An interesting debate has ignited online since the release of the latest "Waking Up with Sam Harris" podcast a couple of days ago. The podcast, featuring psychologist Jordan Peterson, was a highly anticipated one. Though it fell short of expectations in many ways and became bogged down almost immediately on semantic definition of what truth means, I feel it has done a great service to revive discourse concerning the nature of truth.
Without going into excessive detail, I will summarize the discussion in the following way:
Harris: truth is cold, hard, scientific fact that exists with or without any moral attachments or human interpretation.
Peterson: scientific truth is true, but it is subordinate to and perhaps even false in the light of higher truth (what I have referred to in my novel as truth beyond truth).
In essence, the two men were working from different frameworks and neither seemed willing to step outside of their own. This lead to an impasse right at the start and the discourse quickly became mired in the epistemology and semantics of the very first question - What is true?
Some found the conversation frustrating and pointless, but I think it may help reinvigorate discourse concerning epistemology metaphysics, religion, and morality. Even if the podcast itself did not manage to touch on these topics in any meaningful way, it has inspired many to begin pondering the question of what truth is and the larger points that may have been made if Harris and Peterson managed to move past that initial sticking point concerning the nature of truth.
If you have two hours to spare, give it a listen. The experience will leave you fascinated or exaperated (or maybe a combination of both!)
Without going into excessive detail, I will summarize the discussion in the following way:
Harris: truth is cold, hard, scientific fact that exists with or without any moral attachments or human interpretation.
Peterson: scientific truth is true, but it is subordinate to and perhaps even false in the light of higher truth (what I have referred to in my novel as truth beyond truth).
In essence, the two men were working from different frameworks and neither seemed willing to step outside of their own. This lead to an impasse right at the start and the discourse quickly became mired in the epistemology and semantics of the very first question - What is true?
Some found the conversation frustrating and pointless, but I think it may help reinvigorate discourse concerning epistemology metaphysics, religion, and morality. Even if the podcast itself did not manage to touch on these topics in any meaningful way, it has inspired many to begin pondering the question of what truth is and the larger points that may have been made if Harris and Peterson managed to move past that initial sticking point concerning the nature of truth.
If you have two hours to spare, give it a listen. The experience will leave you fascinated or exaperated (or maybe a combination of both!)
RSS Feed
