Andrey (azangru) wrote,
Andrey
azangru

Sam Harris’s (rather dated) conversation with Jordan Peterson that quickly turned into a two-hour-long argument about the nature of truth is pretty amazing. From the historico-philosophical standpoint, it is a chance to listen to an argument between a proponent of what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would recognize as the correspondence theory of truth (Harris) and of what it would probably call the pragmatic theory of truth (Peterson).

Peterson in this argument represents all that I hate about preachers or humanitarians (or classical writers) talking about their higher version of truth, which is a blend of epistemology, axiology, ethics, and esthetics. Harris takes a natural for me position of treating truth statements in isolation, as statements about objective reality (or about logical constructs). It’s interesting to follow their struggle with each other’s position, although Peterson’s is incomprehensible for me, as it is for Harris. But I do recognize in his position familiar notes that irritated me when I encountered them in literature.

Also, I realized that I would’ve never put the definite article in Peterson’s favorite phrase "by any stretch of the imagination", which, according to dictionaries, should actually be there. Can’t imagine why it’s there; don’t feel the need for it there at all :-(
Subscribe

  • (no subject)

    An interesting conversation with Eric. Some things that he says, especially in the last segment about his attitude towards vaccination, resonate with…

  • (no subject)

    And, before I close my browser tab, here's a bit of Glenn:

  • (C)opied from Twitter

    Don't know who first made this association, but it cracked me up:

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments