So what happed to the Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris podcast?

>>8992086
It will be uploaded in a few weeks according to Peterson.
Who do you think won? My money is on Peterson.

>>8992094
Looking at his tweets it seems neither of them prolly wanted to distantiate themselves from their own set of believes, so im thinking neither of them won

He's too embarrassed to upload it because Harris blew him the fuck out

>>8992100
Why doesn't Harris upload it then? Wasn't it on his podcast?

>>8992119
Harris the Mannis is too much of a nice guy to release it, he pities the pathetic old man who dared to challenge him

>>8992094

I think Peterson put forward several metaphysical arguments that went beyond the sensibilities of the emotionless logicbot Harris, and the rest of the 2 hours is them pretty much talking past each other.

He said the first part of two will be out next week. Harris probably posts podcasts on a schedule.

File: 1430088815865.jpg (18KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 160x160px

>>8992152
>tfw Peterson opens up with the Pinocchio argument and Harris spends the rest of the podcast trying to console him while Peterson desperately tries to sort himself out

>>8992086
>vs
>>8992094
>won

Sammie just tries to have conversations with people.

>>8992273

You know it's just a thinly veiled dick measuring contest as well as we do.

File: bin al aflik.jpg (15KB, 618x340px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 618x340px

>>8992279
His podcasts generally aren't.

I don't agree with him on plenty of things but Harris does seem sincerely interested in constructive conversation and has always tried to do so.

Of course he can't stop everyone from chimping out all the time.

I cant wait to see drink his sweet sweet duck tears

>>8992086
This isn't a /lit/ topic. Get lost.

>>8992282
pls back to your user upvoted neo-liberal """thinktank""", you're too retarded to waste bandwidth on Hiroshimoot's poor overworked servers

http://www.strangenotions.com/the-most-famous-debate-on-the-existence-of-god/

>>8992282
Sad! when you're so close to the nominalist project that you can't even see it.

Peterson is nothing but an embarrassment. Can't believe people here are genuinely interested in this guy.

>>8994979
His lectures are fantastic and his debate against Bill C-16 is strong. You and the people you likely support are the ones who come off 'genuinely' embarrassing.

>>8994979
Butt blasted uoft tranny detected

>>8992086
>pic
What did he mean by this?

>>8995033
He is referring to autists who identify as dragon-kin. If you respect and acknowledge their type of bullshit, you would be detroyed.

>>8995047
This sounds false. pls tell me what he really meant.

Why are you guys so interested in this obscure and extremely specific aspect of Canadian politics?

>>8992086

I like to think that Sam Harris was BTFO.

He takes himself far too seriously now, like some sort of intellectual frontiersman.

He needs taken down a peg.

>>8995066
That's what he meant. Dragons aren't real so they can't eat you, but once you acknowledge them as real then they get the power to eat you.

>>8995076
>once you acknowledge them as real then they get the power to eat you.
but they don't?

>>8995076
Does that mean he also believes we can eat cowkin?

File: 1410704328394.png (68KB, 252x245px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 252x245px

Its a debate, retards. Nobody "lose" here.

>>8995085
Metaphorically speaking. Having your culture and identity detroyed by left wing cultural marxist loser kids is a bit like getting eaten.

>>8995103
Does this sound less stupid in context?

>>8995120
How is it stupid? You were the guy that needed 2 posts to understand it.

>your culture

You mean traditionalism. Culture is memetic

>>8995125
>if you take seriously someone who thinks he's a dragon then your IDENTITY AND CULTURE ARE DESTROYED
How is it not stupid? That's not to say otherkin BS is valid, but believing that some people are mentally dragons or some shit probably isn't going to ruin your life.

>>8995153
>narcissism, delusion, and degredation of culture and identity won't lead to the destruction of your society

>>8995162
Degenerates have always existed. Society has still persevered. What makes gender pronouns and otherkins the definitive battle? Genocides and world wars weren't enough?

>>8995162
>narcissism
stop posting here

>>8995196
Degenerates were not accepted, let alone encouraged

File: degeneracy3.jpg (48KB, 450x356px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x356px

>>8995196
>Degenerates have always existed. Society has still persevered.

I mean, we haven't literally gone extinct but that's an interesting definition of persevere.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-19 at 16.58.12.png (140KB, 1034x550px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1034x550px

I bet you Jordan just went above and beyond what Sam could handle.

Hopefully it'll never get uploaded

>>8995243
>KIDS THESE DAYS ARE DRESSING IN A WAY I DON'T APPROVE OF, THAT MEANS SOCIETY IS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE
t. every generation.

>>8995959
Pick up a history book sometime.

>>8995982
Right back atcha, famalam. Grumbling about the degeneration of the youth is a tradition that goes back centuries, the only difference is you're probably way too young to be doing it.

>>8996009
I think you misunderstood, I'm not insulting you. I'm making a friendly suggestion. Read some history.

>>8996012
k

>>8995120
This isn't by any means what he actually meant by that quote. Peterson isn't a /pol/fag no matter how hard people on both sides try and meme him into an alt-right icon.

His quote is complaining about the cultural perception of Jung, following his "new-age-ification" by Joseph Campbell.

What he means is that dragons in archetypal "slaying the dragon" stories represent threats to either the individual or the community which when vanquished allows the hero to retrieve some kind of reward which the dragon has been guarding. Often this is a mate or wealth, but it can be understood as literally anything that you desire/need and have some kind of obstacle blocking you from reaching. It's an archetypal narrative.

