Jump to content

Can’t vs Mustn’t: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 91: Line 91:
In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
|timestamp=12:51 AM · Sep 13, 2024
|timestamp=12:51 AM · Sep 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:
The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''
In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
|timestamp=12:51 AM · Sep 13, 2024
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:
The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''
In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
|timestamp=12:51 AM · Sep 13, 2024
}}
}}
}}