JP vs. SH

bamp

>>2269227
>expecting two philosophers to set aside their axiomatic presuppositions for anything.
Sam Harris is a fag anyway. "Jordan....Jordan...please agree with me WHY AREN'T YOU AGREEING WITH ME REEEEEE."
It wasn't much of a debate. Peterson isn't a great orator unfortunately.

>>2269227
Link please

Harris sperging out so bad over semantics and epistemology, I was so dissappointed. Jordan took it about as well I expected, I think he went in expecting a conversation and got a debate

>>2269227
Jordan Peterson tried repeatedly to claim that only useful knowledge is true, and that all "bad" knowledge isn't true. If he was allowed to continue, he would use this to claim the existence of God, as he has in the past, since God has been useful to us, thus must be true.

American pragmatism is bad, regardless of Peterson throwing a Darwin coat on it to make it more European and scientific sounding.

>>2270576
>Harris sperging out so bad over semantics and epistemology

The definition of truth is not semantics. It is the one stone that Peterson's reverse pyramid is built on.
Can't expect a conversation to go well when the very first words uttered are a huge gigantic claim that unfalsifiable and unprovable.

>>2270603
>It's bad because....

>>2270606
>definition
No one is arguing that it isn't isn't a fact, his idea of truth is that which benefits man. Truth is related to practical functionality and having science based around this truth wouldn't lead to all out energy being put in making porn more realistic.

>>2269227
LINK DAMNIT

File: ensam_ahmad3_feat-300x300.jpg (23KB, 300x300px)

23KB, 300x300px

So if we have a murder case and the judge would judge according to this pragmatic truth that Peterson likes, the murderer would go free if it was more useful that way. The truth of him being a murderer is less important if he is a brilliant scientist or something. Or did I misunderstand?

>>2270722
>Or did I misunderstand?
You misunderstood only slightly. It matters whatever the murderer used a supermeme, the archetype, which increases his fitness in the hierarchical power struggle, which accordingly gives him access to the best of females.

Anyway, I'm giving Peterson way more attention that he deserves to be honest. I think he is genuine in wanting meaning beyond facts, but I don't think the way he creates meaning works.

>simplistic abstraction
>simplistic abstraction
>simplistic abstraction

Jesus, Harris get a fucking clue

>>2270622
Impractical truth is still truth. Argue this wrong.
Protip: You can't.

>>2270722
>>2270744
Peterson would easily snake away saying that a murderer can't be a genius. If he was a genius, he wouldn't murder. By murdering, he is a crazy person by default, because you have to be crazy to kill a man. Thus its is practical to keep this crazy retard away from decent folk.

He has done this a few times with different examples, and is very experienced in rationalizing.

>>2270751
>my philosophy is so fucking shit that a third grader could argue it wrong using a simple example
Bad philosophy.

>>2270768
>Peterson would easily snake away saying that a murderer can't be a genius.

I don't think he would make that exact argument. He has stated in the past very intelligent people are able to do horrible things when they are without a moral framework. Think communist russia.

>>2270744
No, he is trying to justify his faith somehow. Sadly he is the religious person that does it best.

I wonder what kind of faith would come out of his evolution-archetypes. It can't be anything like Christianity. More like Kekism desu

>>2270768
>Peterson would easily snake away saying that a murderer can't be a genius.
Yeah. I don't get why he even comes up with those
>Science is untrue because they made atombombs
Or whatever. I can't see he need that part. Maybe he need it to build up some reasoning I haven't heard.

>>2270805
>Think communist russia.
I really like that he bashes Communism. It need more bashing

>>2270768
Peterson is a genius and his views on religion and ideology are on - point, but the man overdosed on redpills and i fear he's close to losing his mind.

He definitely sees what is happening in the future in regards to the political totalitarianism and it terrifies him so. He believes that rationality will be the destruction of the human race so he's trying to transcend rationality. That is why it doesn't make sense and falls apart when looked at rationally. In a sense he's right.