Peterson's point is that new-age types always emphasise that you should face the "dragon", (another similar idea though slightly different is that of "facing your demons"), but never recognise that there is any danger in doing this. The context he says it in is one that you can interpret it many ways, since it's just an offhand comment. But the most valuable interpretation and the most relevant to people on this board might be that you should be careful when facing up to the "dragon" of, say, pervasive cultural nihilism following the destruction of traditional values (and I'm not talking about "whiteness" or any /pol/ shit, I mean religious explanations, moral universalism etc.), and that without real preparation and understanding of the situation you risk being consumed by the dragon, which Peterson would probably explain as being immersed in chaos and the loss of any sense of meaning in the world.

Saying it has anything to do with Dragonkin is retarded. They are a symbol of a system of oppressive order, which, while underpinned by a system of all-consuming chaos (the loss of concrete identity and the flight into fantasy), is probably better expressed archetypally by a story about, say, a mad king, if you want to capture the paradoxical mixing of a system of chaos perpetuating itself through a envoy of order.

Not a Jung expert by any means so anyone who knows more than me should feel free to contradict me on this last point about archetypes.

>>8994494
>>8994954
Joke's on you I'm a right wing nationalist.

>>8995294
I listed to him on the Rogan podcast, he's a hysterical sophist.

>>8996202
This. I'm not denying that his thoughts re identity politics are refreshing, and incisive, or that his lectures are fairly acerbic but the ontological and moral axioms he's willing to build off of are disappointing.
>inb4 read Keirk.

>>8996111
if you can't make your point in 250 words, don't make it.

Pretty good rule to live by, and practice, so that other's don't throw a TLDR at you.

>>8996202
The guy who asserts that all meaning is absolute and that there are universal truths is a sophist? Kek, ok bub

>>8992099
lol just how the chomsky harris-debate was a """""""tie""""""" right?

>>8996403
you never read a book did you

>>8996444
a story is pretty different from an online post, or opinion. dumbfuck.

>>8996451
It's also pretty good advice to always attempt to tell any book or story with as few words as possible.

>>8996202

I want to disagree but when I listened to his take on religion on JRE it seemed that his presuppositions were all flowery, nebulous abstractions from which he built more sophistic abstractions.

The basic idea seems to be that our most perfect virtues are manifested in our religious icons and without these icons to follow and answer our questions we will succumb to nihilism as well as lose our cohesion.

As a hardline Durkheimian I'm inclined to agree, but the way he speaks sometimes makes you think "this guy is bordering on complete bullshit."

>>8996111

>I'm not talking about "whiteness" or any /pol/ shit, I mean religious explanations, moral universalism etc.)

Sounds like you're chained to an ideological principle, one you've been inculcated with since you were very young, like most Westerners, and refuse to acknowledge race as an element of identity and civilization

>Peterson's point is that new-age types always emphasise that you should face the "dragon", but never recognise that there is any danger in doing this.

I'm partial to this Nietzsche quote, "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

BGE was written after his seminal works and the insanity had been setting in. A bit prior to the abyss quote he wrote, "all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad."

To my mind, this is a tacit admission of, even if inadvertently, the failure of post-Abrahamic philosophy, especially his own, to restore the purpose and impetus in Western civilization more broadly. Nihilism can simply not be defeated, and instead of killing God so merely a few ubermensch can slay the dragon, we ought to restore God as the rightful gatekeeper of the West.

>there are people who unironically consider both of these retards intellectuals
>they will listen to their "debate"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8996431
>religion is true but not like other things are true

Trying to revive God with semantics, sophistry in action.

>>8995959
>actually defending this
People like you are the reason pedo rights will be a thing. Flash some propoganda in your face and you can accept anything, no matter how vile. This kid is BEING PROVOCATIVE AND GAY WHEN HE HASNT EVEN GONE THROUGH PUBERTY. HES A FUCKING CHILD. DO YOU THINK THIS IS OK?

>>8996462
His view on religion is kind of like Dan Dannett's view on free will. They realise it's bullshit but try all kind of manoeuvres to keep the idea around as a noble lie to keep the plebs in check. They believe they're being dishonest for a good cause. Basically SJWs in that regard.

>>8996562
This. Harris is a glorified shitposter who got his shit kicked in when he thought he could "debate" Chomsky.

>>8995196

Well, yes and no. Degeneracy has indeed always existed, but it is in the last stages of an empire before its collapse that it is normalized and celebrated, until it takes over and becomes the norm.

>>8996552

>Sounds like you're chained to an ideological principle, one you've been inculcated with since you were very young, like most Westerners, and refuse to acknowledge race as an element of identity and civilization
You're right to some extent that I'm reticent to give my whiteness too much emphasis as a facet of my identity, and there are culturally programmed reasons for that squeamishness. But mostly, it's not so much that I'm refusing to acknowledge it as that I'm downplaying it in order that the anon doesn't get the wrong impression of what I, and Peterson, mean by "traditional values", which is a little more developed and nuanced than what a meme-nationalist thinks "traditional values" means. I just didn't want him to get the wrong idea and be turned away from him.

