Laird
Member
yep, we've already talked about it a bit here http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...-–-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson.3540/
Here's his recent debate with Sam Harris.
I listened through the first hour and 36 minutes but I'm sorry, that's as far as my masochism will take me. I lost respect for Jordan, and gained respect for Sam, in that debate, even though all Sam was doing was (in my view) advocating for some sort of sanity. Jordan's conception of truth as "entailing goodnesss" does, as Sam rightly pointed out, make it "very difficult to talk about ordinary truth claims". I think it's interesting (in the armchair rather than the practical sense) to submit Jordan's view of truth to self-reflectivity. How would it answer the question, "Is this conception of truth true?"? We would have to say that it is true if it leads to good outcomes, and false if it leads to bad outcomes, but how could this be a meaningful (as opposed to postmodern) and workable theory of truth? How would we even judge what a good outcome is (and here I recur to Sam's asking as to when the cheque will be cashed)? Anyhow, I'm not sure how helpful all of that is, I just wanted to emphasise that I'm very on board with Sam here and very "skeptical" of Jordan. Thanks (I think!) for posting, @LetsEat.