>>2270768

>Bad philosophy

No, it's beyond middle school philosophy

>>2270808
>I wonder what kind of faith would come out of his evolution-archetypes. It can't be anything like Christianity. More like Kekism desu

Why not? Man creates a hierarchy to order himself and that was religion. Religion also served the purpose of bringing order to a chaotic world. Does it really matter how factual is the religion is as long as it was true enough to bring enough order for man to survive. Christianity did just that, along with many others.

That appears to be part of what he was trying to argue.

>>2270805
Oh, of course the Gulag Archipelago will be mentioned. It always is.

>>2270829
Yet it falls victim to middle school arguments, its so weak.

>>2270805
>>2270805
>very intelligent people
>communist russia

>>2270854
>people who disagree with me are all stupid

A very stupid notion.

>>2270850
The people who buy into middle school arguments are the victims, not the philosophy they are aimed against.

>>2270850

No it doesn't, you only think it does

>>2270854
>>2270860
>Russia
>Intelligent
Perfectly good assumption

>>2270836
Well, he could argue that Christianity is good and even true, in an usefulness way.

The problem is that on his road to building up his evolution-archetype-theory he also treat religion and Christianity so rough that a lot becomes in question.

Jesus is just a guy that is skilled at hierarchy stuff, and not son of god for example. Same with all the other stories. They are just stuff that stood out in hte hierarchy play and became memes and then archetypes. They are just like really good stories, and not what: Actually Happened.

Sure many stories are just stories for Christians too, but Jesus being gods son and such can't be treated like this. Like it is just a good story that in hindsight becomes true because they are useful.

But I might missed something. And I am sure he will try to fix this.

>>2270871
I can't even tell whos side you are taking, your post is too ambiguous.
At any rate, both the USSR and Imperial Russia gave birth to and educated plenty of scientists and specialists.

>>2270878
Stop worshiping Jung the way muslims worship Allah.

>>2270883
I don't. I am talking about what Peterson does.

>>2270886
Well then Peterson should stop worshiping Jung the way /his/ worships Peterson.

>>2270878
>They are just like really good stories, and not what: Actually Happened.

I would argue that it does not matter if he was actually the son of god or not. The story works and therefore its true, accept it and more importantly don't discard it on a whim. Well that was what I took away.

>>2270895
The story only "works" if Jesus actually atoned for humanity's sins on the cross and rose from the dead. Paul understood this which is why he wrote:

>And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

>>2270616
It isn't true?

>>2270910
Why would it be useless? You don't actually need to be resurrected and have an afterlife for the benefits of the practice of faith to be felt. It is true enough, the faith increase the chances of survival of its members.

>>2270933
Without an afterlife the chances of survival for the members is 0.

>>2270961
yes, survival for the individual drops to zero, but the survival for the group increases

>>2270895
Well, I guess it is possible that Jesus was the son of god and that all the stuff really happened. People can believe that. But then it is kinda odd that Peterson is arguing that "its just good stories". When they actually happened.

He is trying to prove religion and not Christianity per se. But is goal is probably to prove Christianity for himself. And I know he can argue that he is part of this christian tradition and it is therefor natural for him.

But he is proving all religion this way. Buddhism is true in east and so on. That lend itself toward some kind of "all religion is aspects of the same religion and the same god".

It is of course not anything wrong with that, but it isn't exactly standard Christianity.

>>2270975
In the short term perhaps but over a long enough period even the group will die if it is not based on truth.

>>2270895
>The story works and therefore its true

So it doesn't matter if a story is true, as long as you like it, it becomes true?

>>2271015
There is a good ted talk that covers a slightly related topic. Apparently evolution does not select for us to conceive of the world in a way that is complete, it is an abstraction. The greater the abstraction the greater the fitness of the animal.
That would suggest the religion only has to be true enough to guarantee survival, which Is what I think Peterson way trying to argue.
If I understand that properly that is the pragmatic Darwinian approach, everything is just true enough. There is no objective Newtonian truth for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

>>2271052
The point I am making is that false religions cannot guarantee survival because death is inevitable and only a true religion can offer life after death.

I'm not surprised to see a TED talk denying the existence of objective truth.

