BTW, I roll my eyes as much listening to JP talk about post-modernism as I do listening to Harris on religion.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sam Harris is an abject moron. Any and all credibility the “Intellectual Dark Web” had was lost when Harris was considered part of the group. Come to think of it, I started losing respect for Peterson right about when he started taking Harris seriously.
-
Harris is definitely not a moron. He keeps up with experts in high-level discussions on a wide array of topics when he interviews them. It's just that his critique of religion has been stuck in high school atheist mode since the beginning.
-
I think Taleb would call him an IYI. I just use moron. He might be able to keep up, but his analogies are worse than my 4 year olds.
-
He would and has
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sam Harris is a clown who thinks he's onto something; but the sad truth is that he's on to precisely Nothing and thinks he's found Something.
-
@martyrmade and what about Peterson? Do you like him when he’s not debating Harris on this topic? -
I like him on many topics, esp child psychology and the phenomenology of truth/deception
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would anything change if
@SamHarrisOrg was agnostically atheistic and@jordanbpeterson was theoretically gnostic? The first discussion was frustrating. Are the approaches are what is most frustrating, or the messages/perspectives that listeners can consider? -
I blame Sam for the 1st debate. JP was working w/perfectly well-known definition of truth out of the pragmatism school. Sam couldn't let it go bec then he'd have to respond w/something other than, "But there's no evidence of an old man in the sky, ppl can't walk on water, etc"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The least interesting thing about God is whether or not he “exists” or if there’s any reason to “believe” in him. I’d rather see this conversation be between John Gray and Karen Armstrong or like Peterson and either of them or... like literally ANYONE but Harris.
-
Eric Weinstein made a similar point— more interesting to hear a conversation with two believers or two non-believers where a structure can be built instead of never moving past step 0.1
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, it’s kind of a dead-end. Especially when my interpretation is that Peterson is arguing not as a fundamentalist, but as someone who believes that religion is important for the narrative continuity of a culture. Which is a more intriguing discussion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
agree with points on Harris, but I enjoy seeing how others interact with his extreme personality. You learn a lot about people by how they handle extremes
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
John Gray would be much better to debate either
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Glad it's not just me
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I used to be one of these people. Naive realists.
-
Would you say that JP is a naive realist despite being a pragmatist? And Harris a naive realist despite his determinism? (not arguing, just curious)
-
I was talking about Harris. I don't think I would consider JP a naive realist. Harris is of the opinion that he sees the world objectively and that any disagreements are either not sincerely held or a result of ignorance. I'm still working out my opinion on JP but it's not that.
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.