels, of sorts—able to achieve perfect rational agency. And it was nice chatting with you, too.
-
No, it is something we have to work at collectively utilising viewpoint diversity. The last thing I sent you explains this.
-
We can aspire to be rational, same way as one may aspire for complete happiness. But just as in happiness, one can’t always be rational. It contrains us into, ironically, an idea of what we think a rational agent is suppose to be. Which takes away agency, and choice
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.