Could this have gone any worse? Nearly every conceivable reason

>>9004781

i-is he still /ourguy/

>>9004781
I though it was rather interesting

>>9004781
I shut this off an hour in.

Did it improve? Sounded like they ran into the weeds almost immediately and I didn't think they'd rebound

debates like this always sound identical to two schizophrenics arguing with each other, so I never bother.

>>9004822
Not really, Peterson gets blown the fuck out around 1:20 and just keeps trying to change the topic (which may have actually been a good thing)

Whenever Harris feels he's dragging himself into an argument he can't win, he says "we're getting bogged down here/let's move on/we'll get back to that".

Peterson definitely did not articulate his points as well as he could've, though. He sounded pretty ill.

>>9004841
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a huge fan of Harris either..

In this podcast Peterson repeatedly tries to bait and switch the topic to morality and freewill before the previous argument has been resolved. Harris actually keeps them on track here.

Do you have a specific instance where you felt like Harris was trapped and tried to backpeddle? Because I'm almost 2 hours in here and have about 10 of Peterson trying to go off the rails

where is the vid posted at

>>9004874
It's a podcast - I use Google Play (it's free)

File: vaughn-gibson.png (1MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x768px

>>9004869
Well that's just the problem. Harris is blind in his following of logic, he can't see past it, while Peterson tries to...wake him up.

>>9004781
Shit like this is why nobody actually likes philosophers and rhetoritians.

Shit like this killed lit desu

Harris got exposed. Fucking hack can't make an argument to save his life.

>2017
>listening to philosophers
Philosophy is for psueds. True Ubermensch are comfortable in a state of negative capability.

>>9004869
Harris makes extremely contrived example and then act confused when he doesn't get his way.
Setting that kind of case and then concluding that you must be right because you showed a contradiction is not legitimate.

I mean if you take the example of the affair, it just means that Harris doesn't understand anything about the accumulation of blindness in a person life before betrayal shows up.

Same with the good scientist and polio. You can't just start philosophising midway.

>>9005044
I always laugh reading remarks like this. Chomsky gets it a lot as a public figure as well. Filled to the brim on on every book review site and every youtube comment section are tonnes of comments saying "what a hack", "such a pseudo-intellectual", with no fucking discussion of how they reached those conclusions.

>>9005029
It's kinda this. It's like listening to Brian Redban and Bill Burr arguing about RSS feeds but with more fancy words. They aren't even trying to figure out what's actually the problem with their conversation, it's just a less vulgar version of two construction workers arguing about chevy vs ford.

>>9005141
>less vulgar
maybe not

>>9005139
>with no fucking discussion of how they reached those conclusions.

Listen, idiot.

People aren't discovered to be hacks or pseudo-intellectuals by arguments, it is a feeling, a sense that you get.

You just KNOW when someone is a hack. It's just KNOWN.

If you don't know or get the "feeling" then you are probably a hack yourself.

>>9005148
Bollocks.

>>9005155
Hack!

>>9005155
Buttocks. A real intellectual can intuitively identify other real intellectuals. It takes one to know one, so to speak.

>>9004781
>two non-philosophers debate philosophy
no thanks

File: 1443484668816.jpg (240KB, 1656x1009px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1656x1009px

>>9005139
But Chomsky is a pseudo-intellectual hack for your information.

Two nobodies that I hope will be forgotten in 5 years but will certainly be forgotten in 20.

>>9004781
What the FUCK did any of you idiots expect? Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are equally trite and undeserving of your time.

I really sympathize with Peterson's going up against SJWs and ultra-liberals, I do, but even Harold Bloom is a more worthy public intellectual memed by /lit/ to read or listen to than either Harris or Peterson are. I don't mean to be cruel or dismissive, but Peterson is simply not a genius, and he won't be remembered for long.

Again, Harold fuckin Bloom is probably more likely to be remembered than Peterson is; Peterson will be an obscure footnote to certain academic essays and in textbooks, nothing else IMO. He has some good ideas but nothing revolutionary, and /lit/'s obsession with him is nothing short of retarded and inane.

>>9005141
>>9005029
This. Peterson is public and perhaps has some fame now, but mere fame isn't what persists.

>>9005277
>remembered for long.

this

he talks about pepe the frog on his personal youtube channel.he's your run of the mill anti-sjw e-celeb.

I think the problem is that Peterson's conception of truth requires him to touch on morality, but Harris refused to move on until truth (in isolation) was defined. Peterson, instead of agreeing with Harris on this one point (since I think that, essentially, they agree) wasn't willing to sacrifice the totality of his argument. Stubbornness on both sides, I guess. There's a good Reddit thread going on in the Sam Harris subreddit that explains it a lot better than I am.

>>9004869
>In this podcast Peterson repeatedly tries to bait and switch the topic to morality and freewill before the previous argument has been resolved.

He actually wanted to move on since Sam never got his point but Sam kept making sure they couldn't move forward so it ended up being a 2 hour podcast where not a single argument got "resolved".

>keeps them on track

More like kept them IN track.

>>9005432

What else can you talk about if you don't even agree on what it means for something to be true? You need to have some common ground before you can discuss other topics.

It was a trivial point and one that Peterson conceded several times

For the sake of the argument, the "truth" in the rationalist sense of a given situation wasn't important

Harris failed to understand that for Peterson, "Truth" is always tied to a theory of truth formulated for a specific action, and that the totality of these truths, in his view, are bound to Survival, which means that the constituent parts are as well

I'm really disappointed. Harris is a typical analytic philosopher desu, and we're all dumber for his pedantry and insistence on minute lingustic detail

>>9005477

I'm pretty sure Harris understood what Peterson was saying, he just thought he was wrong. Reality exists, and is a particular way, whether we are right about it or not. "True" is the word we use to refer to statements that accurately represent the way reality is.

>>9005448
You can talk about whatever you like, especially considering that Harris seems to understand the pragmatist view of an evolving language game of knowledge, it's sufficient to talk and see what seems to be the case
Beyond that, you get into the exact epistemological argument that Harris insisted on

>>9005448
>What else can you talk about if you don't even agree on what it means for something to be true?

Basically everything. Anything is better than getting bogged down in semantics for 2 hours.

They could have debated whatever potential point Peterson would have made, had they been able to move on from the first fucking subject.

But Sam is too autistic for that.

>>9005490
I understand, but as far as the podcast went, Peterson didn't really seem to disagree

>>9005490
That is true. The can of worms is opened with the question "what should we do about it" and "how do we know we know exactly how the Truth of Reality is"? And "how do we know that once we know we know the Truth of Reality, we know we are choosing the Most True, Best thing to do with our knowledge" ala, ethics, law, politics, economics, sociology, application of science theory (knowledge of the True Realityness equivalency of science theory)

I came into this thinking Peterson was going to cock up the conversation but it was Harris's ideological hangups, he should have gotten over it and moved on to Jordan's views on morality and religion

>>9005490

>"True" is the word we use to refer to statements that accurately represent the way reality is.

and yet Harris insistence on this wasted all our precious time, and gave 10 pointless different examples of the same argument without allowing to Jordan to move on to his moral worldview, so having that view of reality clashed with reality itself

>way reality is

that's epistemology, Peterson was pretty outright in that he was only concerned with what is useful

There's nothing more depressing than listening to that. Discussions like this one is the main reason philosophy is seen as nothing but mental masturbation among the masses.

