An Open Letter to Sam Harris

Well ok, here he presents his ideas clearly. The evolutionary psychology stuff sounds really weak. I don't buy it at all that males who believe/use/whatever the archetypes somehow make it on top of the hierarchy.

>>9007465
Sorry, I was focusing on his autistic facial expressions the entire time.

>>9007465
>The evolutionary psychology stuff sounds really weak

It's way more expansive than evo psych. The evo psych plebs thinks that time starts in the African savannah, which is obviously a completely arbitrary starting point.

When he admitted he does psychedelics everything clicked for me, of course that man would see everything as meme when tripping balls is his ultimate definition of truth.

>>9007547
Having done them at some point in your life doesn't mean you're an addict.

Even Harris has taken psychedelics and he's obviously too autistic to understand Peterson's arguments.

>>9007547
>When he admitted he does psychedelics everything clicked for me

Proof?

I will no longer reply to these threads if this retard turns out not only to be wrong but also a degenerate.

What is this retard even talking about? Sam Harris gave a scientific definition of truth with many thought examples from reality that proves his view as being logically necessary. This guy talk about Freud, Nietzsche and memes? And what the fuck does evolution have to do with this?

He's hoping to appear smart by being obscure and anchor his incoherent ideas to well known philosophers that haven't been relevant for a
century. And it works. Everytime he mentions Nietzsche the reward centre explodes in the brain of all you pseuds on this board, and with that you wrongfully think something profound was said.

>>9007402

I couldn't really understand what argument he was making to Sam Harris in the podcast. It's like they were talking about semantics the whole time. Can anyone help a pleb out?

>>9007611
You're still a realist/physicalist pleb.

Pick up a book!

>>9007614
They were. Harris couldnt move past it.

Humanitiesfag rejects science, more at 11

>>9007624
No.

They just reject the axioms.

>>9007614
They weren't talking about semantics. Peterson just has a different conception of truth, a conception that he borrows heavily from Nietzsche and American pragmatism.

The fact that Sam couldn't simply accept that they operated on different axioms made him look like an autist frankly.

File: 1478572652502.jpg (63KB, 423x343px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 423x343px

>>9007554
>sam reasons and relies upon empirical data
>this makes him autistic

>>9007645
That's not why he's autistic. He's autistic because he clearly couldn't accept that Peterson has different axioms and had to try to convince Peterson that he was wrong about those axioms for 2 hours because he has a massive ego.

>>9007656
>Peterson has different axioms
You mean..like how other people have different pronouns?
How close-minded of Harris!

>>9007664
Now you're just extolling the virtue of being uneducated faggot.

>read X
>refer to Y
>in words of Z
>as stated by W
Why don't you make your own argument, cuntface. Academics are fucking drones

>>9007656
What were Peterson's axioms?
It seems to be
>"the truth of a proposition is how useful it is" and
>"something is useful if it maximises happiness or reduces suffering".
These are his two axioms. Harris demonstrates some examples of true propositions which are independent of their utility to humans. Peterson concedes this for individual truths but for the set of all true statements.
But how can we have access to this nebulous "Truth+"?

>>9007749
>But how can we have access to this nebulous "Truth+

Maybe there is no such access which is admitting that humans are finite and limited creatures.

>>9007614
They basically differ on the is/ought problem whereby Harris holds a Newtonian viewpoint whereas Peterson holds a Darwinian viewpoint.

The essential debate is about the dichotomy between religious truth and positivist truth

>>9007759
No the debate is between pragmatism and positivism.

Religion isn't even mentioned, and bringing it up is poisoning the well.

>people on this board respect "le positivist atheist science man"
>he gets his shit rekt even by retards like chomsky and peterson
every time

>>9007758
Sam would agree to some extent I think.

The point is Peterson was shown wrong and admitted that some propositions were true independently of their utility to humans. Actually I am not sure, that was what Harris was trying to get him to do and Peterson verbally said something like "I agree to an extent".
However he didn't, he thought there was some omega point out in the future which determined if all our current propositions were true or false, what I call "truth+".
However as you admit we are necessarily limited, so even if we reached the "omega point" and could finally unlock the truth vlues of all our old propositions, how could we know it? We can't unless we cease to limited in any way.

>>9007781
I agree. But honestly I don't think Peterson went into the discussion with the assumption that it was going to be a debate, but simply a discussion where they talked about their ideas.

What I personally wish Peterson said, following Nietzsche, was that truths that are true independent of their utility to humans are essentially not interesting because they have no value.

2+2=4 might be true as a matter of mathematics, but until you're actually putting someone in a space ship for example, and going to launch them into space, it's just a trivial piece of information.

File: nietzschecolor.jpg (321KB, 1463x1986px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1463x1986px

>>9007809
>>9007809
>>9007809

>>9007806
>it is something rather more terrifying, "namely a principle that is hostile to life and destructive," perhaps even "a hidden will to death."

This is approximately what Peterson said though. The "will to Truth" is encapsulated perfectly in the model scientist because he is actually trying to find out what is true regardless of whether it gets everyone and himself killed in the process.

And this is obliquely related to Peterson's assertion that materialist rationalism actually causes nihilism in people.

>>9007402
does anyone have a transcript?
can't really stand listen to this guy reading out his own words

>>9007834
Why would anyone bother making a transcript of a video that is 7 minutes long?

I mean, if it's that much of a bother for you, you should just ignore the whole thing.

>>9007840
Why would anyone read out a letter instead of just posting it online though?

>>9007847
>>9007840
>>9007834
YouTube already has a transcript option.

Click "...More" under the video then "Transcript".