Here's TED talk that's actually worth watching: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cflCyyEA2I

>>2271101

P O P P H I L O S O P H Y

>>2270895
If Jesus is not the Son of God, and the Son of Man, mankind is condemned to a lake of fire forever. All of us.

Because of Jesus, some of us found an escape.

>>2271101
>tripfag calling other people plebs

loving
every
laugh

>>2271111
You don't even consider that the possibility of the christian god and reality being false, even while considering Jesus being a false messiah. Amazing.

>>2270998
Moving reality into the world of the mythos is a common tactic by the godless. They'll say things like Osiris rose from the dead.

Well, Osiris was not a real human being who rose from the dead. Jesus was.

>>2271125

I don't even know what you mean by "reality is false".

I think it is true we have no true concept of reality, but saying "reality is false" seems meaningless to me.

Saying Jesus is a false messiah because he did not do the things he would have done had he been accepted as the Messiah back then is also rather foolish, as he is still alive, still the Messiah, and will still do everything he said he would.

>>2271131
>I don't even know what you mean by "reality is false".

The definition of reality isn't "what the bible says".

>>2271144
It's exactly what the bible says it is.

We just cannot understand the bible in that way.

Take everything you think contradicts the bible and toss it in the garbage.

>>2271126
Are you saying that Peterson is "godless"? He said he is deeply religious, and I see no reason to mistrust him there. He put a lot of effort into this defense of religion.

File: tips.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>2271147
I won't argue further, any neutral reader will have seen enough to make his conclusion in your post.

>>2271153

Religion comes from "religio" and means "a system of bondage."

I'm not interested in people who are deeply committed to their personal systems of bondage. An islamic suicide bomber could be said to be very devoted and very religious, yet he remains a godless murderer.

And yes, anyone who attempts to take Jesus out of the real world and put him into Storybookland is godless, as Jesus is God.

>>2271111
Look at this passage from paradise lost
>A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
>The mind is its own place, and in it self
>Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]
>What matter where, if I be still the same,
>And what I should be, all but less then he
>Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
>We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
>Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]
>Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
>Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.

While not the bible I think it illustrates the point. To me this describes an existential crises and the rejection of god. That was the mistake of the devil he attempted to live in a world without the divine a world of the rational. It was always doomed to failure.

The point is that god existences is true enough and that we need him as a society to function. In the great macro sense his existence is unimportant because he is real to us. When you reject him you will fall.

Its collected wisdom of humanity on how to live and therefore survive as a species. As always take what I say with a grain of salt I do not profess to be an expert on anything

>>2271162

They might also note you have absolutely no foundation to make the claim "The definition of reality isn't 'what the bible says'".

>>2271165
>>Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.

Fanfic from Dante. And rubbish.

Nobody rules in hell, and nobody serves in heaven.

>>2271165

The mistake of the devil was his desire to be worshiped as God. He wasn't meant to live on earth any more than the rest of the angels who did not fall from grace live on the world. They have their own thing going.

>>2271165
>collected wisdom of humanity

This is foolishness to God, and rightly so.

How have you not noticed that every generation proves the preceding generation was full of fools?

>>2271192
The definition of "reality" is in the dictionary, among other definitions for words.
It indeed does not claim that reality means "what the bible says",

Further, the concept of reality is older than the bible.

>>2270920
Why?

File: adversity and existence are one and the same.png (140KB, 591x574px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 591x574px

>yet another thread conquered by marauding christfags

When will their invasions be stopped?
When will the mods come down from the sky to save us?

>>2271210

So you believe human beings are in a position to define reality, and you're going with the dictionary definition.

>>2271237
You also believe humans can define reality, as you claim it is defined by a collection of stories written by humans.

>>2271196
I think you are getting lost in trying to intemperate it as literal, its a metaphor. In this context you can see the devil as any man who is suffering from a loss of faith. It is a man who has placed the material over the divine and is therefore the architect of his own destruction.

Peterson would argue that hell is very much real, it is a metaphysical place, when you find your world collapse to chaos and you are at your lowest you are in hell. You may still be physically on earth but your mind is in hell. The same can be applied to the devil from Dante. He has rejected the divine and attempt to make his own heaven, but he will fall.

