Dr. Stephen Hicks

And seeing that as, oh, well, if the human being has certain automated reflexes in place, that means we have to go down the road of subjectivity, that we're not really responding to reality and so forth. Or if we say we have emotions, which we do have emotions, and I think emotions are positive.

And seeing that as, oh, well, if the human being has certain automated reflexes in place, that means we have to go down the road of subjectivity, that we're not really responding to reality and so forth. Or if we say we have emotions, which we do have emotions, and I think emotions are positive.

They certainly have an important role in our evaluative structure, figuring into our overall understanding of the meaning of life. And we also know that sometimes we can use our emotions the wrong way, let them use us instead of using them.

They certainly have an important role in our evaluative structure, figuring into our overall understanding of the meaning of life. And we also know that sometimes we can use our emotions the wrong way, let them use us instead of using them.

They certainly have an important role in our evaluative structure, figuring into our overall understanding of the meaning of life. And we also know that sometimes we can use our emotions the wrong way, let them use us instead of using them.

So emotions come with pitfalls, but rather than, as many early epistemologies have done, have said, well, we have emotions, and emotions are on the subject side of things. The enemy of reason. That's right. So they're irrational, and we turn something that is a very valuable tool in human psychology into the enemy of human psychology.

So emotions come with pitfalls, but rather than, as many early epistemologies have done, have said, well, we have emotions, and emotions are on the subject side of things. The enemy of reason. That's right. So they're irrational, and we turn something that is a very valuable tool in human psychology into the enemy of human psychology.

So emotions come with pitfalls, but rather than, as many early epistemologies have done, have said, well, we have emotions, and emotions are on the subject side of things. The enemy of reason. That's right. So they're irrational, and we turn something that is a very valuable tool in human psychology into the enemy of human psychology.

So this is memes in the Jordan, sorry, in the Dawkins sense. Yeah, yeah.

So this is memes in the Jordan, sorry, in the Dawkins sense. Yeah, yeah.

So this is memes in the Jordan, sorry, in the Dawkins sense. Yeah, yeah.

That's extraordinarily rich, everything that you're laying out there. Let me just start with one thread to pull out. I do not like the language that says we see reality through a narrative. I understand the attraction of it.

That's extraordinarily rich, everything that you're laying out there. Let me just start with one thread to pull out. I do not like the language that says we see reality through a narrative. I understand the attraction of it.

That's extraordinarily rich, everything that you're laying out there. Let me just start with one thread to pull out. I do not like the language that says we see reality through a narrative. I understand the attraction of it.

No, no, no. If we just start with that formulation. I think that is... I think that's a dangerous formulation. I do think the postmoderns are on board with that. But notice what it says. It says there's a we, there's a me, and then there's a narrative, and then there's reality out there. And that I have to go through this narrative to get to reality. Like a screen. That's right.

No, no, no. If we just start with that formulation. I think that is... I think that's a dangerous formulation. I do think the postmoderns are on board with that. But notice what it says. It says there's a we, there's a me, and then there's a narrative, and then there's reality out there. And that I have to go through this narrative to get to reality. Like a screen. That's right.

No, no, no. If we just start with that formulation. I think that is... I think that's a dangerous formulation. I do think the postmoderns are on board with that. But notice what it says. It says there's a we, there's a me, and then there's a narrative, and then there's reality out there. And that I have to go through this narrative to get to reality. Like a screen. That's right.

And it might have some chinks in it. It might be opaque. But also, what this narrative is, it's got a huge amount of stuff built into it. All kinds of background expectations and theories and slippery terms and so forth. What I would say is, to use this language, is that narratives are things that we use to see reality. If... the narrative is true. So sometimes narratives get reality right.

And it might have some chinks in it. It might be opaque. But also, what this narrative is, it's got a huge amount of stuff built into it. All kinds of background expectations and theories and slippery terms and so forth. What I would say is, to use this language, is that narratives are things that we use to see reality. If... the narrative is true. So sometimes narratives get reality right.

And it might have some chinks in it. It might be opaque. But also, what this narrative is, it's got a huge amount of stuff built into it. All kinds of background expectations and theories and slippery terms and so forth. What I would say is, to use this language, is that narratives are things that we use to see reality. If... the narrative is true. So sometimes narratives get reality right.