>mfw philosophy actually produces something of real value to humanity
>mfw I have no face

>>9005416
>since I think that, essentially, they agree

explain

Audio is the wrong medium for philosophy.

>>9005543

>blind telecommuters can't think

Ironically Harris proved Peterson's point by pointlessly pursuing a scientific result for "truth" thereby depriving us of a valuable discussion

>>9005528
> philosophy is seen as nothing but mental masturbation

But that is exactly what it is.

Harris was playing a silly role imo. There was no indication that Peterson was going to do a Derrida and just refuse to argue about reality at all based on some eccentric epistemoligical argument.
In the first part, Harris was quick to move on because he wanted to get to more important topics

File: 1478447196657.jpg (292KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2560x1440px

The problem is that Harris believes his view is self-evident, and Peterson can't explain his view.

Don't get me wrong, I think Peterson is brilliant, but he cannot explain himself for shit. He lacks the discipline and coherence of a philosopher.

>>9005596
You're right, but Peterson isn't a philosopher and his focus is on explaining human behaviour and morality. His darwinian truth theory is pretty weak but nontheless important for his theory as a whole

>>9004781
Just listened to the whole thing.

I don't think it's as inconclusive and masturbatory as people here are making out. I definitely land more on Peterson's side regarding these issues and find his concept of truth incredibly persuasive when it's framed correctly. But here, I have to admit that he comes across as if he's making a set of claims that aren't really implied by his concept of truth, almost as if he's bought into temporarily the false interpretation of his ideas that Harris (understandably) is working with.

The burning house example he brought up was a good one. The question "Is this room on fire?" may have a simple answer in the framework of scientific inquiry, but this framework is neither here nor there in a situation where its relevant to inquire "Is this room of the house on fire?", namely one where there is either a fire in the house or not, and we're testing that proposition with an immediate visual survey of the room we're occupying. Obviously in this case, the answer to the question "Is this room of the house on fire?", namely that no fire is visible, is not a satisfactory answer to the implicit project in which the question is nested. Harris interprets this as Peterson claiming that the existence of fire in the house, which will kill the person asking the question, makes the answer to the question of whether fire is immediately visible in the room somehow untrue, which is obviously incoherent. He thinks this because he is still understanding the question within the framework of scientific inquiry, despite the fact that such a question would never reasonably be nested in a solely scientific context. Peterson, for some reason, actually seems to pick up on what Harris misinterprets his argument to be and carries on with that.

If Harris could just accept that particular case, which is common sense really, it would be easier for Peterson to extrapolate that outside of hypotheticals, there is no situation which is solely and exclusively a matter of simple scientific truth, because scientific truth itself, when it is at play in the real world, is nested within contexts of motivation which require a more complicated conception of truth, of the kind he's promoting.

Hopefully, Pt. 2 will iron out all this stuff; I don't think we'll get a Pt. 3 either way.

And Jordan vs. Slavoj when? I'd like to see him have to defend his ideas against an intelligent Marxist, who doesn't fall into Peterson's (I think a little unfair) characterization of leftists (Zizek being opposed to political correctness, his having been a dissident in a communist state etc.)

>>9005608
>Zizek
>intelligent
>Marxist
>intelligent
hahahaha

>>9005607
It's mostly important for his morality. His description of religion is brilliant. He does bound the two up quite a bit, but they are separable.

>>9005615
shut the fuck up kid

File: 1432587761001.png (257KB, 415x476px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 415x476px

>>9005615
>this post

>>9005564
this

>>9005608
This guy gets it. Peterson wants to ground everything within realistic circumstances, which have contexts. Harris keeps pulling out hypotheticals which have no context, which Peterson doesn't see as valid.

>>9005608
Zizek is too agreeable and deep down he's an admirer of religion, Christianity especially
It wouldn't be a very controversial discussion, but I would nevertheless like to see that, if only for entertainment value

>>9004781

>somebody tell me what went wrong
>perhaps on reddit

love this guy already

>>9005643
Why? If it's within the realm of possibility then it could very well happen.

If Peterson's definition of truth lead to the death of people who held it, would it cease to be true? Seems kind of self-defeating as a definition.

>>9005608
>fire
Wut?

>>9005669
It would seem that Peterson doesn't care about metaphysical possibility. Wondering about possible but unrealistic situations is not pragmatic.

>>9005669
The problem is that if it did happen it wouldn't be in any way similar to its presentation as a hypothetical.

In a hypothetical it's possible to disconnect a situation from its various nestings within contexts. So the affair example from the podcast is perfect. There is no real situation in which an anonymous male stripped of all detail except his having a cheating wife, his having discovered this through photographs, and his having killed himself, has an anonymous wife who is having an affair with an anonymous man. The moment you introduce the amount of detail necessary to make the situation in any way "real", it becomes necessary to move away from a strict scientific defintion of truth, and towards something like what Peterson is arguing, acknowledging the context in which the question "Is my wife having an affair?" is nested.

>>9005677
Whats the problemo mate?

>>9005664
It makes sense because he continually wonders what people think of him. Upvote my thoughts!

Harris being a stubborn autist turned it into a slog.

>>9005687
Alright, guess I'll have to listen to it to get the problem of introducing additional factors into the equation. As far as I see it, it gets more complex and there's more to account for, but it being hard doesn't change the fundamentals in any meaningful way.

>>9005645
Gotchu senpai, this is just Zizek and Milibank going crazy on their readings of Hegel, Heidegger and God. (I'm still at the first part of Zizek's first essay, so I'm going mostly by the introduction)

File: 41sO6S3JWoL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (23KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 333x499px

>>9005879
forgot image, sorry

Peterson Zizek debate when? Thats a debate that id like to see, even though Peterson would probably get btfo

>>9004781
the podcast was full of situational truths, the metatruth of was missing, but the meta-meta truth was profound: turning a conversation with based Canadian Gepetto into a 2 hour epistemological dispute because of your fetishisation of situational truth causes immense suffering for the listener and is for this reason not worth pursuing

File: lp.jpg (99KB, 800x841px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x841px

>>9005893
the only truth that was missing was the capital T Truth

>>9005687
>analyzing a situation so remote, that introducing any detail moving it towards a real one would invariably render any product of such analysis worthless
>mental masturbation in an imaginary vacuum
Philosophy is truly the meme that keeps on giving.

>>9004781
I actually thought it was pretty interesting

A L E A F
L
E
A
F

>>9005180
That's an oddly unintellectual response.

>>9005148
You clearly must be 'pink-haired-little-person-eraser-tipping,' right?

>>9005277

>retarded and inane

More like repetitive and redundant! Hahah!

>>9005608

What muddy water you swim in mudskipper

>>9004837
Blown out? Hardly. Harris seemed like he was skirting to the side of any point JP put forth or simply wasn't capable of taking any of his points head on. It seemed pretty sophomoric in all honestly, and I can't exactly say I wasn't expecting anything more from that snide little hack to begin with

>>9005879
>>9005887

not that guy you were responding to but thanks for recommending this, was exactly what this random anon was looking for

Open letter from Peterson to Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZK9W4V1Rc

>start the debate with arbitrary axioms before defining their terms and get nowhere
2 hours of nothing desu.

>>9006741
desu it was pretty hilarious to see Sam sperg out as he dealt with Peterson.

