I particularly despair of, 'I do believe in objective truth! I just also believe things that are not objectively true (and are in fact false) to be true.'pic.twitter.com/2tKEYeIP55
-
-
Show this thread
-
Please assume that if someone asks if you believe in objective truth that they are asking you if you believe truth to be objective. If you believe things can be true whether they are objectively so or not, you do not believe in objective truth. It's not hard.
Show this thread -
I can't help noticing that Twitter likes me better when I am tired, grumpy & have zero patience than when I am well-rested, polite & endlessly charitable. You are all bad, bad people.
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
Fine, bad wording. The point I was trying to make was that Jungian psychology is not an attempt to prescribe how we should interpret the world but to describe how we actually do. It may not be complete/right, but it's a theory based on observation of what is not what should be.
-
To that extent I see it as an attempt to apply critical thinking to subjective experience, identify common patterns and build theories based on those observations. I'm not saying it's magical thinking that needs to be given equal status with critical thinking.
-
Understood. I still think evolutionary and cognitive psychology do this better tho. Jung is mostly good for intuitive satisfaction.
-
I agree with that. Don't shout at me, Helen, i'm a bear of relatively little brain and I'm trying my best ;-)
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Let’s list other things that can’t be balanced: Rules of the road & my “need for speed!” My bad eyesight & my refusal to wear glasses for fear of being called “four eyes”. Civil society in general & my occasional urge to slap everyone on earth. Etc.
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.