And also I do think that whiteness is secondary in comparison to what should form the primary part of our traditional identity, which is the achievements of western civilization, including Western Asia (and maybe Russia but that's a big maybe, as much as I'd like to include them so I could feel cultural pride about Tolstoy and Dosto). These are the cultures which Greek Antiquity and Abrahamic Religion forms the foundation to, and thus the most important for us to identify with. Thus, we share our ideas with a cultural pool which, while primarily white, does not entirely consist of white people

I haven't really thought this idea through; it's something I've been mulling over just recently, because it's only just recently that I began to see the West as something I'd like to identify with rather than some great oppressive structure, as we're expected to regard it. But I don't think Middle Eastern (Western Asian) culture is an other to us, as both sides of the political spectrum claim.

But race is an element, I agree. Just not one I'd put particular emphasis on when it comes to deciding what my cultural heritage consists of.

>To my mind, this is a tacit admission of, even if inadvertently, the failure of post-Abrahamic philosophy, especially his own, to restore the purpose and impetus in Western civilization more broadly. Nihilism can simply not be defeated, and instead of killing God so merely a few ubermensch can slay the dragon, we ought to restore God as the rightful gatekeeper of the West.
Peterson actually talks about this. He seems to have a lot of contempt for the ubermensch idea and considers it a half-baked response to the problem of nihilism. His reading of Jung sees his thought on religion forming a more mature response to the nihilism problem than the ubermensch.

Part of the reason Peterson, even though he's an atheist in the strict sense of the word, is so appealing to people is because he's reopening the field for conversation about religion in a way that modern people can understand. I suspect a lot of people will take his line of thought further and we will see more public intellectuals espousing literally religious ideas.

>tfw fedoras are calling JP a sophist, too dumb to understand his beliefs
He is not advocating a belief in a literal external, personal, supernatural being that governs the universe. His "god" does not exist in the exterior world.

>>8996875

>His "god" does not exist in the exterior world.
While he doesn't believe in a traditional deity, I think his position is a little stronger than you're letting on.

>>8996895
From Wlwhat he has articulated, his "god" is just the unknown layers of causalities that are manifested into a being in the human mind. His ideas are from Joseph Campbell and Jung. Though, I have the feeling he has some belief (agnostic?) in the christian religion, but he has not articulated them.

>>8996562
Name some living intellectuals that you respect.

>>8996875
Then why does he cling to the misleading label?

>>8997006
It's the label that Campbell and Jung used, psychologically and anthropologically. Campbell says the previous definition is the essential part of god in religion, so I guess you can say he is stripping away the mythology from god. JP seems to be a "death of god" theological follower, not abandoning Christianity but reinterpreting it for the modern age.

>>8996998
Chalmers-chama

>>8997006
Broadly because he thinks religious language can be used to express things that everyday language can't. And he's absolutely 100% right.

But if you're autistic about this kind of thing, it's something you'll never understand.

>>8997038
Why can't he use poetic language that isn't misleading? Why must he use concepts which mean different things to almost everyone?

Seems like he is deliberately misleading or an extreme poor communicator.

File: 1484068818058.png (91KB, 225x414px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 225x414px

>>8995959
>leftists have literally started defending pedophilia

>>8996403

Quintessential anti-intellectualism.

>>8997344
>Started
They've been doing it since the 60s/70s. See Ginsberg. They just got PR savy and put in on the down-low until now.

>>8994253
they're two writers having an intellectual conversation.

>>8995959
Are you that kid in the picture? Because you write like a child

>>8996403
You can stick your arbitrary rule right back from whence it came

>>8996202
>>8996395
if either of you ever debated peterson or attempted to offer a succinct opposing viewpoint you would be BTFO by his 40 years of deep historical and religious education within minutes. So fucking easy to sit back hidden and spout criticisms and labels. The guy has dedicated the entirety of his adult life to trying to understand how society can overcome dangerous ideologies, and has dedicated this understanding to teaching people how to be better, more moral and orderly people. And he has done it all without a hint of condescension. He is literally dedicating himself to the upholding of truth and the betterment of human beings despite incredibly strong pressures to do the opposite. Have some respect

>>8996196
Jokes on you, no one thought otherwise.
Fuck off, reactionary scum.

File: 814206047_2019824.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>8997617
Spooky

Both are thinkers for pseudointellectuals, so it doesn't surprise me at all that /lit/ holds an affection for them.

>>8998977
You are a pseudointellectual.

>>8998977
Jesus dude. In what domain do you think you eclipse JP or SH, academically, spiritually, philosophically? Staggering avarice

>>8996738
The fall of Empires is much more nuanced. What you call degeneracy is just an easy target and much like Pandoras box irreversible making it a sustainable ideological enemy when necessary. It should be realized though that the modification of social mores is not irreversible due to hedonistic tendencias and innate nihilism but because mankind are master adapters. We will always persevere but many will be left behind. This is scary, yes, i know. We can pontificate "but at what cost?" endlessly and strive to work out the kinks, sure- but the fear that our future selves will succumb to anything less than what we already are is foolish. Survival is brutal and we may have to learn to live with an understanding for nihilism without condoning it. I see this as a result of a perverted view to what our domain of struggle naturally is. We seem to be approaching some omega point in shared consciousness, at least we seem to want this. Why else are we here on 4chan? This has greatly distorted the real and personal. I do not see a retreat as possible at this point and perhaps I too will eventually succumb to despair, but until that day comes i know that at the end of this day the only social mores i can and need to care about are those of my friends and family.