Jordan was basically acting like a smug pepe and Sam was acting like a frustrated wojack the whole time. Shit made me laugh

>>9006814
I loved Petersons smug little giggles

>>9006832
HEH

But also... Sam at the end said "keep your energy up"

Is Peterson dying? I think he has cancer

>>9006444
trips of truth

>>9006509
I don't know if it's the natural reaction when someone who was raised to be very catholic becomes a pseudo-intelectual leftist dilletante, but I've been hooked on heterodox readings of christianity. Strongly recommend René Girard as well. From what I gather from people who actually fall to the JP meme, Peterson is just a more diluted new age version of him.

>>9004869
What Harris doesn't seem to understand is that the topics are linked. Petersons view of truth is part of his view on morality. This phrase "truth serves life" is not to say that the fact of the matter changes based upon what one wants out of life or what will further human existence. Instead, it is more linked with this idea that existence is inherently good and that truth must serve goodness. Harris is at his most juvenile when he name drops Meditations because Harris wants to simply assume there are universal laws; he wants to skip over any grunt work and assume not just universal laws but science as a means to get there too. Luckily for him Peterson is willing to accept that too. Where Peterson differs is he sees the current trend of progress as a deeply destructive force on all levels and probably believes that all post-modern roads lead to the destruction of the species (hence his Darwinian line of thought). If there is any order to the universe, he seems to think that higher moral values will lead to the continuation of the species even if it doesn't seem to work on the level of micro examples.
That's how I was seeing this disagreement anyway.

>>9006968
t. guy who took notes on all of Jordan Peterson's youtube videos

>>9006987
Tbh I haven't actually watched any Peterson videos and I haven't read any of Harris either. I did watch an hour of the podcast and what I heard was what I posted. Harris does come off as trying desperately to hang on this use of the word "truth" as I think he knows he won't be able to justify what Peterson was trying to open up about the simultaneous belief that morality needs to lead science and that morality will come from science. I actually think Peterson has some issues but none of them were what Sam was aiming at.

>>9006997
Truth and morality are ideologies, nothing is objective

>>9007015
Thinking truth and morality are ideologies and nothing is objective is an ideology.

>Peterson doesn't believe that philosophical problems stem from language

Pleb! Read some Wittgenstein idiot.

>>9006968
Seems to me they were just arguing about the difference between "truth" and "true" in relation to how they are use within representations. That and Peterson was kinda retarded to equate morality with truth cause you end up arguing about morality in the end. Like why the fuck does matter whether the intent of scientist to either weaponize smallpox or creating a vaccine have to do with the truth of germ theory?

>>9004781
What is everyone talking about here. Fast forward to 1:17. This is the closest Sam gets to making Peterson capitulate, . Peterson's position is untenable unless he is willing to concede that what he's referring to as 'truth' isn't what everyone else means when they say truth.


Sam: We could put you in a situation, where knowing something or not knowing something would get you killed. And yet the fact that it would get you killed doesn't reach into the truth value of the statement.
If there's someone going around Toronto killing people for not being able to name all the US presidents in sequence, and let's say he's wrong about what the sequence is, so if you give him a sequence that is in fact inaccurate that is untrue, but it works for him and you survive, it doesn't make it true, right?
Jordan: It makes it true enough to survive.

>>9007054
>what he's referring to as 'truth' isn't what everyone else means when they say truth.
Speak for yourself.

>>9007054
He clarified what he meant by truth in the podcast.

>>9007054
Yeah but from what I can gather, he is arguing that truth is relative depending on how far out you look.
In the example, for the killer in Toronto, what is currently true is the sequence that will let you survive the killer. But if you take it out further and consider the country as a whole, the sequence is not true. You won't pass a history test with the incorrect order list. So in the darwinian means of truth, what is true is now not true. Now you extend this further and further out to reach the boundary that is metaphysics. This is the boundary and there is nothing further out. Now is this what we consider as truth?

>>9006814
Stop

Sam Harris seems to have a very low self esteem. When he doesn't understand something he becomes condescending and "frustrated" as if the fault is on the other person.

>>9007070
Yes, and he's just co-opting the term, he's a pragmatist who is pressing the epistemological sense of the word into his 'useful' sense

File: bad.png (234KB, 600x599px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 600x599px

>>9007083
no

>>9004781
Sam Harris needs to learn how to move on for the sake of being an interesting conversation partner. Peterson was about to move on to some really interesting spiritual questions, and Harris autistically couldn't get off the nature of truth.

>>9007030
He mentions Wittgenstein in the middle of the argument. He wasn't even arguing against it, just saying it wasn't relevant to the deeper point.

>>9004781
That was the most retarded shit of all time. 2 hours of arguing over which of the two definitions of a word (both definitions of which are accepted in common parlance) is correct.

>>9004781
In this episode, Sam doesn't want to leave the 4th dimension

>>9007074
there are levels of "survival" too, so for instance passing an exam is a very minor level of survival but in the case of the exam the history of us presidents being listed in the "correct" order is not correct because it's true but because the exam defines that order as true

>>9005277
>scaruffi prose

>>9006917
Peterson's been under stress for several months, depending on the level of local controversy and so on. Cortisol is a bitch to your immune-system. I believe Sam was simply referencing to the noticeable and not entirely trivial struggle Peterson is, and has been, enduring.

>>9007291
He hasn't understood Wittgenstein at all. He name drops him.

>>9004824
this

>>9010486
He has only himself to blame. I am a conservative and when I looked into the Canadian laws it became apparent Peterson was overreacting and had no understanding, simply a persecution complex. It is all of his own design.

File: 1483402954936.gif (982KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 320x287px

>>9010513
Yet people claiming doing the same comes to the opposite conclusion. Funny how perspectives work. But yeah, you're probably right, Peterson is JUST overreacting and JUST has no understanding. Dichotomies are just cool as fug

>>9004781
I haven't listened to all of it yet, but it seems Harris is going by this definition of truth (the one mostly everyone uses):
adjective
1.
in accordance with fact or reality.
"a true story"
synonyms: accurate, correct, verifiable, faithful, literal, veracious; More
2.
accurate or exact.
"it was a true depiction"
synonyms: accurate, true to life, faithful, telling it like it is, as it really happened, fact-based, realistic, close, lifelike, convincing; More

whereas Peterson has invented a new definition to suit his moral framework or something of the like, truth being "good + useful to our species". He's being proposed an idea that's true by the first definition, and then says things like "it's not true enough".

Why is he trying to change a word when it already has an established meaning? I don't get it.

>>9012020
Sorry, "true + useful to our species"

>>9012020
>Why is he trying to change a word when it already has an established meaning? I don't get it.
This is the core of philosophy. Making up words and changing established ones.

>>9012020

I look at it like this, from one point of view a human being is a collection of atoms and sub-atomic particles interacting with each other and the surrounding enviornment. This is as true as you can possibly get. However, if you are in a situation where you actually have to do shit in the real world like talk to another person or navigate a social situation then this definition of a human being a collection of atoms is completely useless.

To successfully navigate a social situation you have to turn to your own intuition and less hard sciences like psychology... literally shit that is less 1000x less true than our understanding of physics but infinitely more useful to this situation.

>>9012038
Not sure that's as true as you can get since it doesn't differentiate between other animals etc. Defining it as a "homo sapien" would do the trick in both cases, which is what most people would do. But that's not really the point.

I don't see how one's definition of oneself is pertinent to successfully navigating a social situation. I could very well see myself as a collection of atoms and still realize what steps I need to take etc.