>>9007816
What causes nihilism in the person depends on the person. The Good Life is impossible for weaklings like Jordan Peterson. He has to seek refuge in the Christian faith because he is too cowardly to pursue truth and would rather believe than question. "For the mediocre, being mediocre is his happiness." Only the strong can attain that happiness which all men want. For übermenschen like Nietzsche, Sam Harris and myself the will to truth is a central pillar in our perpetual task of self-mastery, self-perfection, self-overcoming.

>>9007771
Peterson's interprettation of religion is somewhat different than one would first expect. It could mostly be defined as how one should act.

File: 1456034991961.png (95KB, 400x391px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 400x391px

Anyone else think Peterson is about to fucking lose it.
I think this guy has some overwhelming psychological issues, which might explain his style of "thought" against Harris.
Also the talk about the hypothetical man whose wife was cheating on him, seemed to draw heightened emotion from Peterson for some reason.

It wouldn't surprise me if he live streams his suicide with finale "open letter to humanity" or something of the kind.

And I am neither a Darwinist nor a materialist and I can still type the things I am typing without contradicting myself. Peterson likes to distort people's words so he can drag the big names along with him and drag the small names over to the side of his interlocutor.

>>9007874
kek

>>9007869
>It could mostly be defined as how one should act.

Indeed, which starts from a framework of pragmatism.

But this is his own idiosyncratic interpretation. Being a pragmatist doesn't mean you must be religious, in fact, as Peterson rightly says most of the pragmatists agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution, and probably weren't religious in the traditional sense.

>>9007864
>For übermenschen like Nietzsche, Sam Harris and myself

Cringeworthy.

>>9007879
I am nit trolling, I genuinely get the vibe that he is not well. He seemed on the verge of tears and we know he has broken down reading things at least once.
He probably has used the real but minor transgender thing as a scapegoat for an innate persecution complex?

>>9007895
Not as cringeworthy as your existence is in the eyes of your mother and father.

>>9007896
Why can't the guy simply be genuine?

Sounds like you have a mania about bad actors.

File: carl-jung-1-sized.jpg (33KB, 240x334px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 240x334px

>>9007896
Seems like someone can't bear his collective consciousness, not even the shadow

>>9007905
Cute projection m8. Way to reveal your own state of mind.

>>9007910
No hay peor burla, que la verdadera.

>>9007906
Maybe.
I think he perceives his debate with Harris as a failure, he knows he lost, or will generally be seen as having blown it.
I think experiencing someone as rationally competent as Harris shattered his ego or at least initiated a chain reaction.
The more I hear about Peterson the more it becomes clear that he is neither rational nor entirely sane.

>>9007919
I don't think he thought it was going to be a debate at all and was caught off guard, and it was pretty clear that Harris came into it with the sole intention of treating it as a debate.

It's actually quite interesting, because almost no other podcast I've heard except the ones where Sam is debating the most retarded Islam-apologists, has he treated it like a debate.

>>9007888
thanks for the clarification, and nice trips

>>9007494

Work 80-90 hours a week and still try to comport yourself with decency and your face will look all tired and shit too

>>9007561
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBgj8U3lw0

>>9007638
>I understand you but will pretend I don't until you agree with me so we can move on to the point where I win because I'm right.

File: 0313b5d1556fa6d810dcaf20fda29286.jpg (15KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 472x472px

the cognitive dissonance as Nu-Atheist bandwagon hoppers realize that they were never anything more than a ripple on the pond of philosophy is fucking delicious. Peterson literally has to dumb down basic philosophy for this fucking retarded Jew to even have a CHANCE of understanding it, and he still fails, so he goes further. He dumbs down STORIES about philosophy to their barest minimum, with complete explanations, and STILL the Jew doesn't get it.

>>9007927
>I don't think he thought it was going to be a debate at all and was caught off guard, and it was pretty clear that Harris came into it with the sole intention of treating it as a debate.

Peterson went into it as a discussion, a chance for each person to work through their thoughts and hopefully each learn something. Harris went in for the purpose of defeating Peterson and would not grant Peterson his definition of truth so he could continue to make a point.

Honestly Harris sounded like a 4chan troll who would just keep repeating the same point till you got tired.

>but that is not my definition of truth, you are wrong

>>9007864
You are subhuman

>>9007905
Another trip to the filter. Not that you're weren't already doing poorly without some ironic ad-hominem

>>9007802
This. A truth that has no utility to us is irrelevant. Peterson should have tried to make this clear early on and saved us from Harris' stubbornness (but admittedly Peterson was also being stubborn).

Why is Peterson's use of psychedelics for therapeutic means all of a sudden degenerate??

He's not pushing their use for god's sake, but it's a well known fact that psychedelics are a useful tool in psychological studies and therapy. Peterson being a clinical psychologist, it makes perfect sense that he'd have been curious about them at some point.

I mean goddamn, people that completely close the conversation whenever psychedelics are brought up seem like tribal people thinking fMRI machines are evil or something.

>>9007802
>was that truths that are true independent of their utility to humans are essentially not interesting because they have no value.

Exactly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znjCuLlf8E

>>9007465
>The evolutionary psychology stuff sounds really weak.
It really isn't.

>I don't buy it at all that males who believe/use/whatever the archetypes somehow make it on top of the hierarchy.
He is not making those claims at all. He is not saying that if you like carl jung you will come to the top of the hierarchy. He does go in to great detail about hierarchies in his lectures and he says that human hierarchy are based on competence. If you are competent you get elevated. And rightly so, you'd want someone that is competent to have the responsibility and be leading.

>>9007402

Why wont this faggot just die already.

>>9008048
FUCKING DROPPED
U
C
K
I
N
G

D
R
O
P
P
E
D

Why do pseuds like to misrepresent evolution so much?

