Andrey (azangru) wrote,

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 :-(

  • Via Twitter

    Via a tweet, but I thought I'd get my own copy. A beautiful illustration of how a caption totally misrepresents what's been captured in the photo.…

  • (no subject)

    Here's an extract from Uncle Bob's book Clean Agile. Although he has fallen out of grace with the champions of social justice, the sentiment…

  • (no subject)

    Twelve thousand people pressed the button. Obviously most of them his followers, but still... interesting:

  • Post a new comment


    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.