I gotta be honest, his redefinition felt a bit like "racism + power"

>To successfully navigate a social situation you have to turn to your own intuition and less hard sciences like psychology... literally shit that is less 1000x less true than our understanding of physics but infinitely more useful to this situation.
True. Use what's relevant and applicable for the situation at hand.

>>9012057

I think my analogy was a bad one because I didn't really want to bring confuse it with definitions of the self or anything like that but I'll just roll with it because I don't want to be accused of moving the goal posts or hyper fitting my argument.

>Not sure that's as true as you can get since it doesn't differentiate between other animals etc. Defining it as a "homo sapien" would do the trick in both cases, which is what most people would do. But that's not really the point.

Homo Sapien is a vague definition, though. Scientists haven't really been able to decide when one species turns into another. Neanderthals were able to interbreed with humans and they are considered a different species or sub-species depending on who you ask.

So when you call what we all intuit a human to be as a Homo Sapien you are giving up some amount of truth and adding vagueness because it is more useful in some respects. Just like if you want to design a medication it can be more useful to look at a human being as a bunch of chemicals.

>I don't see how one's definition of oneself is pertinent to successfully navigating a social situation. I could very well see myself as a collection of atoms and still realize what steps I need to take etc.

Yes, but you have to accept things that are less 'true' than you being a collection of atoms or purely use your intuition and instinct to realize those steps and carry them out.

>True. Use what's relevant and applicable for the situation at hand.

Exactly!

>>9012076
>
Yes, but you have to accept things that are less 'true' than you being a collection of atoms or purely use your intuition and instinct to realize those steps and carry them out.
Not really. I don't need to bother with definitions at all to carry out those steps, that's kind of my point. The definitions are just what we use to determine what things are in discussion and in trying to formulate and share ideas.

I don't think homo sapiens is sufficiently vague to warrant dismissing it as a suitable definition. But honestly, this is kind of a regression and I don't entirely see how it relates to changing the meaning of truth to something pretty much nobody thinks of when hearing the word. He could've just as well said "yeah, truth is all fine and dandy but furthermore you need to consider whether it's useful or not, and this is where I place most of my emphasis". This instead of playing the linguistic game of trying to change an already established meaning.

>>9007217
this, Harris is truly an autist

>>9004781
>anything Harris
>even touching on esotericism

>>9004806

>made Harris sperg out over epistemology

Yeah, I'd say he's our guy

>>9005564
this

>>9005396
Nick Land wrote this
http://www.xenosystems.net/kek/
and he regularly uses /pol/ lingo on twitter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNzjdizPDRU
>this sperg out
>those comments
absolute meme desu

I don't understand, what's stopping Peterson from just use a different word (like good)?

What is the significance/importance of redefining truth?

>>9004837
harris couldn't blow out a paper bag with a hole in it

>>9013684
Nothing. That's what he should be doing, same thing goes for the "racism + power" definition of racism.

>>9005250
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
>ctfl+f "chomsky" 17 matches
you are deluded

>>9013684
Well, you see, when frogs turn into princes, they have to go and slay the dragon, because that's the fear of the unknown, and you have to go into the whale's belly and find your father. In my book Maps of Meaning I talk about this, a lot, over and over again, with great vehemence.

>>9005277
I would say that the difference is that Harris is recognised for some of his intellectual work, however much you may disagree with that work or its very validity or value, whereas Peterson only has a platform for standing up to bullies and political correctness on a way that is independent of his philosophical views.

In fact his obscure brand of reasoning regarding other subjects will likely harm his position regarding the PC police.

>>9007089
>When he doesn't understand something he becomes condescending and "frustrated" as if the fault is on the other person.

Well, he is Jewish.

>>9004781
Sam's reply to Peterson's open letter
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b.-peterson

>>9014015
top kek

>>9014309
>In the year 2017, the question “How should we act in the world?” simply isn’t reducible to Darwinism.
>In the year 2017
I literally dropped it right here.

>>9005517
Ontology is the way reality is. Epistemology is how we know the way reality is

this is offtopic but i was really surprised to find out that jordan takes antidepressants. not because i didn't think he was depressed, but because i always believed that antidepressants basically turned you into a zombie. wheras jordan seems super sharp. maybe i need to get on them myself desu

https://youtu.be/KqXZY3B-cGo?t=717

also his daughter is cute

>>9014655
Had no idea

>>9014309
>>9014377
>IN THE CURRENT CYBER YEAR

>>9014655
SSRIs CAN turn you into an emotionless zombie, and lots and lots and lots, maybe even more than half, of all people who take them report emotional damping. Maybe he's lucky. Maybe he's getting some damping but it doesn't interfere with how he regards his work.

>>9004891
>blind in his following of logic
What?

That was entertaining. Anticipate for the part 2.

>>9004781
Harris was a shit host that couldn't concede anything to let them debate move forward.

The burning room was a good analogy and if Harris did not have autism it would have been enough to let them move forward to actual issues.

He could still disagree with actual points further into the discussion, had he just let the muh truth argument go through.

>>9014015
kek'ed

>>9014671
>PRESENT DAY
>PRESENT TIME

>>9006968
excellent post

>>9004781
I read a lot of good comments from people who understand Jordan's arguments and make a lot of sense.

I don't agree with Peterson but I see where he is coming from. Harris on the other hand seems to cling to his realist rationalist view so he doesn't end up in his oncological mess that would wait for him if they actually started talking about ethics.

I do have to agree though with Peterson that these "micro-examples" are a bitch to argue with. I hate it myself. Don't give me bullshit made up scenarios. Life is far more complex than that.

>>9014377
Could he be any more of a meme? Jesus christ.

Pragmatic ethics may be misunderstood as relativist, as failing to be objective, but that is like suggesting that science fails to be objective. Ethical pragmatists, like scientists, can maintain that their endeavor is objective on the grounds that it converges towards something objective. It's as if Sam Harris intentionally obfuscated the argument to suit his own needs.

>>9004781
PHILOSOPHY IS DEAD IN 2017

File: Doyouhaveanevennumberofhairs.jpg (103KB, 956x709px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 956x709px

I just didn't get why Harris couldn't concede different ontological frameworks, and had to autistically create lame thought experiments for 2 hours.

>>9015258
This. Also, I don't think Sam has ever seriously grappled with the idea that the whole goal of science and the search for objective fact removes subjectivity a priori, which means that any scientific enterprise is essentially amoral, which is why it's dangerous.

The only reason scientists were able to create nuclear weapons was because they left something out of the equation, and what did they leave out? They left out the question "Is it really a good idea to create nuclear weapons?".

Two 'intellectual' entertainers who both prove to be uninteresting.

yawn.

>>9015310
Uh, are you dumb? If the US didn't figure out sub atomic physics, the Russians would've. If not them, the Algerians etc.

It's better to learn a truth and control its application as best you can. In case of nuclear weapons, it's better to have them yourself, as others will eventually develop them too.

>>9015320
>If the US didn't figure out sub atomic physics, the Russians would've. If not them, the Algerians etc.

What are you saying here? That creating nuclear weapons is a good idea simply because everyone else is trying to do the same thing?

Sounds like a good way for humanity to eventually go extinct.

>>9015323
>we all have nukes today
>humanity will go extinct!!

You sound incoherent just like Peterson. Pretty much everyone has nukes already and we're not worse off, in fact, if you're the only person in a room without a gun, your own survival is much more at stake than anyone else's. Do you choose not to learn how to assemble or buy a gun? Really?

>>9015333
Nukes aren't the end-game of science, it's just the most powerful weapon created in the last 500 years of science.