>>9007907

cringe

>>9007874
>>9007896
I got this feeling watching his video beforehand discussing him about to go on harris' thing, then his tweet afterward, adn now this. i hope he's doing ok

File: Screenshot_74.jpg (22KB, 271x351px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 271x351px

tfw your brain is trying to break out of your skull.

>>9007402
This man is an embarrassment to philosophy

File: jungredbook1a.jpg (53KB, 476x625px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 476x625px

>>9008495
Carl Jung is not cringe you uneducated swinal pleb, he is one of the greatest minds, and certainly the most greatest psychologist ever to make a step on earth.

Why do you think Peterson uses the concepts (or Darwinian truths I may say hehe) of archetypes in his own pragmatic theory of truth philosophy? Peterson himself speaks highly of Jung, no doubt in my mind why.

Learn about Jung and become aware of collective consciousness. Or - stay a philistine and fail (if you are male) to reach the hierarchical top.

>>9007402

they've babbled about metaphysics for a while now, but what specific actions of humanity are Peterson and Harris arguing over, rather than just arguing over a metaphysical worldview

>>9008550

>most greatest

>>9007402
Can some Anons explain why a lot of other Anons are defending Peterson's Epistemological Pragmatism with such alacrity? How is this a popular movement, I'm not sure if this post sounds arrogant but what do people find appealing about this philosophy?

>>9008312
I honestly don't get why anyone would hold this position.
Ok, so maybe it is irrelevant but it still exists, doesn't it?
Even if the whole world were to concede that the word truth only includes truths that have utility, what word do you use for truths that don't have utility?
Even you call it a "truth with no utility". So is it a truth or isn't it?

>>9008331
psychedelics are mind control devices planted here by the archons to enslave us

>>9008580
>what do people find appealing about this philosophy

anons who had weak fathers, dry spiritual upbringing, or little meaning in their lives look up to Peterson as a spiritual father figure and anons who had strong fathers or religious upbringings have their emotional foundations reaffirmed when Peterson talks about the importance of the Great Father and tradition

File: 1483577917974.png (432KB, 530x570px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 530x570px

>>9008580
science is a tool, it is not something to be deified. when you place science and its philosophy at the core then the search for truth, as defined by science, becomes all consuming. man is more than the search for scientific truth, you can't just remove myth and religion from people and replace it with science and assume we as a society will function and grow.

or something like that

>>9008580
Pardon me for the psychobabble, but I would say it is simply the bandwagon effect
People love him for his anti-pc stance, and their interest for Peterson just increases

>>9008595
>reading Jung passage about how his patient was viewing him as a father-god figure
>realize this is what I'm doing with Peterson
fug

>>9008590
>psychedelics are mind control devices planted here by the archons to enslave us

You have the backwards, it is the catholic church that are here to enslave us as the agents of the demiurge. Psychedelics can free us from this material prison.

>>9008587
Harris seemed to be trying to make that same point and Peterson wasn't denying it but it seems that what he was arguing was that pragmatic truth is more important than scientific truth, and Harris disagrees.

>>9008617
psychedelics give you the illusion of freedom and make you complacent in your material prison by thinking you can transcend it chemically

>>9008632
I would argue that the psychedelic are just a catalyst for you to change your life, they provide perspective, and are not transcendence by themselves.

Although you make a fair point, it is easy to get trapped in the mindset you suggest.

>>9008632

>using your eyes and brain to read the Nag Hammadi texts is somehow less of a material phenonema than using your digestive system and brain to consume five grams of psilocybin

>>9008587
Yeah, but what is something true for if it doesn't have any utility? What's the use in saying there's a 50% change that I have an odd or even number of hairs on my body?

It's literally inconsequential to anything either in the universe or as a matter of human life.

You can still say it's true as a matter of information, but that's the whole point with Peterson's pragmatism. He doesn't think truths are relevant unless they have utility and relate to humans in some way, and unless you think you have some ideological duty to gather every single piece of useless and utilityless fact of the universe, you'd see that too.

>>9008644
just think about your average hippie stoner and how misguided they are

>>9008601
But you're just concatenating two distinct ideas; why does asserting that science is a good tool for assessing/finding truth predicate that I'm asserting anything about societies need for myth and religion.

This is completely untenable. I find it annoying/disappointing that so many Anons are heralding JP's archaic epistemological pragmatism worldview as wise/incisive/etc on here

>>9008647
reading a book or eating a fungus isn't enough

>>9008669

and yet you would have never known about Gnosticism had you never read about it, odd how that works

>>9008665
>But you're just concatenating two distinct ideas; why does asserting that science is a good tool for assessing/finding truth predicate that I'm asserting anything about societies need for myth and religion.

Listen to how people talk, they will say things like I don't believe in religion anymore I believe in science. Science has become more than just a tool it is a worldview, a belief system. What science says is true, everything else is false and immaterial.

From a materialist perspective that may be true but that does not mean it should be the way we organize our society. I would argue it is the nihilistic trap. Everything is material, nothing matters, you are unimportant. That is what the belief in science, not science as a tool, as created.

>>9008677
I said it isn't enough

I'm not literally gnostic but I think their symbols are useful

>>9008696

I'm not literally a hippie but I think their drugs are useful

>>9008649
>You can still say it's true as a matter of information, but that's the whole point with Peterson's pragmatism. He doesn't think truths are relevant unless they have utility and relate to humans in some way
But it's still true.
If it weren't true maybe you should refrain from referring to it as a truth.

I guess what I find so baffling is insisting on calling things true but at the same time saying they're not actually truths. I don't disagree with what is being said, I just find the use of language preposterous.

Tbf though, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who is completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy.
I'm reading this
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/#H1
and I'm getting a bit frustrated at the pointlessness of it, but I guess that's the whole point of philosophy.

>>9008702
ok that's good for you but from my own experience I have learned that most people who are into psychedelics get little out of them while thinking that they have gotten a lot

In 100 years this be common knowledge: if you haven't tried psychedelics you haven't lived.

