A second one?! Wow, I admire their stamina, and JB’s willingness to have a second go at what must have been a humiliating experience.
-
-
I've listened to it now and I think he came off well. I don't see the insistence on Christianity as a metanarrative as lack of sophistication as much as a conscious, instrumental choice.
-
I gave round two a listen, too, and agree. I thought SH came off better, too: “Let’s talk across our epistemic gap” was a lot less rigid than “my definition is right and yours is not”. He can be fluid when he wants to be (like when ~24,000 people have requested that he be).
-
Yeah I got curious about what happened the first time even though it was apparently awful. Am I right in assuming that their differences has something to do with the distinction/non-distinction between truth and wisdom? Because that part stood out to me.
-
IIRC, they didn’t even get that far. Harris: Truth is empirical. Peterson: Truth is whatever worked / was adaptive to believe. I find common usage to be the latter pretending to be the former, so I found both positions reasonable.
-
Substituting wisdom for the second truth solves the whole thing imo
-
only if you have a clear idea about what is meant by wisdom. you're right back in the ditch as soon as you start exploring the question "what is wisdom, anyway?"
-
I'll kick that issue forward for the moment. Probably something like "wisdom is useful mental schemas".
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.