Give it another 500 years.

>>9015347
People said that about guns and then about cannons and then tanks and then short-range missiles and now nukes.. see where this goes? Yeah, nowhere.

>>9015310

>They left out the question "Is it really a good idea to create nuclear weapons?"

They didn't do it for shit's and giggles, they did it because their country was at war with two very dangerous, very powerful opponents.

>>9015310
>t. somebody who knows nothing of the Manhattan project.

>>9015397
>they did it because their country was at war with two very dangerous, very powerful opponents.

Is it worth potentially destroying everyone on the planet because you have opponents?

>>9015406
I know enough to know that in Richard Feynman's memoirs he said that he fell into a serious depression after he realized that he contributed to the deaths of 150000 people.

>>9015333
>Pretty much everyone has nukes already and we're not worse off

until you are

>>9015310
>They left out the question "Is it really a good idea to create nuclear weapons?".

That doesn't make any sense at all I'm sorry.

>>9015497
Okay, I'll make it easier for you then.

Is it really a good idea to aerosol Ebola and put it into bombs?

>>9015502

No, what doesn't make sense is that you seem to think application of scientific truth is the same as the search for scientific truth

>>9015516
Yeah but that's the point though.

There literally isn't any correlation between the search and the application, which is why it's dangerous in the first place.

If you think that humans don't need to a have a serious system of value and ethics to go along with the awesome power of scientific progress, then I think you're being naive.

Now that said, the problem is that there are no ultimate values, so what you're left with is a mush of people's vague opinions about what is correct behavior, while having the power to destroy large metropolitan cities at the blink of an eye.

File: 1473775139266.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>9007054
>>9007074
>>9010131
(False = False) = True

>>9007074
It's the right sequence to pass the test, it's the false sequence the killer thought was right. It's still false/not true.

>>9007054
This really nailed it on the head. Peterson isn't talking about truth, he's talking about truth + usefulness.

>>9014655
I took SSRI's while going to art school, no problems with creating original works or critical thinking.

File: demiurge.jpg (125KB, 418x627px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 418x627px

>>9015310
>amoral

Look a bit deeper into it and you'll start to see it as evil.

Peterson just removed his "open letter" video lol.

>>9016307
why

>>9016307
Nah he didn't you memelord

>>9016315

Because Harris repsonded to Peterson's followup on his blog. Besides the truth argument, Harris disagrees with Peterson's moral/archtypal argument as a whole it looks like.

>>9012036
Underrated post

>>9014098
Not sure if...

>>9016323
lmao, he actually just deleted a comment thread where his shit was being picked apart hard. Said "Cette vidéo n'est pas disponible." So yeah, sorry. That made me think the video was taken down.

>>9016661
Actually the person who posted the comment might've done so. My bad again. Disregard what I wrote.

>>9014098
E W I G E
W
I
G
E

We're in a post-debate era.

Everyone is talking on different wavelengths. Politically, philosophically, socially.

Society is breaking down into tribal groupings (not exclusively ethnic, but largely so) and will continue to do so in the coming decades.

When two people can't even agree on the terminology they're using and one rejects the premises of the other fundamentally, you get stupid shit like this.

Sam Harris' worldview is just juvenile. Peterson has a more mature and "correct" worldview, but I don't think he's the best person to argue for it. He gained prominence by arguing with SJW students, not because he's particularly bright.

Debate is a waste of time when the battle lines have already been drawn. Work to further your cause.

>>9016689
>>9016661
son you might be retarded

>>9005139
>I always laugh reading remarks like this. Chomsky gets it a lot as a public figure as well. Filled to the brim on on every book review site and every youtube comment section are tonnes of comments saying "what a hack", "such a pseudo-intellectual", with no fucking discussion of how they reached those conclusions.
Are you new? This is what people call SJW. Literally: "pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction".

>>9016736
I totally agree with this.

For myself this actually helps me to understand why I am against the privileging of 'difference.' That was the shit that postmodernism was all about, but all of that was done with reference to a sense of the universal that people were still flirting with and needed to ground their own perspective in. The postmodernists were still universalists but this anon I think is 100% correct.

It's going to be tribal and that in some sense a good thing. The healthiest organizations will be the ones that can work together, that actually produce individuals capable of being more than just individuals and at the same time more than collectivist droobies. The big 20C ideologies were still ultimately humanist in a sense that preceded our present post-truth/post-debate era.

It's also going to be hellish and fucked up and violent and crazy. As most of history is.

But even the fall of the Roman Empire led to the Renaissance. I think we're on that trajectory once again.

>>9016736
>Peterson has a more mature and "correct" worldview, but I don't think he's the best person to argue for it

Who is?

>>9017060
My diary desu

>>9017065
haha! my favourite meme!

>>9017073
>>9017065
>>9016761
>>9016736

>Who is?

You claim there is someone better to articulate "his correct point of view". Who are they?

Onugaishimasu. Ignorant-des.

Peterson is awful in public debate. He sucks at refutation, and just regurgitates his ideas even when they barely apply and his opponent is clearly wrong.

Harris is generally better at arguing, but I'm not going to watch these guys go at it when they're operating on wholly different levels ideologically.

I think sam harris's recent response to the nonsensical drivel of peterson on his website; in response to the idea that truth is derived from darwinism; sums up the argument. Peterson is a hack, and what he's saying is unintelligible drivel, but harris cut right through the bullshit. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b.-peterson

>>9004781
philosophical psychologists/neuroscientists are like political musicians. fuck this shit.
>>9005416
>>9005542
isn't it fucking obvious behind all the rhetorical masturbation?
they both agree scientists shouldn't research fucked up shit (ala nazi/japanese ww2 experimentation) just for the sake of finding things out. the guy serving you at mcdonalds could probably come up with that point if pushed to.
peterson is just thoroughly overdramatic about it plus he wants to implement some draconian code by which all scientists won't be able to advance anything that by whatever his neo-fascist standards are, "threaten our survival". how he doesn't see the irony in him being angry about the canadian authorities policing pronouns and him wanting to police the scientific community is fucking laughable.

>>9017188
can you quote the important bits? i'm not giving ben stiller a click

>>9017175
peterson just fucking talks to himself isn't that obvious.
this was the only appearance of his that i watched. because before this he was basically the dan bilzerian of socio-political commentary, hitting at targets who are obviously inexperienced with argument and taking all these easy "wins".

>>9017498
I'm not going to decide what's important, but if you're that against giving Ben a "click" here http://archive.is/bwt6a

>>9017188
Peterson is hiding empty, irrefutable ideas behind symbolism, but Harris isn't much better.

>This is why I think Hume’s famous gap between “is” (facts) and “ought” (values) is misleading on the topic of morality. We can easily reverse direction and discover that we won’t get to “is” without first obeying certain “oughts.” For instance, to understand what the cause of an illness is, one ought to pay attention to regularities in the body and in the environment that coincide with it. (Additionally, we now know that one ought to emphasize material causes, rather than sympathetic magic or the evil eye.) Facts and values are connected.
Facts are derived from values, as can be seen by the debate itself, but that does not mean there's a connection by which facts lead us to values. A relation is not a symmetric relation. What we think is true does not demand any necessary rational response, just as it is not demanded that we interpret truth in any particular way. Getting to moral prescriptions with reason alone is nearly inconceivable.