One dose of LSD will add a whole new dimension to your existence you could never have dreamed of.

Yet you morons, scared by your public education on drugs, won't do it. That's the only reason you abstain.

I mean, it's $10, takes one evening, and the risks are relatively non-existent.

>>9008741
this is exactly what I'm talking about here >>9008722

>>9008745
which is why the use of psychedelics need to be used in the appropriate cultural context. It is part of a process that involves study and then introspection and analysis afterwords.

their use has been divorced from this type of context and have become a commodity . The experience is then reflective of the culture in which it is consumed, its hollow and without spirit.

>>9007402
>metaphysical propositions
>ontological axioms
>epistemological roadblock
>metalogical street
>a priori houses

>>9008745

I've taken LSD three times times in my life. Nobody I know in person even knows about it. So no, I'm not 'into' psychedelics...

I just think they're a useful tool for introspection. How useful? Again, $10 and 6 hours is a small price to pay.

>>9008717
>I don't disagree with what is being said, I just find the use of language preposterous.
Yeah, in the end it boiled down to 2 hours of semantics. Shame.
Hopefully the second part will have some actual discussion.

>>9008690
That's not the claim I'm making, you're just recoiling against angsty atheists.

> I would argue it is the nihilistic trap. Everything is material, nothing matters, you are unimportant. That is what the belief in science, not science as a tool, as created.
Then you're wrong. Being a materialist doesn't necessitate being a nihilist. And just because you meet/interact with a bunch of materialist nihilists doesn't make it so.

Anon there is no rigour in your post/its internal logic. I'm not trying to be rude but that is a sophomoric argument at best.

>>9008759
you might be right

but I think that just shows there isn't anything intrinsically good about it, it needs other communal structures and support to have a positive effect of any significant magnitude, which is why I think statements like "if you haven't tried psychedelics you haven't lived" are grossly misleading at best

>>9008741
Stop acting like LSD is the only way to access these esoteric, even normative, states of consciousness.

>>9008779
>Being a materialist doesn't necessitate being a nihilist.

It sure does. Where do you suppose value comes from if you believe that there is no quantifiable difference between you and a rock?

>>9008741
People who do LSD are more likely to become conspiracy nuts though.
No thanks m8.

>>9008466
It's just as bad as new agers trying to talk about quantum physics.

>>9008779
Lets start over then. I attempted to highlight why people find Peterson attractive, you followed with.

>But you're just concatenating two distinct ideas; why does asserting that science is a good tool for assessing/finding truth predicate that I'm asserting anything about societies need for myth and religion.

If you follow the augment Peterson is making he is claiming that Harris is arguing that morality is derived from science. Peterson is arguing the opposite. I think we can agree on that.

It was Harris that argues that science is a tool for determining morality because he puts morality within the domain of science. I don't know about you but that was the Harris position.

Petterson is claiming that without a moral framework, not derived from and above science, than the search for truth, defined by science can and negative consequences.

>Then you're wrong. Being a materialist doesn't necessitate being a nihilist. And just because you meet/interact with a bunch of materialist nihilists doesn't make it so.

Agreed, I should have been more precise. One does not necessarily require the other. Although it would be hard to deny that many people fall into such a situation as we have moved away from religion and replaced it with a belief in science.

>Anon there is no rigour in your post/its internal logic. I'm not trying to be rude but that is a sophomoric argument at best.
very likely, the only way I will improve is with discussion and reading and no amount of insults, despite what you claim, will make me any better. It was not really germane to the argument, all you need to do is point out my flaws.

No need to be a superior jackass

>>9008790
>It sure does
Anon ... Values are inherently assigned normatively. That is a ridiculous claim.

... I'm not sure if this is miscommunication, Anon, you know that materialism doesn't posit that conscious experience doesn't exist?

The misconception is that taking LSD will give you spiritual experience, or show you something other people don't know, or that it involves anything supernatural.

It doesn't. It's just a mirror. You will see yourself and your ways from an outside perspective and you can improve yourself from this.

>>9008839
>you know that materialism doesn't posit that conscious experience doesn't exist?

I didn't say it did.

But good luck trying to explain how values exist within a materialistic framework.

>>9008826
>No need to be a superior jackass
Sorry Anon, I honestly wasn't trying to, my credulity was just being tested.

Anyways:
>If you follow the augment Peterson is making he is claiming that Harris is arguing that morality is derived from science
This isn't the crux of Peterson's position that hung up the podcast. Peterson is heralding his own brand of epistemological pragmatism. What you've just brought up can't even be addressed until SH and JP cemented their ontological/epistemological foundation

>>9008857
I just did. Values are (perhaps tautologically) assigned normatively. Why is that confusing you?

>>9008878
>assigned normatively

That is to say, they are just conjured out of thin air, and are completely arbitrary whims?

>>9008601
Religion is a tool for controlling masses but no religion grows qualitatively, religion can only evangelize without negating itself as itself. Science is a tool that must control masses as it develops itself... it has actually been continuously revolutionizing reality itself since we discovered solid methods in the 17th century. Scientific development can't be stopped now... its development has become practically autonomous... some form of transhumanism is an inevitability as development continues. Valorizing myths for the masses won't stop the actual historical development that has been set in motion.

>>9008858
>. What you've just brought up can't even be addressed until SH and JP cemented their ontological/epistemological foundation

Agreed, I am y have been jumping around since i have read some of Petterson works. if so I apologize. They have a fundamental disagreement.

To Peterson truth is only truth if it has utility, Harris argues that truth exists regardless. Peterson argues that the truth we develop is a product of our moral system which is a product of evolution. I assume you will agree with me that is his argument.

