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 …
-
-
Peterson has struck a nerve, and the question of what need he's meeting and how to meet it without cranking up the fog-maker is one that I intend to bravely wait for you to answer while ciriticizing every little misstep along the way. Good luck!
-
Thanks.
I did address it a bit here but the problem of how to supply human needs for emotionally resonant metanarratives & something akin to spirituality without losing empirical truth & reason will probably always be with us. We are stupid apes.https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ … -
The other problem I have with the Dillahunty/Harris/etc argument is: how can one ever “prove”the supernatural if what constitutes proof (solely the empirical) would automatically move the phenomenon into the realm of the natural?
-
I find this uninteresting. If something supernatural exists and cannot be known in the natural realm, its existence cannot be known by us and there seems little point in speculating about it. If people want to, they can, of course but no-one else has to take them seriously.
-
Well, there are certainly phenomena that we cannot scientifically measure nor explain. I reckon it's unfair to be critical of those who strive their best to understand such things despite their knowledge that a scientific certainty of that they enquire about can never be achieved
-
Well, I am, tho I defend their right to do it. It's the triad of postmodernism, theology and metaphysics that does this and they overlap a lot and call on the same elements of epistemology. It's fine when it remains speculative and for enjoyment or thought experiment.
-
It only becomes a problem when people claim it to be knowledge and that it should influence public policy or academia. Theology has the longest history of this but feminist epistemology is the only thing I know to be getting away with it now in a way which affects wider society.
-
Humility in the face of the non-empirical does seem to me a legitimate cornerstone of both public policy and academic study. The problem of course is when ppl make claims in one realm of truth where it belongs in the other.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Precisely. :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree . Truth is such a fundamental concept that I think a disagreement about that must be worked out otherwise why discuss anything? Jbp's very interesting but I find his redefining truth to be foolish, counterproductive, and dangerous.
-
I am not sure that JBP is redefining truth so much as returning it to an older definition. And obviously making the argument that in some ways older doesn’t necessarily equal inferior.
-
His ideal of Truth ignores accuracy and highlights usefulness. So I could knowingly lie to you but if the lie was useful enough be telling the truth.
-
In the empirical realm accuracy obviously reigns supreme. So you could tell me a “lie” (ie inaccurate statement) knowing the deeper truth that it would lead to behavior that benefits me. (Hey, don’t priests do this? Lol).
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.