>We can easily imagine our species being outcompeted by one that has no understanding whatsoever of the cosmos. Would a lethal swarm of disease-bearing insects possess a worldview superior to our own by virtue of eradicating us?
Straight up casuistry. It would be a failure of our worldview, in Jordan's perception, if we allowed that to happen. Clearly things without intentionality can outreplicate things with intentionality (a tribe of Native Americans may be wiped out by smallpox), but that does not mean that putting survival as the criteria for truth claims is wrong. See here:

>Mere survival doesn’t suggest anything about the intellectual or ethical achievement of the survivors
Harris gives no reason to value intellectual or ethical achievement.

Harris easily demonstrates that we do not act according to Darwinian standards, but thinking this amounts to much is incorrectly leaping over the is/ought gap, as he likes to do.

Peterson is saying something that is accepted on preference and impossible to argue against. Harris is sperging out and misunderstanding basic philosophy.

Undergrad Philosophy Major > Harris > Peterson

>>9017557
>Getting to moral prescriptions with reason alone is nearly inconceivable.
If there's no way determine morality using reason, then you admit there's no way to determine morality at all, because if you determine something therefor you're using logic, therefor morality is not determinable.

I imagine it could have gone worse.

I mean, if both of them simultaneously shit their pants and started crying, that would seem worse, for one.

>>9017574
Unless they were qt twinks with diaper fetishes then it would have made a really hot gay scat porno.

>>9017571
That's correct. Moral prescription is an empty and bizarre concept.

Modal logic does not find something valuable in life.

>>9017574
that's way better i'd PPV that.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 358x358px

>>9017557
>Getting to moral prescriptions with reason alone is nearly inconceivable.
A little late to be making that claim, don't you think?

>>9014015
lmao

>>9017188
The problem these two have is that they can't communicate with each other. Harris has spent too much time debating and dissecting arguments, he doesn't listen to understand. Peterson has been trapped in his own head and on the professors podium for too long, he doesn't speak to be understood, instead he relies on you to read between the lines and reconstruct his thoughts. Their languages are literally mutually unintelligible.

>>9017594
What's the most intelligent philosopher of today? Is it Dennett? He seems leagues below Spinoza and Nietzsche.

With so many people living better lives, wouldn't you think the chances of someone like those philosophers emerging would increase? Where is our 21st century big thinker?

>>9015290
Because it would be impossible to discuss moral and religious truths with someone who's conception of truth is as flexible as gender.

why did Peterson balk at the 'cheating wife' example? why couldn't he just say "yes, my system of truth implies that the wife was not cheating"... which it does doesn't it?

File: image.jpg (326KB, 1321x1321px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1321x1321px

>>9004781
>caring about ignorant pseudointellectuals (a psychologist vs a guy with a BS in philosophy and a fake PhD) debating on things they don't understand using literally laughable arguments

When will people learn that public intellectuals are philosophical poison? You only have so much time on this heart, are you really going to waste some of it listening to fucking Jordan Peterson?

>>9019389
why begrudge people their pleasures?

>>9015290
Because Peterson's framework is incoherent.

>>9006968

This is precisely what happened.

JP is sneaking teleology into Darwinian theory, by placing science within a higher moral paradigm.

It's logically sound fantasy and no reasons were provided for accepting the axiom that 'truth serves life', but I'm sure JP has arguments for that.

Anyway, it was just painful to listen to Harris repeatedly forget the core feature of JP's moral theory.

>>9019631

It was perfectly coherent.

It was just logically coherent fantasy.

>>9019679
His concept of truth is useless since nothing can be called false unless it has led to our demise.

>>9019685

Oh look, it's Sam Harris.

Look pleb-ting, I don't buy JP's theory, not one bit; however, that doesn't make it incoherent, nor does it make it useless.

The truth he's speaking of is the higher moral truth and therefore, while something could be locally true, it may be, in reference to the wider picture, false (within the paradigm put forward by JP).

It could be said to be useful if it kept people alive, but then one also has to define utility and that's another kettle of fish.

>>9019679
But Peterson argues that Harris' framework might be fantasy as well...so how do you choose which framework to live by. flip a coin? Seems like the non-nihilistic one comes up heads.

>>9019701

Well, they didn't even manage to get into Harris' framework properly, which was particularly frustrating (Harris wouldn't move on).

What JP is saying is that, if you want to bring science and morality together, you could place morality in science or science in morality.

JP does the latter and it's coherent.

We didn't get to hear how Sam plans to place morality in science, as we never managed to move past the definition of truth.

Do you know how he plans to do that?

All I've seen from him elsewhere is an appeal to common sense that morality is about wellbeing.

>>9019698
Morality isn't truth-apt.

>>9017188
>We didn’t evolve to do science
Looks like we did.

Anyway, I believe I know what JP is trying to say, but I'm not sure it can be said in the realm of science or even philosophy. Maybe "poetry" can be a better category for his stuff.

>>9019716

It's definitely philosophy.

It's constructed with deductive logic, built upon the axiom that 'truth serves life'.

>>9019715

I agree.

Harris doesn't.

Nor does JP.

>>9019729
Could you TL;DR how Harris argues for moral realism?

>>9019701
Peterson is, ironically considered all his whining about it, post-modern as fuck.

>>9019734

I just asked you to do that, lol.

All I've seen Harris say, is that, in this day and age, no form of morality would be accepted if it led to compromising the wellbeing of humans/sentient beings.

Regardless of whether it's utilitarianism (which Harris is sort of espousing), or even Kant's categorical imperative, it would be rejected if it compromised wellbeing.

It's a common sense appeal, that morality is about wellbeing.

Scientifically speaking, morality (as in, human moral behaviour and thought) is about wellbeing; however, in relation to morality meaning 'what ought one to do?', science is silent.

Those two cannot be reconciled with commuting an error of equivocation/deriving and is from and ought, which is what Peterson appears to be doing as well.

I don't know what Harris' arguments for grounding morality in science, and I'm starting to think he doesn't have any (I've read his books).

>>9019752

Committing*

>>9019710
>Do you know how he plans to do that?
I don't. I guess he would have to root it in genes and studies showing the benefit of compassion etc. Not that that's done much good so far. He also has a history of appealing to intuitions for universal principals, which is weasel.

>>9019760

Well that sounds more like JP, with the whole placing it in Darwinian theory thing.

Yeah, Harris is basically appealing to intuition, then building upon an unjustified axiom.

Nobody doubts that we could have a science of wellbeing, it's whether wellbeing is at the heart of morality that's the issue.

Harris has nothing profound to say about that.

>>9012036
>this

>>9012090
If you look at something like Wittgenstein's PI you might be able to get a more coherent (if mildly autistic) understanding of the need to challenge definitions of what established language in general contexts versus specific contexts (which is what I feel the other anon is trying to articulate here)

>>9019752
>Those two cannot be reconciled with commuting an error of equivocation/deriving and is from and ought, which is what Peterson appears to be doing as well.

Honestly, Harris commits a graver error of equivocation than Peterson does.

Peterson's entire ontological framework is from Jean Piaget, which is essentially a constructivist theory of morality(e.g morality comes about from children playing hierarchical games with other children), that increasing in abstraction the older humans get, and the larger the groups get.

Which *is* trying to explain the emergence of moral behavior, the question is whether or not Piaget actually tried to derive an is from an ought, or whether he was trying to square evolutionary theory with the existence of moral behavior.

>>9019929
that increases in abstraction*

I feel like all Harris and Peterson are griping with which they fail to articulate because of their supreme autism, is just that human beings have feelings.