So it would boil down to something like
>We discover truth it has utility we survive and therefore it is true, if we don't survive than the truth is false.

>>9008922
>Harris argues that truth exists regardless.

that called Platonism and its more hand-wavy bullshit than Peterson's rants on Jung could ever conjure up

>>9008900
Anon you're completely cutting out the entire field of (formal) Axiology. And your sardonic characterization is just ignorant.

>>9008900
they are path-dependent, so more like from the thick soup of ideas

>>9008948
No I'm not doing any such thing, I'm merely asking where the grounding for any sort of value exists for humans when there is no differentiating principle(e.g since only matter exists), between rocks, humans and the sea.

>>9008933
Anon platonic realism (or platonic idealism as its known) is just one sub-field of realism. You're miss-characterizing SH philosophy. If anything his flavour of realism is closer to scientific realism

>>9008963
Ok Anon, I'll give you what it seems like you are looking for, what it seems like you're positing is that a dichotomy is necessary so that one side can be assigned value over the other, material over non material, seems to be what you're saying.

A materialist could find the following dichotomy: Conscious experience over non-consciousness/oblivion.

These are BOTH normative assignments/appraisals

>>9008966

>miss-characterizing SH philosophy

his philosophy wasted our time with an hour of hand-wavy bullshit examples of "Truth" while Peterson wanted to move on to the issue at hand, which was his view on morality, so I don't think so

>>9008980
>These are BOTH normative assignments/appraisals

Without any grounding. It's literally just the individual materialists opinion, so at best it'll turn into existential nihilism, and at worse a kind of extreme moral relativism or sentimentalism.

>>9008981
Whether or not he wasted our time (which I do agree with, pretty disappointing podcast) has nothing to do with the fact that you're conflating scientific and platonic realism

>>9007611
being this close minded

>>9008998

>has nothing to do with the fact that you're conflating scientific and platonic realism

and I don't care, linguistic hangups like that are the reason this conversation (and this thread) are terrible

>>9008993
All normative claims fall back onto/are measured against an axiomatic imperative. You're assertion that materialism necessarily logically leads to nihilism is ridiculous.

>>9009005
wow, pleb.
>I don't care that I'm miss-using philosophical notation, just move onto the philosophical chitchat that interests me.

>>9009013
You still haven't responded to my challenge. You're just saying "no u".

Where is the value in a material universe? Nowhere. Hence nihilism.

>>9009020
>just move onto the philosophical chitchat that interests me

in your case that's the philosophical notation, rather than any pragmatic discussion

If Harris knowing the truth is less important than alleviating human suffering, why did he make us suffer through 2.5 hours of him trying to convince someone else what "truth" is?

>>9009039
*If Harris thinks

>>9009039
his ego, he wanted to show the world how smart he was. he does not go into a discussion to learn he goes in to defeat his opponent

>>9009050
Yeah, you can tell even how he intrudces JP in the podcast compared to guests that provide a positive feedback loop,

>>9009013
IMO the other guy is correct in asking these questions and you're being kind of dense.

>>9007664
This is the dumbest fucking argument. Sam is taking empirical truth on faith. Jordan is taking morality on faith. He isn't even redefining anything. Jordans conception of truth is the oldest one. The scientific method is only a few hundred years old. Sam is so much of an Autistic pleb he thinks all truth is contained in science.

Your inability to see the flaw in Sams argument is the issue with culture today. Sams thinking has seeped into all facets of our thinking and now there's no objective morality. You can't even comprehend the idea of morality even though it informs all aspects of your being.

Ben Stiller meme man got BTFO

>>9007919
Peterson was being a lot more rational than Harris was. Harris was taking his notion of truth on faith. His only argument was circular.

It's analogous to, in fact it's the exact same problem, arguments about God. Sam takes God on faith and can't see a world without it. Jordan says there's no evidence for it, god does all these bad things, etc. Sam, instead of arguing in Jordans framework, spergs out and says but if there's no God how come there's a God checkmate.

Jordan redefines truth, Sam argues by saying his definition contradicts the old one. Of course it does! They're not the same definition. That's not an argument. It's completely circular.

To argue about the definition you have two approaches.

1. What should truth be defined as? This is inherently a moral question because I'm invoking truth. Therefore Jordans right, truth is nested in Morality.

2. What is truth? This is Sams approach to the problem. He takes his definition of Truth on faith because he's a cuck. He couldn't leave this framework and thus couldn't get a meaningful argument.

Notice Jordan kept trying to move the conversation along to morality because that's fundamental in his view. Sam is too autistic to see that.

>>9009235
>This is inherently a moral question because I'm invoking truth

wat

>>9008717
Because there are such things as moral truths in Jordans worldview. "Killing is wrong" is true. "Killing is wrong" is not a fact. See the issue? It's not semantic at all.

Jordan says scientific truth is nested in moral truth. In his view morality is fundamental to everything. Moral truths are real, and Sams view of truth doesn't encompass that.

Now you could argue that it's inconvenient, but that's a moral judgement. You're saying 'we shouldn't use this definition of truth because it's annoying.' Well now you're making a moral claim, that it's bad to be annoying and we should avoid that. Jordan makes the argument that using Sams view of truth leads to communism, and will eventually destroy all of civilization. So if we are going to go with what truth 'should' be then we should go with Jordans.

But it's deeper than that. By even asking what truth should be you're agreeing to Jordan's viewpoint. You're agreeing that morality precludes truth. In order for Sams view to stand up to scrutiny you have to take the definition of truth on faith. But why take that on faith if it has negative consequences?

>>9008649
>>9008717
>>9008922
>>9008858

What I think is missing from this discussion is Jordan's observation about attention, truth and utility.

