I'm here. I agree with you on the problem of blank slatism, disagree bible stories & Jungian archetypes help with this, agree postmodernism is at the root of the SocJus problem, disagree on why & how, agree we need to defend free speech, disagree on sexual morality. Best I can dohttps://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/999291589414588418 …
-
-
Also, there is the tendency to see an individual in terms of the thing which is most important to you and assume that everyone else sees them defined as that thing too. Then 'I admire/dislike this person' becomes 'I agree or disagree with this thing that is important to you'
Show this thread -
Suppose you admire JBP for his message about individual responsibility which has been presented in terms you find inspiring and which have helped you personally but someone else sees him in terms of epistemology - how we determine what is true - and disagrees strongly with this?
Show this thread -
You might understand that second person saying 'I am not a fan of Peterson' as saying 'I am not a fan of personal responsibility' when they mean 'I am not a fan of Darwinian notions of truth.' Therefore, miscommunication has happened & you could actually agree on both things.
Show this thread -
The question 'What do you think of so-and-so?' really needs to be answered with 'I know him/her mostly in relation to this idea about which I think...' but it's probably better not to ask that question at all in most situations and start with the ideas.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wrote a thing on this which might help as a springboard:https://areomagazine.com/2017/07/15/debate-ideas-not-people/ …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
God this Helen! Why do we always need some sort of posterboy through which to reach the ideas? I'm sick of talking about this guy but some of the ideas are worthy of discussion. Others are tripe.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Following principles not personalities.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"if you admire or dislike a certain person to take on or reject all of them." i think the problem is concern for peer approval; if you like X idea from Y person, but your peers think Y is horrible for some other belief, you're risking associating yourself w/ Known Wrongthinker.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this is also due to the fact that people can have utility beyond their individuality. An ambassador for a nation represents much more than just themselves. Likewise, people become ambassadors for ideas, and criticism of them often feels like criticism of ALL their ideas.
-
Ultimately ideas, on their own, do not spread. They must be spoken. And when a speaker begins spreading ideas we agree with and find too rare in others, they become a symbol of a future where more people agree with us on that issue. Attacks on them jeopardize that future.
-
So it's easy to imagine a bright future fading away as you see people reject a person you agree with, and by proxy, the ideas they espouse that had given you hope for a brighter future where more people held those ideas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Modern people reason by contagion. "X says Y, and Z says like-Y, and Z is horrible, therefore X is horrible."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The perfect being the enemy of the good
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not sure which philosophers discuss this. It's something I've been promoting for a while abs a quick Google just now says it's one of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.
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.