All Peterson is really saying is that facts about the physical world don't explain all of human life. Its really actually very simple, and yet they end up having a 2 hour conversation about nothing.

>>9006968
A+ post ! upvoted

File: 1474412817400.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

I think you will find that /lit/ mostly will side with jp simply because he got famous for debating sjw's which apparently the most intellectually noble thing to do for some reason. Both Peterson and Harris are stubborn and not willing to concede despite it leading to unresolved discussion. I don't really blame them either. Why concede? Its not about providing quality bantz for shitposters. Its about butting heads and that's exactly what they did. It (non ironically) really makes you think.

>>9020552
No, it's honestly annoying that everything has to be a fucking debate and everyone has to be as clever as possible in order to win.

Sometimes getting people to really think doesn't start with being an autist incapable of simple dialog.

>>9020559
>simple dialog
So you want to be told what to think with no discussion
Pure dictation

>>9020594
So, in order words, every time with your friends or family about any topic, you treat it like a debate that you have to win.

Remind how this isn't either arrogant or autistic.

>>9020613
you talk to*

>>9019929
>Peterson's entire ontological framework is from Jean Piaget

I feel like it's closer to John Dewey + Carl Jung, darwinian pragmatism + some psychoanalytical well-being component

>>9020711
Either way it's a far cry from logico-empiricism, and I can see why it makes people like Harris butthurt.

>>9020720
Harris is way past the point of being able to fairly debate philosophy

He's stated several times that he considers non-rational frameworks to be boring and a waste of his time and he refuses to read their literature

Let's not pretend he has some great philosophical mind either. He basically dropped out of philosophy altogether once he fell in love with rationalism. He can form amazing rationalist thought experiments and arguments but anything outside of that specific framework he doesn't have the ability or desire to entertain.

To be honest I wouldn't entertain it either if my career and persona were hinged on being THE rationalist. It's unforgivable from a philosophical standpoint but understandable from any other way you look at it. However, his followers have no such limitations and thus their mutual unwillingness to exit rationalism, even as an academic pursuit, is ironically synonymous with a religious belief.

>>9004781
Nick Land vs Peterson when

>>9020613
>>9020613
When ideas diverge dialogue with get you know where
Discussion through comparing ideas and testing them against logic and reason leads to definitive resolution. Ideas unchallenged are as viable as faith.

>two 200replies thread about the harris-peterson debate

Fucking disgusting

>>9020805
>Rationalism
It's so odd how radically the meaning of this word differs within and without philosophy. It basically means empiricism without, and its opposite within. Is this a case of autoantonym?

>>9020847
sorry we don't all share your opinions, mate.
some of us enjoy a discussion on two prominent authors.

>>9019265
But Peterson's view of gender is not flexible. It's very concrete.

>>9020847
you can just hide the peterson threads if you don't like him so much

>>9005564
>Ironically Harris proved Peterson's point by pointlessly pursuing a scientific result for "truth" thereby depriving us of a valuable discussion
this

>>9020918

>Peterson's view of gender is not flexible. It's very concrete.

Peterson's view of biological sex is fairly concrete, but even during his University debate he conceded that human gender expression and identity is flexible and subject to differences both social and biological, noting that studies show gay and trans women have less neurological differences with female brains than their heterosexual counterparts, and vice versa, is a result of several studies on gender and sex and not a symptom of sjwism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Brain_differences_between_homo-_and_heterosexuals

>>9004781
>anyone wanted to hear Harris vs Peterson
only a fedora would want to

>>9020949
I've never read anything written by Peterson.
Given his opinion on gender you've just quoted, why is he still refusing to use preferred pronouns?

>>9020990

>why is he still refusing to use preferred pronouns

you'd know this if you followed him a bit more, but Peterson's concern was not the use of pronouns itself but the nature of the organization and legislation that led to his protest of being forced to, the social justice tribunals in Ontario are in his observations, essentially kangaroo courts without any until the recent human rights legislation, which is still unclear in any practical sense

IE he's stated that if he was asked personally to use a different suitable pronoun "he, she, they" after mis-gendering a trans person, he's not going to use tumblr-originated otherkin pronouns because they didn't arise from a natural cultural evolution and are too numerous, stuff like Xe and Xir originated from marxist white female professors during the 80s, not from collective consensus from a large portion of the queer community

>>9004781
is it just me or is Sam Harris unlikable

>>9019752
>All I've seen Harris say, is that, in this day and age, no form of morality would be accepted if it led to compromising the wellbeing of humans/sentient beings.
What is capitalism

>>9021026

Sam Harris, a robot built with the worst traits usually associated with armchair psychonauts like Joe Rogan, implanted in the chassis of an elite east-coast Jew progressive ideal, with all the proper filters and prior apologies necessary for each calculated broadcast to us meatbags

>>9018856
Very observant and interesting post. I agree.

>>9021026
On a personal level I like JP. He seems so sad.

>>9016736
>We're in a post-debate era.
>Everyone is talking on different wavelengths

This is nothing new you child.
You would have said the same thing back in day about the Bergson-Einstein debate.

>>9019784
>Well that sounds more like JP, with the whole placing it in Darwinian theory thing
Well, as Harris points out, Darwin might not even be Darwinian... if the theory of evolution led to massive death it would follow that that theory is "false". Which highlights other people's points that we really should be using more utilitarian words.

>it's whether wellbeing is at the heart of morality that's the issue
Who would give anything but intellectual consideration to a non-wellbeing centered morality? Remember all those Kantians and their categorical imperative? me neither.

>>9004806
More than ever

>>9004781
What were some conceivable reasons people wanted to hear this?
I listened to the whole thing trying to figure it out but I guess I've been away from 4chan for a few years because my life almost seemed like it could improve.
What was so appealing about hearing these two idiots speak?

>>9021032
>What is the 1%

>>9004781
>giving attention to these people

>>9005608
There's nothing unfair about his depiction of far, extreme leftists. Call it goal post moving if you want but Peterson isn't an ideologue and would still preface and be specific about who he's talking about. He refers to them as Marxists and that dogma is as retarded as his criticisms make it out to be. It's an accurate representation of those ideas while not mid representing them. Marxism is for the intellectually shallow and impoverished

File: 5ae.jpg (164KB, 1240x786px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1240x786px

>>9021798
>Marxism is for the intellectually shallow and impoverished
t. the intellectually shallow and impoverished

>>9012036
:)

>>9021047
samsam is cali born and raised faguette

>>9021419
Neo-kantianism still prevelant desu. Idealist transcendentalism ftw

>>9021026
He seems like the type of guy who thinks he's always right, can never admit he's wrong and stubborn in various other ways. He reminds me of my father. ;_;

Why would you expect two slave moralist mra's to say anything of substance?

>>9005277
I have a severe hatred of Sam Harris, almost to the point of wanting to punch something whenever I see his stupid smug face. I have much more of a soft spot for Peterson but I agree wholeheartedly with you. As soon as I saw a video of him talking about Jungian synchronicity happening to him I stopped watching his videos. It's just another way of thinking the world literally revolves around you.

is there anything as pointless as a "debate"?

Why can't he just say "useful for survival"?
Why does he have to call it "true"?

I don't get the advantage of this, unless his purpose is to be confusing.

https://youtu.be/EN2lyN7rM4E?t=1h59m56s

Harris btfo

>>9024406
You can argue about the definition of truth, but Peterson doesn't get more out of this than he would by saying any ideas beneficial to survival and reproduction are good, and empirical consistency with reality is not inherently valuable.