>>8994979
>make a claim
>can't be bothered to back it up
spooked

>>9000851
Dude, peterson is the embodiment of spooked

>there are scientific truths but there are also religious truths

>>8992258
kek

>>8997617
well put

>>9000859
you referring to this?
https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE at 2:02:19

Peterson is too concerned with applying his thoughts to real life issues to get caught up with silly memes like spooks.

>>9000916
but there does come a degree of being too spooked. what one may call noble another may call a foolish call to arms to supplement their own failings.

if you gave chimps an innumerable amount of typewriters they too would eventually come out with an argument against anything- the necessity of the argument though?

peterson's arguments scream of narcissism. the world does not need to bend to him, as pretty as his arguments may seem to be. they lack any and all scientific proof- and by which i mean statistical data.

this should have been a given. i mean the man cries in his own youtube lectures, showing a grave misconception of truth and his own personal id

>>9000916
>A FUCKING META HERO

how many novels has this guy actually read? he is strong and eloquent in his language but he comes off as never studying literature or language beyond the undergraduate level.

>>9000859
>What is the hero's journey?

>>8997591
>from whence

Eeeeewwww.

>>9001058
Maybe he's dumbing it down so that Rogan can understand.

>>9001102
That's very charitable of you.

>>9001102
joe rogan needs to be taken to task for providing a platform to this kind of bs. i know there are some sam harris defenders here so i ask of them how can they support this shit???

>>8995066

Not sure about the exact context of this quote, but Peterson tends to take a very mythologically oriented perspective in his Maps of Meaning lectures. Hence he often uses 'dragons' and 'demons' etc. as metaphors for the unknown, which can, essentially, eat you. He often draws lines between basic evolutionary biology and traditional mythic stories (ie., we were once eaten up by / killed by snakes a lot so we created a lot of stories where snakes are represented as evil).

>>8996462

I feel that Peterson doesn't often go into as much detail as he might be capable because he tends to estimate his audience to be mostly the general public or people with similar level of education, and I don't think he would be in the wrong assuming this. But obv. for /lit/ it leads often to shallow arguments bordering sophistry before moving to the next issue.

these men can count joe rogan and dan carlin and alex jones as their intellectual peers.

all of them operate on similar mental levels.

>>9001192
i've listened to his online lectures as well. he does not go all that much more in depth. basically what you saw on rogan is how he runs his lectures. i will withhold judgement though since i have not read his publications

>>8997051
>poetry isn't misleading
>poetry means the same things to everyone

My god, how about reading a sampling of literary criticism about any major poet?

>>9001214

ugh this, they're all so stupid. if you aren't a marxist you are basically saying to the world you will forever be a racist redneck.

>>9001241
can't even tell what the fuck this shit is anymore

>>9001249
Meta-ironic (anti-)/pol/ greenpill false flag new sincerity activism.

>>9001224

He's a psychologist, and I've always regarded him as one. In his lectures he doesn't go into that much depth because that would stray his main point (ie., how people create meaning), and I doubt his pubs are any different, since they would most likely be mainly about psychology.

What I feel a lot of /lit/-type hate Peterson gets is about the way he approaches his arguments. It's not deep enough so he doesn't know anything, but if he actually went deeper he would get accused of esotericism by others. /lit/, after all, isn't his main crowd. Even his lectures aren't aimed at a /lit/ crowd. I'm sure most people here have some college experience, and so know what it's about these days, and hence you should see how his lectures address the educational and intellectual level of our current college students.

College and uni isn't the serious business that it was back in the 19th century, it has degraded a lot, and IIRC Peterson himself has advocated for alternate ways of teaching at the higher level (online lectures and seminars etc.)

>>9001258
jesus, the fact that sentences like this can exist ...

>>9001262
that is a thoughtful excuse as to why he structures his arguments the way he does, but it only really leads me to believe that he wants to reach as wide as an audience as he can with no supplemental evidence besides conjecture as to if he actually holds a more solid foundation.

>>9001298
Go to bed, Jordan.

File: Maximus Nullius Pierinianus.png (26KB, 345x504px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 345x504px

>>8997617
My problem with him is that he'll end up in the same pitfalls as whatever ideology he's trying to fight. His position will be exploited in the same way Christianity and Marxism were. It's amazing how he says he's fighting ideology but has yet to ever refer to Stirner who's the #1 when it comes to this and had already btfo Marxism before it was even a thing. While his views are refreshing they seem incredibly reductive, like he's extrapolating on his small Western position; lòok at his lecture on Buddhism where he reduces one of the oldest religions on the planet to "life is suffering" and basic parallels to Christian myth in order to formulate a nebulous, archetypical hypothesis--which ironically can be just as dangerous as what he's trying to fight. He's also very much wrong when he thinks the OT is biological truth passed down from ancient times--it's actually a pretty revolutionary text in its context.

The reason people like him (and other contemporary conservative positions) is because we're tired of the enslaving expectations society puts on us. But Peterson doesn't offer a real alternative to this, what he wants is more sacrificial than what we have now. He's driven even himself to exhaustion.