Humans are innately programmed to align our attention to what is most useful while innately leaving out the majority of "the picture". Take our visual input for example. What we see/compute with our eyes is not merely "the world" but more like an array of filtered information, information that our attention (our brain) emphasizes as being desirable for our innate needs and goals, both momentary and prolonged. What we then do with that information (in the Free Will sense) is actually not based on our rationality, but rather our intuitions, our feelings, etc. (Look up Jonathan Haidt's research on Moral Intuition). Our perceived rationalization about our thoughts and actions come second to the cognitive act/experience we (normatively) deem being innately rational. When we approach a tall cliff we don't rationalize our way to avoid falling off or feeling anxious/afraid, at least not at first. Our brain reacts first and the only thing it want the body (and you, The Self) to know/be aware of, is that that thing is a Falling Off Place, and that's enough for the rest of the system to kick in.

Jumping a few steps ahead in the theory... JH posits that this same attentive mechanism, more or less, functions in the same plane as our perception of truth. So if it's true that our intuitions precede our rationality, then it follows that what we deem to be (rational) truth is inherently based on non-rational judgement, an intuitively moral judgement. In short; morality trumps rationality.

I think the crux of what I'm trying to point out is that JH's "Axiomatic Belief in Morality" is merely the conclusion of his theory and that you're leaving out the arguments supporting it, the entire groundwork.

>>9009235
>Jordan redefines truth, Sam argues by saying his definition contradicts the old one.
Wrong, sam argues that Jordan's definitions are self contradictory, it contradicts itself.

Frankly I am shocked anyone is still defending Peterson. I actually felt sorry for Peterson after listening, his entire world view rested upon a contradiction and this was unpacked calmly by Harris so efficiently that Peterson was forced to take long breaks in order to calm down his emotional brain.

>>9009271
>Because there are such things as moral truths in Jordans worldview. "Killing is wrong" is true. "Killing is wrong" is not a fact. See the issue?
Could you explain this again? I'm having trouble understanding.

>Now you could argue that it's inconvenient, but that's a moral judgement. You're saying 'we shouldn't use this definition of truth because it's annoying.
Well, yes, but because it's using words in the english language that already have a meaning and using them with a different meaning. Using a slightly different word or a specifier before the word would make everybody happy.
An analogous situation was when I got told by an SJW that even if a black person were to commit violent acts against someone specifically because that person was white it still wouldn't be racist. After being shocked for a while I realised that the reason they were saying that was that to them racism = systemic racism and nothing else. Which goes against everything that's commonly accepted. If they'd just used systemic to being with I wouldn't have disagreed.

>Jordan makes the argument that using Sams view of truth leads to communism, and will eventually destroy all of civilization.
don't think I got to this point

>>9010030
He never shows a self contradiction. He makes up a bunch of thought experiments trying to remove a link to morality and Jordan argues it's impossible, because Jordan is taking morality as axiomatic. They're only contradictions if you take truth as your axiom which Jordan isn't doing.

>>9010176
No he is taking "the truth of a proposition depends on its utility" as axiomatic. Sam demonstrates some scenarios which involve propositions for which the truth is independent of how useful they are for human survival. Jordan is forced to concede they are in some sense, the rest of the argument is just this rinse repeat.

>>9010213
No it's not independent because the truth is by definition dependant on it. Only the old definition of truth is independent of it which isn't a contradiction because truth was redefined. Sam was too Autistic to see that and kept making the same point over and over.

Is JP post-truth?

>>9007402

>save the virgin from the predatory reptile

we must liberate women from societal oppression

also hes quoting Hume on epistemological assumptions but not Aristotle on ethics. i think we have a scientist refusing to believe his beloved science is dead.

oh but his fucking female mate selection is beyond reality today. theyre not picking off the top of the male social hierarchy any longer.

fucking jungians.

Listening to the podcast at the point where Harris is criticising survival as an anchor.

A scenario he hasn't brought up is we could be reduced to farm animals.
Let's say we found a way to travel to other dimensions/far corners of space, but this brought us in contact with an alien intergalactic civilisation that discovers it loves humans (as food).
They end up harvesting our entire species, and human kind ends up surviving for millions of years more than it expected to because this alien civilisation has been able to solve problems that could cause their species' death (and by extension ours). We are farmed across many galaxies, reach populations of trillions, but each one of us lives a horrible life of cattle.

Were the facts that brought forth the technological discoveries that allowed us to contact this alien species true?
Which ones? How far back do you have to go before things start being true again?

Ok actually by the end of it I get what JP is saying.
He's saying that what Harris says is true is actually true* because there are a lot of caveats.

>>9010243
>we must liberate women from societal oppression

That's not what he's saying.

>oh but his fucking female mate selection is beyond reality today. theyre not picking off the top of the male social hierarchy any longer.

It's even worse now and it'll keep getting worse.

>>9010283

im not saying thats what hes saying im saying what hes saying is dead fucking wrong and that liberating one female for reproductive purposes is a mans only hope at side stepping the repulsive criterion females are using to select mates

and if you accomplish this you fulfill the hero archetype

>>9009189
This. Thank you. Too many edgy teens with NASA t-shirts on this board.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2500px

>>9010245
>Were the facts that brought forth the technological discoveries that allowed us to contact this alien species true?
Which ones? How far back do you have to go before things start being true again?

This one is easy. The aliens are wrong.

>>9009265
meaning, what do you use the "truth" for? he's saying it has to do with morality or pragmatism

>>9010057
>>Because there are such things as moral truths in Jordans worldview. "Killing is wrong" is true. "Killing is wrong" is not a fact. See the issue?
>Could you explain this again? I'm having trouble understanding.

think of it like an idea.

what is true is that which has survived across time: evolution

"killing another human being is wrong" is a moral idea that has evolved with us. The more successful a society is, the more this "killing is wrong" is prevalent.