>>9024406
>Why does he have to call it "true"?
Because that's fundamentally the core of the problem.

Take the question: Is Newtonian physics or quantum physics true?

Being as pedantic as possible, we know that quantum effects are the true mediators of the nature of physics. It's only on the macro-scale that we consider Newtonian physics to be correct, but we're well aware that it's not strictly 'true'.

On the other hand, for most intents and purposes, we function on the macro-scale as human beings. The relevance of quantum physics to the average man is negligible. The relevance of Newtonian physics overwhelming distorts its truthfulness, and in physics, you should always consider your frame of reference. Both are 'true' in this sense. From this perspective, I find it's pretty clear what kind of truth he's proposing and it's no less consistent. Even physicists and scientists acknowledge when to use which models, so being pedantic just ignores how everyone else uses 'scientific fact'.

>>9026578
Your example ignores Peterson's freighting truth with Darwinian bullshit. Truth changes, sure. I don't see the connection to Peterson, though.

>>9005148
I'm calling b8 on this one

>>9026629
Truth framed in this manner boils down to the truth which is conducive to solving a problem. Here it's just physics problems. But that abstraction doesn't work generally. This is where 'Darwinian bullshit' comes in. The idea of survival is effectively the highest level and only meaningful meta-problem at that level, that we as living beings are tasked with solving. At least from our own current comprehension.

>>9026641
I'm not even convinced that 'survival' is limited only to living beings. The grander problem is of thermodynamics and solving the cosmological heat death of the universe where the redistribution of energy in the universe means nothing can ever occur. No work, no computation, absolutely nothing.

But this is pretty much at the same level as before, it's effectively the same problem, just not skewed by the notions of living or evolution. If someone can come up with a meta-problem higher than this, I would love to know. The only way you can disregard any of this, is if you think that we're not trying to solving any problems, which makes the case for nihilism. But if this were true, why wouldn't everyone just kill themselves?

>>9026712
You're thinking too materialy. The heat death of the universe has nothing to do with your being. It's something you have to imagine, it has no relevance to you. You and everyone else you know and probably the entire species won't exist by then. Your primary meta goal is to stay alive. The rest is a fiction.

>>9026712
You keep stepping outside yourself. Reality is your conciousness, that's not to say the outside world isn't real, but your ontology isn't grounded in scientific truth. Science is just a story we tell ourselves based on some pretty recent findings.

>>9026781
The function of your being is entropy. Us as a living organism are one of the most complex ordered states distinguished from nothing. I disagree that it has no relevance, but I agree that we probably won't exist by then. But I think it's already strongly not true about about some of the things we create. We've launched probes into space that go on with practically nothing, and they'll continue to do so in the future with more self sustainability.

Even if our inevitable destruction is true, we're not going to take it lying down.

>>9026787
We didn't need science to tell us about our inevitable destruction, or the so-called 'apocalypse'. It only helps us to describe things we already knew.

Can someone explain to me why and how Harris denies Hume's is-ought?

>>9026802
Well either way, you personally will be dead by then. Thinking about the future of the species is something you can only ever imagine. Every time you think about the future you're imagining it, same with the past. If you're going to talk about something fundamental like truth it has to be grounded in who you are now.

>>9026951
You're wrong. Truth is not grounded in who you are now. Truth, just like knowledge, exists in the world, independently of you or me. Truth is that light that travels from the eye of heaven into eternity.

>>9026310
and survival is inherently valuable? So the despairing suicides just forgot this...truth? Oh gawd if only they had known about Peterson's arbitrary axiom they could have persevered in abject misery for years to come. sad!

>>9004891
>tfw to smart too be logical

File: tumblr_la90gvsVhR1qafxgdo1_500.jpg (48KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x379px

>>9027447
>>9014714

>>9005277
I really don't think of Peterson of a serious intellectual. I think footnote would be a stretch. Harris getting a footnote as well would be a stretch.

Peterson I think is good in the sense that he's somebody in current year that can look into the past and pick out interesting observations and put it together in a coherant manner. He really lacks that creativity, that brilliance that gets you remembered, because he's at best a good at putting together a course based on people that are smarter than him. He seems like a good philosophy 101 teacher.

Harris is a philosophical brainlet to a fucking extreme and this interview made me want to slam my head through a desk. I never REALLY got into Harris but I did get caught up in the atheism shit going on in the 2000s. He literally reminds me of how I thought I had everything figured out at 16, god was a lie man, and like, science and rationality is the truth.

>>9020990
It's less that he's refusing to use the pronouns, and more opposed to them being enforced by law.

There are logical flaws in ontarios law that everybodies preferred pronoun must be respected in that there is no logical place to draw a line so people are going to have to pretend that tumblr genders are real or they can get dragged to a human rights commission and be forced to pay a civil penalty.

There is also a general distaste for Canadas hate speech laws, it's not as if he hates this one and likes the rest, he's against government enforced limits on speech.

His issue is that Canada is literally writing into law that you HAVE to use the pronouns that EVERYBODY knows are stupid.

It's not as if he is completely against the concept of pronouns or is unaware of the science around trans, but it's a stand that needs to be taken in light of government fuckery, or shit will get progressively worse.

Why does EVERYONE who's into Jung invariably turns into some rambling incoherent freak?

>>9026978
If there's nothing to know truth then truth can't exist. The universe doesn't have opinions on stuff. It just is. Truth is some shit we made up.

>>9027447
What's absolutely logical is nihilism, which is stupid as fuck. Logic is for edgy teenagers

>>9026978

>Truth, just like knowledge, exists in the world, independently of you or me

You're just like Plato, if he had Down's Syndrome.

>>9029104

Existential nihilism, indeed.

Why is logic for edgy teens?

>>9027712
When you fly too near the sun, your skin gets burnt.

>>9027712

Why do most people seem to have trouble understanding Peterson?

I reject his moral system, as it's teleological bullshit, but it's perfectly coherent.

>>9026951
The truth of today is possibly the most confusing out of the three. The truth of the past is all that we accept it to be. The truth of the future is all the possibilities we can accept there to be. But the truth of the present is the amelioration of the two deciding fate at each moment. Without the help of hindsight or knowledge and without the ability to apply longitudinal information to instantaneous moments, the truth of today is the most unclear.

I would say the argument isn't over and it's too early to judge.

Part 2 I want to hear Harris defending his own philosophy from Peterson attacking. That'd be good. See which one can stand up to blows better.

>>9026641
>The idea of survival is effectively the highest level and only meaningful meta-problem at that level, that we as living beings are tasked with solving
Do you believe this? Or are you summarizing Peterson for me? I don't see how that's obvious. For me, there could be a number of things to use a metric. Survivability I think is a weak one for the reasons Sam pointed out. There are plenty of instances where life is not worth living---although his examples regarding this particular topic were atrociously autistic

>>9004781
Both of these guys are hacks. Peterson is probably shittier due to his piss-poor understanding of Nietzsche and his Jung/symbol retardation

>>9030222
I think it's generally consistent with Peterson's views on meta-hierarchies. For someone who has studied software meta-modelling, meta-programming and bits of the associated type theory, it's a relatively attractive view-point. The problem I see, is that I really haven't heard any convincing opposing arguments.

File: 1447759827583.jpg (41KB, 573x447px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 573x447px

Rationalist cucks still claiming Peterson lost.