>The world can be validly construed as forum for action, or as place of things. The former manner of interpretation – more primordial, and less clearly understood – finds its expression in the arts or humanities, in ritual, drama, literature, and mythology. The world as forum for action is a place of value, a place where all things have meaning. This meaning, which is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, is implication for action, or – at a higher level of analysis – implication for the configuration of the interpretive schema that produces or guides action. The latter manner of interpretation – the world as place of things – finds its formal expression in the methods and theories of science. Science allows for increasingly precise determination of the consensual properties of things, and for efficient utilization of precisely-determined things as tools (once the direction such use is to take has been determined, through application of more fundamental narrative processes).
What did he mean by this?
Blake Clark
Pretty basic stuff really. We may live in world composed of matter, but we act as if we live in a world of "what matters".
Jayden Lopez
Modern languages center on nouns or 'things' -- ancient Greek from Homer to koine are verb-centric: movement, motion is the stress or emphasis. The latter for the former, the former for the latter. 'Meaning' today is too emphasized. Perhaps ironically science must deal with a style of speaking that really doesn't suit it. Mathematics the solitary way around these not so obvious restrictions.
Lucas Carter
The human experience of the world and the scientific description of the world are both valid perspectives of the same thing and one does not rule out the other.
Nathan Thompson
Better when Wilfrid Sellars did it (manifest image vs scientific image of the world)
Zachary Lopez
Hahaha, good one user.
Camden Garcia
Riddle me this >I experience the scientific reality
Ian Lopez
Scientifically prove to me that the premeditated termination of another human being's life is wrong, right now.
Joseph Brown
Define wrong, right now.
Xavier Gomez
Semantics.
Austin Sanders
You can't say semantics to someones semantics when your post originally contained semantics. Its like saying "Retardation" to someone who replied to your retardation with retardation.
Dominic Cook
kek-a-lek..
Jordan Brown
This is just Being and Time lite
Levi Scott
It's just a colloquial description of the vorhandenheit / zuhandenheit distinction, read Being & Time, it's all laid out in there.
Charles Ward
This is true
Peterson has acknowledged that his archetypal representation of the world maps right onto Heidegger (which he didn't know until after he wrote the book).
That should tell us something important about the world.
Nolan Parker
>(which he didn't know until after he wrote the book).
lel, shows you how philosophically educated peterson is.
Carter Reyes
He's not really. I mean the guy is a damn psychologist. Give him a break.
Thomas Wilson
Then why does have to continue to shit on stuff that's way outside his reach ("postmodernism") etc.?
Hudson Allen
He sees it as the modern manifestation of the evil brother archetype, which is resentful towards being. He also sees it, or at least its adherents, as typical ideologues who simplify the world by ignoring elements of its archetypal structure.
Hudson Stewart
You probably could formulate a decent jungian critique of postmodernism (not that I would agree with it, but still) but he doesn't even know what he's arguing against, it's just ridiculous strawmen over all.
Carson Richardson
It's not that much of a strawman, but yes, it also is.
Peterson, like a lot of intellectuals, is always trying to cover a lot of territory and make bombastic claims. It's best to stick towards the center of his thought, or anyone else's.
