If you are intelligent you will note how this does not bode well for Darwinist metaphysics.
-
-
Almost everything involving Darwin's conceptualization of Nature is Metaphysical in Character.pic.twitter.com/L5XQvMMwsG
-
this sounds more like an argument that "darwinian" is an unstable eponym, which is obviously true
-
There is only so much I can give you to sketch out an idea
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
(note: Science itself tends to be more metaphysical than metaphysics itself)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Technically my tweet is a continuation of a prior tweet here:https://twitter.com/fides_et_cancri/status/824096088911183872 …
-
In that ill-fated debate Peterson is making an argument about subsuming Truth to Darwinian Pragmatics (an idealistic hellhole)
-
When Truth becomes subsumed under Useful there are some problems that arise
-
Namely the 'for who/whom' thing. Nominalizes the entire process. Even though Harris is no essentialist he saw that issue.
-
If you take darwinian frameworks to their logical conclusion and find you cant extract Truth from them thats a big problem.
-
-
no but I endorse
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you ever really want some difficult conceptual playgrounds to hang out in try working on philosophy of naturepic.twitter.com/0Acz5xbf6D
-
more like a bdsm dungeon
-
My own research efforts suggest that your metaphor is not inaccuratepic.twitter.com/OoLqkPiDiy
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.