When people reject the spiritual and attempt to derive all their meaning from the material they have, in a sense, damned themselves to hell and if allowed to continue may destroy all of humanity in the process.

God is true because it is how the species frames the world and helps us to survives, you can't really prove he is "true/factual" because that type of truth does not exist

>>2271164
>Religion comes from "religio" and means "a system of bondage."

Edgelord please.

>The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio

>>2270933

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then his sacrifice was not acceptable to God, and every man would have to pay the ultimate death penalty for his own sins.

We would all have to go to hell.

That's if Jesus did not raise from the dead.

Because Jesus did raise from the dead, we have hope.

>>2271241
You define the bible as stories written by humans, not me.

I do not agree with that definition, at all.

If I did, I would worship those humans who wrote the bible as gods.

>>2271242
I don't care how other people are wrong. Such a topic is endless and purposeless.

Your "Peterson" will find out hell is real enough if he continues to believe Jesus is just a good story.

>>2271251
Again you force me to lift my hands off the keyboard, this time I think I will also close the thread.
You are too far gone, and I am too tired to try to drag you back. Good night and good luck.

>>2271208
>How have you not noticed that every generation proves the preceding generation was full of fools?

I find every generation has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past while our technology continues to progress. We are living out the same cycles while we put more of the species in danger.

Our ancestors were not fools and many of them have civilizations that will last longer then ours. We have failed to learn from their mistakes, if anything we are the fools

>>2271246
No, it means to tie, to fasten, to bind to God. A system of bondage, designed by men to reach up to God.

All religions fail, because all religions are manmade systems of bondage to unite with God; they are literally what satan told Eve: Take the knowledge of good and evil and thus be like God.

Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but to free men from all things, including religion.

If you cannot see that the vast majority use of "religion" is as a tool for societal bonding and binding, you're not looking very deep into the matter.

>>2271257
One of us is lost, for sure.

>>2271262
You have not noticed any such thing.

You have assumed it, and the assumption is false.

>>2271278
I'll take Cicero's etymology over some anon on 4chan but that's just me.

I do however agree that Jesus came to set the captives free.

>>2270603
>Jordan Peterson tried repeatedly to claim that only useful knowledge is true, and that all "bad" knowledge isn't true.

This. Peterson is a kook, they should have skipped the philosophy and gotten straight to the issues.

>>2271330
Peter is struggling between myth implies fact and fact implies myth, or just looking at the intersection of that reasoning.

{ It's depending on context but we can't make a context free example or reason about it if we had one because the context would be at least the conception and discussion}

While Sam is fact is fact and myth is myth

>Myth being "This happened"
>fact being "This happens again and again following scientific testing And or Logic/maths stuff like flipping a coin is 50%"

>>2271242
>Peterson would argue that hell is very much real, it is a metaphysical place, when you find your world collapse to chaos and you are at your lowest you are in hell. You may still be physically on earth but your mind is in hell.

This is where Peterson ends up (not in hell, but in these kind of truths) when he makes his evolution-archetype theories. This is not the Christianity we are used to,

I am not saying this is wrong. I am just very curious about what kind of different religion he will end up with if he follow his logic all the way.

It seems to be something that don't regard the bible as true in historical accuracy kind of way, but instead the metastories brings us a new religion that need a new bible. A bible that translate the stories into laws and ethics. What does it mean to live as ST George and fight the dragon? Does it mean that bravery is a Virtue? Or that our life should be a struggle for what we believe in?

It would be a whole new religion. And it fascinates me.

>>2272136
You don't need to produce a new bible. A person just has to understand that their exists a meta-truth behind the story and interpret it as such. I imagine plenty of groups have understood their religion as a metaphor, not everyone reads things literally.

>What does it mean to live as ST George and fight the dragon? Does it mean that bravery is a Virtue? Or that our life should be a struggle for what we believe in?
I imagine you would have to read that story like a psychoanalyst would a dream. You would piece out those archetypal truths and then apply them to your own life

Peterson is fucking unbearable

Hate how he's popping up everywhere. A complete hack.

