I don't understand what you see in Peterson, Sam.
-
-
-
I do, he can be quite brilliant about some subjects, especially about psychology, it's when he starts getting in more philosophical stuff, like with his religious view, that he just throws logic out of the window
-
Given his postmodernist epistemology, how can one trust anything Peterson says. And his views on women are positively absurd.
-
You shouldnt dismiss everything somebody says because you disagree of a few topics.. And I am not familiar about his views on woman so I can't really say anything about that
-
His epistemology infects everything. If you don't believe in objective truth, how can anything you say be trusted?
-
Oh ya.. when he starts talking about truth I just can't stand him...
-
Then how can you trust him on anything else?
-
What has he said about women that make it absurd? Plus, if a person is not ideologically driven, he can differentiate between different topics that someone discusses and understands that talking about ideas and engaging in ideas is not about "trusting" someone.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Remind him to stay away from apple juice.https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1016040736377196544 …
1:34 -
AHAHAHA.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You guys should add Deepak Chopra to the ticket.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The humbling of the environmentalists: How coal survived the progress of renewable energy ;)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Please
@jordanbpeterson just avoid stalling the conversation by tying to redefine every word in the dictionary so that what you say makes sense -
What do you mean by 'redefine' and what do you mean by 'makes sense'?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
JP acts like you can introspect your way to understanding the evolution of the human mind and brain. As if we have any idea which combinations of mental faculties "help us survive" over hundreds of thousands of years. This is psychological theatre of the absurd.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s hurts me to take sides on this but I’m with you on this one Sam. There is no justification for literal belief in religion. There may be good reasons to join morally righteous groups in today’s immoral world but don’t try defend it with reason and logic.
-
Peterson definitely does not have a literal belief structure surrounding religion
-
It depends on the point he’s making. Some parts of the Bible are literally true. Very few, but some definitely are.
-
Just curious. What parts are true?
-
Usually the parts that overlap the historical record. The story of eve (while not literally true) is an allegorical truth. Women are cursed with painful childbirth (1:1 birth canal) because she takes from the tree of knowledge (evolving from quadruped to biped).
-
So your saying child birth is true and the Adam and Eve story is a myth from an unscientific world to explain it.
- 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.