File: 1484429790680.jpg (284KB, 1205x827px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1205x827px

>>9000651
>implying empires ever really fall

>>8992094
All you Peterson fanboys are going to be cringing in a few years over your love for him, just as you did with Harris and co before him

>>8997617
I don't have respect for people who dishonestly try to sneak their dead ideology back in with a sleight of hand desu.

>>8997393
Ginsberg was a fucking pedophile....

>>9001938

Why do you say that? There's absolutely nothing cringy about Peterson at all. Hell, Harris is only mildly cringy himself. I mean, we're several levels of cringe below Black Science Man level cringe here.

Peterson is about as non-euphoric as you can get here.

>>8995959
>literally defending the sexualization of prepubescent children
This is why every sane person in the western world is shifting to the right.

>>9002382
Petersons approach is pop-philosophical/scientific as fuck. He's one level below le black dudester, and essentially the 4chan version of him.

I was forced to read one of his books, and it was terribly annoying to be reading shit like this, that can't compete even in conception with genuine insightful works.

>>8996111
What a fucking charlatan that Peterson guy, up there with Slavoj Zizek, Timothy Morton and Peter Sloterdijk and surely some others
Peterson will get big tho, the alt light crowd loves him

>>8992233
what exactly is wrong with being an emotionless logicbot when it comes to a debate

>>8995294
That sounds so pretentious.

>>8997617
You and he should read John Gray, not that Gray is such a good philosopher but we have no evidence to assume that we can somehow overcome our flaws unless by building institutions

File: 1482253413752.png (274KB, 750x616px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 750x616px

>>9001241
REEEEEEEEEE SJW CUCMKS OOOUUUUTTTTTT

>>8995294
>ontological roadblock
>metaphysical axioms
hahahahahahahahaha

>>9003454
Really just means he lost.

>>9003477
That's what charlatans do, make the simple look more complex as it is

>>9003485
Yup.
I don't even like Harris but in this instance i'm glad he's the mike tyson of rhetorical dick-swinging.

As per usual the typical contrarianism and nihilism on this board makes people incapable of entertaining any thought that could possibly make their life less miserable than it already is.

>>9003536
>As per usual the typical contrarianism and nihilism on this board makes people incapable of entertaining any thought that could possibly make their life less miserable than it already is.
Explain yourself or stay a rhetorian

What's that thought you are talking about?

>>9003561
The correct term is "rhetor"

>>9003568
Ah sure, but you understood what I was saying right?

>>9003561
Listening to Peterson talk made my average day less miserable.

If it worked for me it will work others, and discounting people as "charlatans and frauds" because you're so attached to your own preconceived notions of reality makes you the charlatan.

>>9003575
>and discounting people as "charlatans and frauds" because you're so attached to your own preconceived notions of reality makes you the charlatan.
Sure.
And what is wrong with basing my reality on scientific consensus? In before fedora (I do like fedora posting).
>>9003575
>Listening to Peterson talk made my average day less miserable.
I am not saying you shouldn't do that.

>>9003582
>And what is wrong with basing my reality on scientific consensus?

There's nothing wrong with doing that. I do that myself.

But we're not talking about scientific reality. We are talking about values, ethics and how to live a good life, which science has literally nothing to say about other than "If you don't want lung cancer, don't smoke".

>>9003575
>Listening to Peterson talk made my average day less miserable.
you're a fucking pathetic loser.

>>9003594
I can agree with that, that's not it.
The credibility of him as a psychologist is what bothers me.

Outside of that he is right to express his discontent what is happening. A shame that he is using it to get a following but who wouldn't.

>>9003596
Wow, what an original comment on 4chan.

Suck my dick faggot.

>>9003594
>But we're not talking about scientific reality.
Psychology is a science, deal with it.

>>9003641
>Psychology is a science
A very young one.

>>9003596

edgy

>>8996462
So, he's turning Girard's more nunanced work and turning it into a bunch of truisms so anglos can understand

From this thread, this guy seems like a plagiarist of a bunch of people banking on american stupidity to seem original and a life saver.

>>9003807
>a plagiarist of a bunch of people
He's not a "plagiarist" because he acknowledges when his ideas come from Jung or whoever.

>banking on american stupidity to seem original and a life saver.
He's Canadian. I don't think he planned to become "famous," but now that he is, he's using the opportunity to try to get his ideas heard by a wider audience.

>>8996202
I got more of the impression that he is just playing with ideas, and that he finds that intrinsically interesting. I don't think it's sophism, mostly because there's a coherent argument, not necessarily falsifiable, but not fallacious. He's just a guy trying to figure out a mass of ideas, he's not necessarily the most equipped, but neither has he neglected those that have been.

>>9006171
He's dodging straight questions and going off into tangents trying to bamboozle stoner Joe into forgetting what he asked. Especially on the subject of religion.

>>8992086

Jordan Peepee

4chan vs reddit: the debate.

>>8992086
Ben Stiller meme man got BTFO

How do you decide what the defeniton of truth ought to be? That's a moral question and must be answered in a moral framework. Meme man is stuck in his scientific framework which is just a subset of the deeper moral conception of the world. There's no way I can see to escape the argument and Meme man couldn't even understand the point well enough to exit his worldview.

His only argument was in these imaginary scenarios your defeniton says things that aren't the same as my defeniton. Which isn't a fucking argument because he's stuck in his framework.

To decide which of the two is correct you need some higher value to make your decision calculus with. But because you're arguing Truth you can't invoke truth to make the decision which is what meme man did. You have to invoke morality.