>>2272229
In an era where Trump is elected president and it looks like the west is spiraling out of control as the left and right radicalize each other are you really that surprised?

There is something very wrong with our culture at the moment, even if Peterson is wrong, you can't deny the problem exists.

>>2272225
Well you don't *have to* but it will result in a new interpretation of the texts, and some people could use some help with that.

It would be very different from the Christianity we have today.

>>2270606
>huge gigantic claim that unfalsifiable and unprovable
That is literally every claim when arguing from different premises.
Go be a retard some where else, like Reddit or some other shitshow.
>>2270920
>It isn't true?
Prove it without presupposing the conclusion of truth's existence.
Can't do it huh?11!?!?!
>>2271214
>this kills the secularist
>>2270603
>Peterson is an American pragmatic
>Peterson uses Nietzsche and Darwin as the basis of his philosophy

Fucking low IQ moron.
/his/ was better when /pol/ leaked in, at least fringe views stimulate thought because they always play devil's advocate.
You fucking retards cant even grasp the basic paradox that Bertrand Russel despised and called people idiots for believing.

>>2270557
This is the only acceptable answer.
>>2269227
>But Jordan, some things are true even if we don't know they are
>Science teaches us about how the world is
This is the opposite of science, this is that nu-positivism where they take science and make it political.

Science does not tell us how the world is, not even fucking close.
It tells us how we can best describe the world, argue with this and you argue with Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg.
The 'New Atheists' are retards in a dying field (a field they themselves killed) looking for a get rich quick scheme and playing off of angsty cucks who didn't like their parents making them go to church on Sunday.
Previously, Science and Philosophy was one in the same, look at anything before now, hell, look at fucking Darwin.
>>2272229
t. angry xir

I just really fucking hate this board now.
Used to be about history and philosophy
now its just relative shitposting and LARPing Redditors looking decreasing our gross IQ.

>>2272229

Why don't you tell us why you stooge

>>2272283
thank you.

>>2272283
>That is literally every claim when arguing from different premises.
>Go be a retard some where else, like Reddit or some other shitshow.

>Prove it without presupposing the conclusion of truth's existence.

oh, a "can't know nuthin'"-ist.
how very quaint

>Science does not tell us how the world is, not even fucking close.
Split hairs all you want; science is all about what is predictable, not what is true. You can't know truths in our universe beyond certainty of your own thoughts; the only ideas worth arguing about for any practical purpose must be fundamentally scientific.

>>2270843

Because it was fucking important, noone in the west, other than top agencies, knew what the fuck soviet russia was up to. Russia was incredibly tight-lipped, in the same way North Korea is today. If you left the country and returned you were imprisoned almost by default, or executed if you gave away information.

>>2269227

yeah, sam harris was being a "muh semantics" sophistry shit eating faggot.

>>2272946
You're right. If your entire worldview hangs on a patently absurd claim and you bring it up, it should just be accepted and moved on. K.

>>2272913
>oh, a "can't know nuthin'"-ist.
>how very quaint
You can know things, you just can't rationally demonstrate it in any manner.
>the only ideas worth arguing about for any practical purpose must be fundamentally scientific
That's literally a statement which is contingent upon an argument that is fundamentally non-scientific.
Nice self refutation you've got there.
Science is a meme.
I've never been to a single lab where they were honest about there findings.
It's all for grants or some political agenda.
Gone are the days where the true scientists, philosophers, pursued truth.
"The modern scientist is someone who has studied a thousand trees but never seen a forest." -Albert Einstein

>>2272382
You looked at this post...
>>2272283
>Go be a retard some where else, like Reddit or some other shitshow.
>Can't do it huh?11!?!?!
>this kills the secularist
>Fucking low IQ moron.
>Science does not tell us how the world is, not even fucking close.
>t. angry xir
>I just really fucking hate this board now.
>Used to be about history and philosophy
>now its just relative shitposting and LARPing Redditors looking decreasing our gross IQ.
>/his/ was better when /pol/ leaked in, at least fringe views stimulate thought because they always play devil's advocate.

... and your reaction was to thank him?