From a pragmatic point of view, that means "killing is wrong" is true because as an idea it has survived across time.

You can say, "but we kill other people all the time!" The point isn't that we are perfect moral creatures. Because you can posit, "evil exists within us" as a truth. Then you can to define evil and so on and it gets complicated.

This is what the myths and relgions attempted to do

>>9009189
But when have moral truths ever been used to describe whether something was true or false?
Moral truths are for deciding what's right or wrong in a moral sense.

Peterson is essentially using the word true when he could be saying "right [to do]" or "moral".

It's deleting an existing definition and replacing it with another. But that leaves no way to say that something is true or correct in the actual sense.
He dismisses this by saying that these microcases are irrelevant but I feel like that's not very... pragmatic.

>>9009050
>>9009062

and it's noteworthy that peterson has talked specifically about that type of discussion/debate many times (as being weak and nonproductive).

>>9010419
>The more successful a society is, the more this "killing is wrong" is prevalent.
depends on what you mean by successful, but many societies had no problem with killing up until very recently.
or are you saying we're more successful than those that came before simply because we're alive now (as a culture and set of ideas) and they aren't?

>>9010308
the virgin is a symbol for nature's positive potential

women select males based on hierarchy

examples include: comedian, painter, writer.

men who are at the top of the hierarchy are MORE likely to be selected

>>9010237
Sam showed that Jordan was forced to deny his own definition. How more explicit can it be?
Jordan said yes yes it is true at the "micro instance" but not in the "macro instance" or some similar bunk. Harris pointed out those "micro instances" were independent of the "macro instances" as a result Jordan was using two different ideas of truth, he was using the word truth for two different ideas.

So either Jordan separates them as sam suggested or he continues to insist otherwise. The Canadian chose the latter.

>>9010445
you have to keep in mind that peterson believes that part of what makes us distinctly human is our ability (using consciousness and creativity) to create new dominance hierarchies for us to compete in. and we can do that as its own sort of metagame (or metahierarchy) to create success and impede others. it's not static at all.

>>9010457
Peterson's argument is the "micro instance" is irrelevant.

>>9010434
>depends on what you mean by successful, but many societies had no problem with killing up until very recently.

Yes, well you can take China's sucess for example, before and after the Maoist revolution. I define successful society first (though VERY simply) as the ability for citizens not experiencing life threatening malevolence and vice versa.

>or are you saying we're more successful than those that came before simply because we're alive now (as a culture and set of ideas) and they aren't?

I am saying we are where we are at now, "the value of human life" because of that idea itself. I mean, all you have to do is ask yourself, "do I want to live in a society where human life is not valued?"

>>9010465
As sam highlighted continuously they had not got onto relevance and morality yet. It was purely unpacking what Peterson meant by truth, turns out Peterson had not thought it through at all and actually had a self contradictory notion.

You can discuss relevance after you settle on what is the case. And don't give me "what is the case depends on relevance".

>>9010465
Wasn't that the whole point Peterson tried to make with the bit about the room being on fire. The micro instance, was true, until it was on fire then you died?

>>9010457
>>9010465
More so that that he's using the word true in that case to say that what Sam is saying is true if one accepts to "play" the science "game" and its rules.
Which at the end of the day shouldn't be too problematic since on a scientific level things that are true are only true as far as we can tell at this point in time, but we can never be completely certain about anything. We tend to ignore this distinction because true enough is good enough for practical purposes.

>>9010464
yes I agree, I am not saying it is static. In some sense it is the individual who can ascend past the hierarchy that is most valued, though I think we still haven't figured it out.

>>9010480
We can be completely certain of some things, statements of mathematics and logic within certain axiomatic systems.
Analytic truths.

>>9010475
I mean that the micro instance is irrelevant for determining truth in our universe because our universe is not made up of disconnected micro instances.

>>9010507
evolution does not select for the ability to perceive the universe completely, wouldn't then any truth generated by humans be true in the micro but possibly false if you take into account the whole of the universe that may always be unobservable to man?

>>9010507
Clearly not the case, some propositions will remain true regardless of their utility. "All bachelors are married" does not depend on how probable it is someone who believes it is going to blow up the world.

>>9010521
"all bachelors are unmarried".

So if I got this straight

SH: True = does it reflect reality?
JP: True = is it moral/conducive to the survival of the species?

They should just have a conversation where each one of them just says that instead of saying "true", that way there'd be no chance of equivocating each other.

>>9007645
yes empiricism is heavily autistic seeing how all it is is circular reasoning

>>9010531
Kind of

SH: does it reflect reality or follow logically from self evident propositions
JP: I am not interested in epistemology my metaphysics comes first

>>9010531
Both are correct and can work together. Neither negates the other.

SH is a rational materialist which is okay, until you take that mindset and try to explain religion.

>>9010531
>does it reflect reality

implying subjective actors can ever access reality?

harris already lost

>>9010550
>JP: LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL
ftfy

>>9010536
Not circular self evident i.e. certain.

>>9010551
What is a rational materialist? Most rationalists were duellists. Most materialists are logico empiricist.

>>9010558
You are not wrong, I was trying to be generous to Peterson.
Sam was too. He just wanted Peterson to state what he meant by truth, he meant two contradictory things.

>>9010561
How can the validity of empiricism as a priori knowledge be self-evident if you cannot empirically prove empiricism to be true?

>>9010574
Not empiricism, empirical data, sense data. Even Peterson admits this, it is hard to deny when you are in complete and utter agony.

>>9010581
I don't agree with Peterson on almost anything and I certainly don't agree with him on that. The realness of agony can be easily denied.

>>9010581
>>9010595
What's the argument here? Who is arguing against the existence of pain?