Furthermore the choice to use the scientific method to decide what is true is a moral one and that morality precludes all scientific truths. How can you argue out of that? You have to appeal to something beyond truth or else just take your defeniton of truth on faith. But Jordan thinks defining truth that way is bad, and if it's bad and you have to take it on faith then you shouldn't belive in it.

Are there any holes in my reasoning? I don't see a way of escaping morality.

File: 16003256_648981725274036_9189856827911639490_n.jpg (58KB, 565x624px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 565x624px

>>9007239
Just listened to it and Harris just couldn't shift his perspective. This pretty much.

Also how many people have read the book? I doubt that any of the le Sam harris Redditors have bothered.

>>9006501
When has Reddit ever won.

>>9007239
The objective facts about a virus like small pox doesn't hinge on whether or not the outcome of that knowledge is good or beneficial.

You are really ready to defend that something is not true because it led to the annihilation of our species? If something has negative consequences then it's not true? How does that make any sense?

>>9006501
More like /r/the_donald vs /r/atheism

>>9007339

>More like /r/the_donald

This spin will never work.

>>8992086
Pic related looks like micheal myers

File: carnap02.jpg (11KB, 200x265px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x265px

Anyone with a basic philosophical education and some intellectual capacity must conclude that Sam Harris destroyed Peterson's position.
My only criticism of Harris is how long it took him to do it.
Peterson's idealism is inconsistent, in several ways, I think his muddled thinking is predicated on a denial of identity. He denies that there is any basic sense data or a priori knowledge, his whole framework is built on fairydust.

>>9000185
all three

btw that's not what avarice is you 9th grade fuckboi

File: nietzsche-colour.jpg (400KB, 960x1243px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 960x1243px

I stopped listening to the podcast halfway through (might finish it later today) and as irritating as Sam Harris is, it was Jordan Peterson who ruined the conversation by misunderstanding Nietzsche's answer to the question "what is true?" and linking him to romantics like Schelling and pragmatists like William James. This error, along with Peterson's willingness to redefine and obfuscate the concept of truth, makes me think he is not as concerned with getting to the bottom of things as he is with warding off boredom by reveling in the confusion he stirs up within himself.

Nietzsche believed that happiness and unhappiness, utility and disadvantage, and conclusiveness to the preservation of life, are all irrelevant to the truth of a proposition.

"A belief may be necessary condition of life and yet be false."
"...what presumption to decree that all that is necessary for my preservation must also really be there! As if my preservation were anything necessary!"

From Kaufmann: Nietzsche doubts that there is any "pre-established harmony" between truth and pleasure. Nietzsche concludes that the "will to truth," not being founded on considerations of utility, means—"there remains no choice—'I will not deceive, not even myself': and with this we are on the ground of morality."

Nietzsche goes further: "appearance, error, deception, dissimulation, delusion, self-delusion" all aid life; life "has always shown itself to be on the side of the most unscrupulous polytropoi (the wily and versatile)": is not then the "will to truth" a mere "quixotism"? No, says Nietzsche—it is something rather more terrifying, "namely a principle that is hostile to life and destructive," perhaps even "a hidden will to death."

Thus Nietzsche scorns any utilitarian or pragmatic approach to truth and insists that those who search for it must never ask whether the truth will profit or harm them—and yet he considers the will to truth a form of the will to power.

Nietzsche values power not as a means but as the state of being that man desires for its own sake as his own ultimate end. And truth he considers an essential aspect of this state of being.

When Nietzsche describes the will to truth as "a principle that is hostile to life and destructive," he is entirely consistent with his emphatic and fundamental assertion that man wants power more than life. Nietzsche does not condemn the passion for truth but declares truth to be "divine." Power is a state of being for which man willingly risks death and from which he excludes himself if he "tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments." Untruth, in short, is weakness, and truth is power—even if it spells death.

>>9007809
>>9007816

Nietzsche: "But one will have gathered what I am driving at: namely that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we devotees of knowledge today, we godless ones and anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame that a faith, thousands of years old, has kindled: that Christian faith, which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that truth is divine."

>>9007809
based twiggy queen of /lit/

>>9007348
sure bud :^)

>>9007809
pleb post

>>8996627
If you think what Chomsky did in that exchange was anywhere remotely intellectual then your view on open discourse is depressingly warped.

>>9007809
None of that is inconsistent with that Peterson said.

>>9007327
You're completely missing the point. You're stuck in your old definition, saying it contradits the new one and calling that an argument. If I redefine truth, saying there's scenarios where it's not the same as the old one doesn't prove anything, because I redefined it.

What should the definition of truth be? BAM I said should, that's a moral question. You're asking what is truth. That's not a moral question, BUT the issue with that is you're taking the definition of truth on faith.

So if you use reason you invoke morality and get to Jordans. If you take it on faith then you get to the 'standard' definition and can skip morality.

However the other argument is that this notion of Darwinian truth is actually what humans used for 99 percent of their existence. The scientific method didn't exist till very recently. We sometimes choose to use it to do science, but on making that choice we have invoked morality. There's no escaping it.