File: 1485275894898[1].jpg (113KB, 900x299px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 900x299px

>>2273471
>Science is a meme.
>I've never been to a single lab where they were honest about there findings.
>It's all for grants or some political agenda.
>Gone are the days where the true scientists, philosophers, pursued truth.
>"The modern scientist is someone who has studied a thousand trees but never seen a forest." -Albert Einstein

>>2273833
Heh. I thought the green text was mockery but he actually wrote that.

I tried my hardest to follow what thte fuck was going on the debate between them. I couldn't do it. So damn confused.

>>2271376
>>Myth being "This happened"
>>fact being "This happens again and again following scientific testing And or Logic/maths stuff like flipping a coin is 50%"


That's not what myth is at all

>>2274718
I was going for the "This happened" as the description of a past happening.

If that's still not it, would you elaborate on why this is not what a myth is, or just what a myth is?

>>2270823
I'm only vaugley familiar with Peterson and his arguments but from what I've seen described here it's sounds as if he's attempting to fill the gaping hole left by a lack of meaningful religion, and in order to get around the lack of empirical evidecne argues that religions contain behavioral truth and whether or not they can be proven in a rational matter does not really matter and it's more about the meaning they provide. Please correct me If im misrepresenting him here.

>>2274837
They didn't come to that, it was that Peterson said that truth depends on everything.
abbreviated:
S: I give you a 100 digit number ending in 1, and say it's prime. This can be true or false whether I know it or not, but it's either true or false.
P: No, because far in the future that assumption can be fatal for all humans in a metaphysical sense.

>>2272291
Orwell loving scumbag

*Bump*

>>2269227
>modern day """""Philosophers"""""

>>2269227
After listening, it seems JP got pulled into the weeds over semantics
He really should have just used a different word for his 'Pragmatical truth'
I understand what he means, he was shooting for a higher truth, since a scientific truth can only be the level of accuracy between reality and concepts; therefore presuppositions that are assumed true may later be false.
Such as, in ancient times, it was believed that killing was a natural way to show your worth on the battlefield or slavery was just a natural order to social hierarchies. These 'truths' were later proven 'false' but how do we know that the 'truth' we have now isn't still false?
So JP was looking towards the development of our species in Darwinism. Humans for the vast majority of our history, have never cared about what is 'true' beyond what it is used for. If a hammer can be used to stir a pot of soup instead of hammering nails, it is thus a soup stirrer.
I don't know where he would have gone with this argument, but I believe he was trying to highlight the false notion that rational scientific truth is not 'true' until its proven false.

>>2274886
what's wrong with orwell? not saying disliking orwell means you believe 1984 is a good idea, but what do you take issue with?

>>2277248
He takes some Confucian views on politics, but forgets about the virtues that Confucius brings up to counter these problems.
Especially on twisting language to mislead people and corrupt culture, Confucius brings up Ren as a means to counter it.

And while Confucius himself suggests a dictatorship of a honest, virtuous man, who wants for nothing and thus has no reason to be corrupt, what Orwell talks about is that all power is corrupt, all politicians are scum, all rules and laws forced on people are deceit and immoral, and he more or less preaches for anarchism, except he was afraid to outright state it.

Also he was bad at making tea, as his horrible essay on the topic proves.

>>2277248
>>2277691
To be more precise with a concrete example, look at Politics and the English Language:

>(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
>(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
>(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
>(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
>(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
>(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

He never justifies these rules, he just states them. And if a government stated them, he would say you should not follow, in fact do the opposite of them. But because a private person stated them, they must be wisdom.
Thus the only way to enforce these rules, if we consider them worthwhile, is made invalid by the philosophy behind them, and they are therefore useless by their definition. If they spread, accepted and thus useful, they become false.

Further, these rules are very subjective. What does barbarous mean? A different thing for every person and every situation. What does a long word mean? When does a short word do the same as a long one? When is a long word needed? Why not use academic words? Why cut words, why hate poetry and expression?

He is an anarchist in regard to language, but is afraid to state it.

Love To have threads derailed by dogmatic idiots who are enlightened enough to prefer the virtue of obstinacy to the sin of humility exactly as their savior taught.

