It would be interesting if you could talk about: what is a man? The intense focus on women in this context is very telling. Transmenn are of no interest to biological men, they represent no threat, no compeetition, no problem, whereas transwomen certainly represent a real problem to biological women. to me this is quite revealing in more ways than one. Men´s rights are not threatened, womens ´ rights are.
You speak often about the importance of speaking with parrhesia, speaking boldly and freely. Can you tell us the story of the first time you recall speaking with parrhesia, in your childhood or otherwise? Thank you!
In July you mentioned that you moved out of Portland. Facing the same decision I am interested in your thoughts that went into the decision. What was the tipping point? How far away is ‘safe’? Out of Multnomah county, out of Oregon? Urban, suburban, rural?
Peter. I had either an insight or a stroke of insanity recently. I live in Oregon, where most voters registered as "Non/Affiliated." (I added the forward/slash for humor/reference to Non/Applicable.) There are ten categories of voter registration in OR, and Nine (9) are associated with official political parties. The largest category (NonAffiliated) has no party affiliation, which makes sense - and doesn't. Does it? Doesn't it? (What's my question?)
Does it make ANY sense to create a Non/Affiliated Party? Is the idea so self-contradictory it should be erased from all records? I envision a platform that defines how a nonpartisan official would behave in office. For example, a N/A candidate would investigate all relevant and legitimate perspectives and evidence of a question or issue. Further, they would make all this "transparent" to the press and public. That is, with whom they discussed the topic, what evidence/ information they considered, and their reasoning for reaching their decisions.
More informed and better minds than mine could add more meat to this skeleton of a chance.
Thank you for your work, Peter and friends. Chuck Edson.
It has been while since I have asked a question. I still consume and share quite a bit of your work. Thank you and to all those around that put this content together.
Can you please take a quick moment and reflect, maybe speak to a fulfilling teaching experiences at UATX, or any other like school.
Not just the differences between that institution and the ideologically captured as you have described in the past. But a moment or circumstance at which you became aware of the stark contrast.
I have young people (late teens and early twenties) around me that would benefit from a well communicated, experienced based personal account.
Thank you and those involved for all you do. Myself and family have learned so much through your work.
Thank you, Peter and Gina for the AMA series! I have really enjoyed the recent guests on the “Conversations with Peter Boghossian” series and Reed’s operation of the menti meter as well. My question is:
Suppose that Darwin was mistaken, and it turned out to be true that a non-human intelligence was responsible for creating life on earth and a scientist is somehow able to discover this to be true or that it merits being treated as provisionally true. If the scientist changes his or her beliefs to correspond to this hypothetical reality, how would that affect his or her classification as a scientist and/or a religious person?
Context: I was thinking about the following two quotes from Dawkins and Coyne.
“One of the main reasons why people are religious is because they’re persuaded by the apparent design of living things, and that’s completely destroyed by Darwin.”
“Science has an atheistic philosophy behind it, that we do not believe that gods interfere in our experiments and our observations, and this is the philosophical underpinning of our epistemology.”
It inspired my question as I tried to think of how one could discover if Darwin was mistaken if one’s methodology for determining whether or not one’s beliefs correspond to reality has an atheistic philosophical underpinning to it.
It would be interesting if you could talk about: what is a man? The intense focus on women in this context is very telling. Transmenn are of no interest to biological men, they represent no threat, no compeetition, no problem, whereas transwomen certainly represent a real problem to biological women. to me this is quite revealing in more ways than one. Men´s rights are not threatened, womens ´ rights are.
Peter,
You speak often about the importance of speaking with parrhesia, speaking boldly and freely. Can you tell us the story of the first time you recall speaking with parrhesia, in your childhood or otherwise? Thank you!
Regards,
Mike Ochs
Can you share any wisdom about a good marriage?
In July you mentioned that you moved out of Portland. Facing the same decision I am interested in your thoughts that went into the decision. What was the tipping point? How far away is ‘safe’? Out of Multnomah county, out of Oregon? Urban, suburban, rural?
What is the biggest shift in your epistemological world view as a result of your work? What has been the most surprising conversation you have had?
Peter. I had either an insight or a stroke of insanity recently. I live in Oregon, where most voters registered as "Non/Affiliated." (I added the forward/slash for humor/reference to Non/Applicable.) There are ten categories of voter registration in OR, and Nine (9) are associated with official political parties. The largest category (NonAffiliated) has no party affiliation, which makes sense - and doesn't. Does it? Doesn't it? (What's my question?)
Does it make ANY sense to create a Non/Affiliated Party? Is the idea so self-contradictory it should be erased from all records? I envision a platform that defines how a nonpartisan official would behave in office. For example, a N/A candidate would investigate all relevant and legitimate perspectives and evidence of a question or issue. Further, they would make all this "transparent" to the press and public. That is, with whom they discussed the topic, what evidence/ information they considered, and their reasoning for reaching their decisions.
More informed and better minds than mine could add more meat to this skeleton of a chance.
Thank you for your work, Peter and friends. Chuck Edson.
Hi,
It has been while since I have asked a question. I still consume and share quite a bit of your work. Thank you and to all those around that put this content together.
Can you please take a quick moment and reflect, maybe speak to a fulfilling teaching experiences at UATX, or any other like school.
Not just the differences between that institution and the ideologically captured as you have described in the past. But a moment or circumstance at which you became aware of the stark contrast.
I have young people (late teens and early twenties) around me that would benefit from a well communicated, experienced based personal account.
Thank you and those involved for all you do. Myself and family have learned so much through your work.
Thank you, Peter and Gina for the AMA series! I have really enjoyed the recent guests on the “Conversations with Peter Boghossian” series and Reed’s operation of the menti meter as well. My question is:
Suppose that Darwin was mistaken, and it turned out to be true that a non-human intelligence was responsible for creating life on earth and a scientist is somehow able to discover this to be true or that it merits being treated as provisionally true. If the scientist changes his or her beliefs to correspond to this hypothetical reality, how would that affect his or her classification as a scientist and/or a religious person?
Context: I was thinking about the following two quotes from Dawkins and Coyne.
“One of the main reasons why people are religious is because they’re persuaded by the apparent design of living things, and that’s completely destroyed by Darwin.”
- Richard Dawkins https://youtu.be/R9uhE4CT2xM?t=17
“Science has an atheistic philosophy behind it, that we do not believe that gods interfere in our experiments and our observations, and this is the philosophical underpinning of our epistemology.”
- Jerry Coyne https://youtu.be/JkFxy0ZqAO8?t=2348
It inspired my question as I tried to think of how one could discover if Darwin was mistaken if one’s methodology for determining whether or not one’s beliefs correspond to reality has an atheistic philosophical underpinning to it.
"It inspired my question as I tried to think of how one could discover if Darwin was mistaken"
Mr H.
Often presenting questions and/or a premise outside of my comfort zone or knowledge base.
Thank you
D,T
I know its too late to ask a real a question but do you have a P.O. Box?(I'd like to send a t shirt.)
Which podcasts do you listen to? Who's substacks do you read?