>>9007809
Peterson is in agreement with almost all of this. He's said he's read almost all of Nietzsche like ten times over now. He explicitly said in the podcast there's no reason to assume truth and what we need to know to survive have any link. Jordan is saying that his view of truth is actually 'truer' than Sam's. If you really have a 'will to truth' (which is impossible or exceedingly rare according to Nietzsche) then Jordans view is that his conception of truth is a deeper one. Scientific truth is nessecarily nested in morality.

In his framework science is just a tool for looking at the world a certain way. But there's many things it doesn't answer and thus can't be the definition of Truth. Jordans is deeper and science is just a subset of Jordans truth.

>>9008756
You don't just conflate morality with empirical reality and change obvious facts to suit your view.. If something is true then it just is.

I mean honestly. What a pedantic use of philosophizing.

>>9008871
You're taking that on faith. To philosophize I have to choose to philosophize which is a moral question. Morality is inescapable. In Jordans conception of the world, to take any action is to invoke morality. Maybe that's being taken on faith too.

So we have 2 world views with 2 different starting axioms. I have to take one or the other on faith.

One says truth is scientific.

One says there is morality.

Which one is better for me to take on faith? Well gives people a sense of morality and purpose. The other has lead to communism which has needlessly killed hundreds of millions of people. If I have to take one or the other on faith anyways, I'm going to take the one that lets me enjoy my life.

Although you could make the argument that I haven't escaped a moral framework. That I'm being circular, but that's exactly my point. In all decisions morality will always be invoked and is thus fundamental.

The only way I can see out of it, is to invoke aesthetic notions. Which is a whole other can of worms.

This isn't pedantic. You're the one who thinks semantics is more important than peoples lives. The consequence is real and profound. Being on the non moral side of the argument has had massive real world consequences.

>>9009116
You're not taking anything on faith.

I cannot walk through walls. That statement is factually true. It doesn't suddenly become true based on the fact that if I could I would save countless lives in house fires. Morality never enters the equation until after you've established whether something is true or not. Your framework that claims communism is the dead-end of empirical truth is... I mean I really am just not following. I guess I am in the same boat as Harris in this regard.

I'd insist that you do not navigate through life believing whatever makes you feel good. The natural world is all we have.

>>8996998
Zizek

>>9009116
Religion and communism have both killed millions of people.

>>9009205
You're using circular reasoning. You're saying if you use my definition it contradicts your definition. Which isn't an issue because I changed the definition.

Not only that, but you're already using my framework of truth to argue for yours. You're saying that your view is more useful. That's a moral argument. Therefore morality precludes empirics and thus Jordan is correct.

See the issue? That's why I'm saying you have to take it on faith. You can't make the argument that I'm wrong on practical grounds, because I'm arguing for pragmatism. Any argument you make will be on moral grounds. The only way out of that, logically, is to say 'this is what truth is.' That's faith.

>>9009208
Yes but Religion is the basis for all of western civilization. Communism is not only inherently self defeating, but it's objectively the worse thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind. In a couple of decades Communism killed hundreds of millions of people and created a hell on earth. Religion gave people purpose, direction, culture, art, beauty, and then lead into the enlightenment. Without religion there would be no science. So if I have to pick one or the other, which one am I going to pick?

>>9009443
>Communism is not only inherently self defeating, but it's objectively the worse thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind. In a couple of decades Communism killed hundreds of millions of people and created a hell on earth.
bro, like, the native americans were communists and shit

>>8997617
lol respect this dick, jordan

I don't feel like reading this thread but I'll listen later. Who won?

>>9009443
>Which isn't an issue because I changed the definition.

Why are you doing that? I could say my view is more useful but I'm not arguing the validity of truth on that reason. I'm saying that the objectivity of reality is the result of our linguistic labeling of of the word "truth" or "true". This isn't up for debate no matter how many cartwheels you try to do. It's not "believed" in based on faith. It just is.

You seem desperate to cherry pick all the "good" things about religion. Or are you just ignorant of all the sectarian hatred, holy wars and fabricated nonsense like witchcraft and astrology that has lead to more deaths than we can count? Even if the numbers were higher on "communism" the fact that these deaths on revelation were empty of substance makes for their baseless crimes to be much more sinister in my view. However I believe this is just digressing.

>>9009555
pseudos and pseudo intellectual children everywhere won they can coast thru school and be regarded as great public intellectuals debating issues neither of them have any grasp of that have been covered much better by their infinitely smarter predecessors.

>>9009595

What makes people so angry about the idea of accessible debates for laymen? Is it just 'Normies get out of my clubhouse reeeee?''

File: 1483930574675.png (432KB, 960x826px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 960x826px

>>9009575
'It just is' is faith. You have to believe it just is. I'm formulating a world view where it isn't and it's completely logically consistent. You're just saying it's self evident. That's faith.

I don't think religion vs communism is a useful debate in this form. I could argue that the deaths from communism are just as empty if not more so than those from religion. I'm not arguing that religion is perfect, it's awful, I'm saying we don't have a better alternative. That's pragmatic truth. It's kind of like democracy. It's a terrible form of government, that doesn't mean you abandon it. If we find some alternative to religious truth that is more pragmatically useful then let's use that instead. So far that's not the case. Pic related.

>>9009619
i sincerely don't expect you to understand. just know this, the best thing you can do is try your best to be an autodidact philosopher. look up wiki articles on Nietzsche and dance for the amusement of myself and other patricians

then when you dance is over stand there and allow yourself to be mocked. offer no rebuttal you'll only embarrass yourself past the point of humor. just stand there and take our criticism in silence.