>>2277248
he was a massive apologist for imperialism, a boring overrated writer and a snob

>>2272283
THANKS FOR GIVING YOUR INPUT INTO THE THREAD MATE. I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO GIVE YOUR OPINION ON EVERY POST YOU ANNOYING FUCKING CUNT

>>2278542

Brilliant

>>2278542
And the Peterson version:
>I am only hot if you give birth to my children, because if you don't thats a dead end; we produce nothing, and thus I must not have been hot, also six millions died in the gulags.

File: Doyouhaveanevennumberofhairs.jpg (103KB, 956x709px)

103KB, 956x709px

>>2278600
He's pretty good at creating autistic thought experiments on the fly too.

The lecture called:
>2017 Maps of Meaning: Lecture 01: Context and Background
>https://youtu.be/I8Xc2_FtpHI
... which was uploaded Jan 16, 2017 explains what Peterson would've talked about, had Harris allowed him his definition of truth, if anyone cares.
But it is very long and slow going, because Cold War and gulags and a patient of mine once had a dog...

>>2278609
This is how you get a girl to say "impregnate me."

>>2278678
And then when you plant your seed in her soil you scream Dostoyevskyyyyyy and you look up to the ceiling.

File: 1447994239368.jpg (23KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 380x380px

>>2278657
>because Cold War and gulags and a patient of mine once had a dog...

File: 1482889321687.png (1MB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1080px

>ywn such a peculiar personality that people make you into a meme on a Chinese tapestry-making forum

>>2277703
What does any of this have to do with anarchism? Unless you don't mean the political ideology...

>>2278678
I got pregnant just by reading it.

Is Jordan Peterson that Canadian dude that /pol/ was recently obsessed with due to some PC scandal or some shit?

>>2279554
Yes. But he seem to be the brightest christfag ever. Might be because of lack of competition.

>>2279558
>christfag

He isn't christian. He is preaching christian ethics, not christian laws.
If anything, he will insist christianity didn't invent much, just repeated older stories.

They were talking past each other. I gave up listening at about 1h30 because they went in circles.

I don't think Jordan explained his viewpoint well enough. As far as I can tell it's basic pragmatism plus christian morals, but he didn't really say how those fit together exactly. Harris on the other hand thinks the idea of Kantian noumenon is self-evident and kept asking Peterson to accept it, when Peterson obviously doesn't.

They especially got bogged down on whether scientific truths describe noumena or if they're "good enough" truths which can't exist outside the darwinian framework of thought. Really, they should have agreed to explain to the listeners why they disagreed, and moved on.

>>2272136
Or it means St. George killed a dinosaur.

>>2279558
>People who choose heaven over hell are dumb.

That's you. That's you right now.

>>2270764
>Argue this wrong.
This wrong because is.

>Protip: You can't.
Did.

>>2271126
>Moving reality into the world of the mythos is a common tactic by the godless.
Maximum irony.

>>2271220
We must pray for a Messiah to overthrow these principalities and powers and lead us to the promised land.

>>2272136
>It seems to be something that don't regard the bible as true in historical accuracy kind of way, but instead the metastories brings us a new religion that need a new bible. A bible that translate the stories into laws and ethics.
I mean...that's basically the Catechism, bro.

>>2280520
Being gullible enough to get tricked into believing pure nonsense because someone told you, then being resentful of everyone else in the world for not being as gullible as you, is also pretty stupid.

>>2272283
You are right on everything, and the triggered replies lacking in arguments that you received a proof of that

>>2277802
*tips*

File: CatMan.jpg (86KB, 550x825px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 550x825px

>>2270576
>I think he went in expecting a conversation and got a debate
This. Jordan has talked about how the easiest way to win a debate is to make the opponent into an idiot so he tries to refrain from that and instead learn something new from the conversation.

>>2280549
A Jungian psychoanalytic catechism. And that would be something new.

>>2280532
>am right because am :D

Fuck off, retard.

>>2280520
People who think there is a hell, and a heaven, are dumb.

File: 1485489121998.jpg (2MB, 3000x4834px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x4834px

>>2278525
>writes Burmese Days
>apologist for imperialism