>>9009626
>'It just is' is faith.
So "faith" is a priori knowledge?

>>9009644
Faith is by definition a belief you hold to be true without any empirical evidence.

>>9009652
So you are saying "yes, faith is a priori knowledge"?

>>9009641

No way

File: spring.jpg (712KB, 2000x1323px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 2000x1323px

>>9008781
The will to truth is founded on the will not to deceive. The will not to deceive oneself is good. It is good because übermenschen like Nietzsche, Harris, and I affirm it to be good. We affirm it to be good because we are good. We are good because we are strong. We are strong because we are in a state of being that prefers power (the process of self-perfection, not the technological mode of being) to "life." We prefer power to life because we are courageous. We are courageous because we do not need to deceive ourselves in order to affirm all aspects of life. We affirm all aspects of life because we know everything backwards and forwards, up and down, is required for beings such as us to exist. It is the ultimate affirmation of life. Jordan Peterson does not act in accordance with the maxim "I will not deceive myself." The will to deceive oneself is bad. It is bad because Jordon Peterson affirms it to be good. He affirms it to be good because he is bad. He is bad because he is weak. He is weak because he is in a state of being that prefers "life" to power. He prefers life to power because he is cowardly. He is cowardly because he needs to deceive himself in order to affirm some aspects of life. He does not affirm all aspects of life because his claim to love life is nothing more than another example of his self-deception.

It is possible for the will to truth to be nested in our morality but not in Peterson's. Building machines and synthesizing chemicals and performing scientific experiments, for example, concern us only when they aid us in our process of self-overcoming. Peterson dishonestly conflates the will to truth and the process of self-perfection to the will to carelessly dominate and exploit nature. A scientist who deceives himself can and will create weapons. In fact, the caricatured scientific worldview that Peterson accuses Harris of holding is founded on an error: dualism between mind and body, but since H only accepts scientific theories provisionally and is willing to overturn his theories if the foundations of those theories are leveled, he is within the realm of skepticism despite the fact that he may or may not spoil that skepticism by being overly convinced of the power of the scientific method (which cannot be conflated with the will to not deceive). H uses the dictionary definition of truth: "that which is in accordance with fact or reality." P's definition of truth is more akin to: "that which is in accordance with fact or reality with the following exceptions." P would say that H's definition of truth implicitly includes "with the following exceptions" but that is only because he conflates the general will to truth with a specific scientific framework of viewing reality. P would also say that his convictions too are provisional. Even if this is the case, it is inconsequential because his definition of truth and his distortion of H's views reveal a morality where self-deception and foolishness are accepted.

File: 1478670271428.png (900KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 1600x900px

Neither Abrahamic religion nor Communism nor Science have human survival or happiness as a core principle; both sides of this debate are stupid.

>>9009729
If you affirm everything then how can you call Peterson bad? You might bring some point of necessity of definition, but this is just masquerading "good" with "bad". If you need unnecessary things for there to be necessary things, then they're not unnecessary and are just serving a greater necessity.

>>9009729
This is all bait right? If you're serious please go and read Nietzsche and try to actually understand what he's saying. Then read Peterson and understand what he's saying. Then see they're almost completely in agreement and you're a cuck.

The reason SH refuses to further his discussion with JP until he submits to an acceptable definition of truth is because superior beings like us have an acute sense of smell for charlatans. This is also why SH attacked Chomsky. SH is aware that only two living people on Earth (the other being me, we talk on Skype daily) possess this higher mode of being. He is posting these podcasts to save future geniuses like us from the trouble of giving one second of our attention to ignoramuses like Peterson and Chomsky. It is our task to help the philosophers of the future from the influence of our contemporaries. Even the divine Hitchens fell under the spell of Chomsky before finally condemning him. Any time you see Harris attack chances are it is the nail in his prey's coffin and they will be forgotten by history. At this point he is still toying with Peterson. But if Peterson continues to refuse to acknowledge his superiors and SUBMIT, Harris will have no problems in verbally annihilating in front of the whole world. Peterson will submit though. Just like Chomsky. In the end, slaves know their place.

File: ben stiller.jpg (259KB, 1634x2048px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1634x2048px

>>9009729
>this guy comes up to your girlfriend in the club , slaps her on the ass and logically convinces her that you are a rambling conty idiot
What do you do trip?

>>9009771
He is bad because he is not us. We don't despise him for it.

>>9009799
You said nothing here. Go learn to fix air conditioners, you philistine, and leave the thinking to your superiors.

>>9009859
>>9009876
You are so awesome! I would say you are the greatest tripcode user in the history of 4chan. I read Walden because of you and it changed my life. Wow! I love you!

File: twigg1.jpg (34KB, 368x558px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 368x558px

>>9009887
I love you too!

I still love Peterson, but he's a somewhat eccentric theoretician who's (understandably) stuck in his own framework of ideas

>>9009729
>übermenschen like Harris

>>9009859
Then he's not really bad. He's simply different from "you". Call him that.

>>9009443
>So if I have to pick one or the other, which one am I going to pick?

Why do you have to choose one or the other? Plenty of people are neither religious nor communists.

File: 1480423284763.png (17KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 120x120px

>>9009729
>>9009847
>>9009859
>>9009876
>>9009887
>>9009894