>>9010595
If you're in pain you can't make an argument that you're not in pain that will take the pain away. I can cut your arm off and salt the wound and shock your balls but you won't feel pain because you made this great argument about why it's not real? 'well just because I feel it doesn't mean it's real' What is more real than that? What is more real than pain? Besides conciousness.

>>9010595
You can, go ahead. Lets do an experiment, you will have to cut you own leg off with a rusty Swiss knife and all the while deny you feel any pain without lying.

>>9010595
Only a lunatic may deny the self evident.

>>9008550

Why are you so mad? All I wanted was a fan. I just dont want you to do some crazy shit. I saw this one shit on the news a couple weeks ago that made me sick. Some dude was drunk and drove his car over a bridge and had his girlfriend in the trunk, and she was pregnant with his kid. And in the car they found a tape, but it dind't say who it was to. Come to think about it... his name was... it was (You)

File: 1482273434774.jpg (50KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x610px

>>9008632
>>9008644
>>9008647

Freedom doesnt exist

>>9010660
>>9010679
time to calm it on the shitposts man.

>>9007874
Its where he is coming from, his intellectual eclecticism is pretty common in therapists of good conscience because most of the time nothing works but these people keep turning up (whether he should keep seeing them is a different question). Its actually a strange sort of pragmatism.

Whether you approve or not, this is side to him is pretty important to understand his approach. Its doubly alienating to and resisted by young people (of the sort posting here) because they think being right about things is useful. It seldom is, but you only learn that once life has drop-kicked you in the gonads a few times.

>>9010692
When is being wrong about something useful in the long term?

>>9010557

how can i access reality?

>>9010691

fuck you man

He is a completely irrational fool.

>>9010704
Its more that sooner or later someone in real life is going to hand you the hemlock and ask you whether its better to be right or to be happy.

Its actually a form of romanticism to think you'd ever drink the hemlock but then again, if younger people stopped thinking like that society would be fucked and I'd despise anyone I could convince otherwise anyway.

I'm not really saying people should believe things that a wrong but in terms of wider questions, most people try to resist falsehoods and to be happy.

>>9010723
How can I choose to be happy if I am not right about what happiness is?

They resist falsehoods because they don't realise they are false or the stakes are low enough. Reality is not going to punish you if you believe in a unfalsifiable god and your religion doesn't consist of jumping off cliffs.

>>9008550
Jungians need to realize "collective consciousness" is just ideology lol

>>9007854
you just blew my fucking mind

>>9010654
>>9010651
>>9010632
>>9010608
you are like babbies

intellectual babbies

>>9010776
Good. Now explain why.

File: 1483930626489.png (233KB, 568x590px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 568x590px

>>9010738
no...

>>9010780
Many people are born this way.

>>9010420
>true or correct in the actual sense

Congrats on still being brainwashed.

>>9008058
This

>>9010782
There's much more evidence for anything relating to a "collective consciousness" being society and culture related than anything else, so...

>>9010722
This. Either that or a malevolent sophist.

He can't even summarise his SJW problems in non-obscurantist terms.

>>9010791
I have yet to meet someone who wasn't born a baby.

File: 01.jpg (77KB, 592x696px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 592x696px

>>9010780
If we're just talking about bodily agony and not mental agony then I cannot be certain that my mind is connected to my body. My mind might oscillate connections between my body and another body so I never know if my body is in pain or this other person's body is in pain. Also Nietzsche already has shown that Cogito ergo sum is flawed because Descartes should've said "It thinks" rather than "I think" because you are presupposing the existence of a local self. If we're talking about mental agony then I can simply say I'm viewing someone else's agony through a conduit and not my own. I can also deny the presuppositions rationality relies upon to come to conclusions about causal links. I can presuppose retrocausality to say instead of "I am in agony" to say "I was in agony" or "I will be in agony"

>>9008048
I could tell Peterson had done psychedelics.

>>9010860
on an unrelated note why do alcoholics hate psychedelics

>>9010837
Can you convince me there is a bachelor who is married?

You can deny any proposition, but you can't do so coherently. All your notions of causality and will beg the question. You use them when they are built by reference to fundamental sense data which you take for granted.

File: 1443044250543.png (152KB, 271x300px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 271x300px

Here's the thing I don't understand about Peterson.

He says that science is nested within the Darwinian project of survival, and we must subordinate science to the objective of survival.

However, the notion that we are Darwinian, evolved creatures trying to survive derives from science. So he can't exactly say that survival comes first. "Survival" is actually something derived from and subordinate to science.

>>9010936
So you're saying we didn't know we had to survive till Darwin? It's your basic will to life that you know about regardless of knowledge. Every animal in the world except for depressed persons has a will to live.

>>9010946
Maybe I've misunderstood Peterson. I'm not clear as to what degree his claims rest on evolutionary theory.

>>9010954
They don't. When Peterson mentions "Darwinian" he is referring to a metaphysical theory which amounts to "the truth of a statement is the degree to which it helps us survive".
It is not a logical consequence of evolutionary theory at all as you correctly identify.

>>9010910
You're presupposing an axiom of consistency

>>9010966
Is that not an epistemological theory? Or do you mean that it is bound up in some metaphysical theory?

>>9010888
Alcoholics want to dull life because they find it too intense. Tripfags want to make life more intense because they find it dull.

Alcoholics are generally sensitive people, the last thing they want is more stimulation and input.

>>9010967
And so are you.

>>9010973

Well his defence of that statement is metaphysical.

>>9010888
Psychedelic takers hate alcohol more than alcoholics hate psychedelics.

t. alcoholic who takes psychedelics on a somewhat constant basis

>>9010975
>>9010985
WE prefer the term 'psychonauts'? Please show at least a little bit of respect okay?

>>9010976
i have no axioms

>>9010998
>I have no axioms
Whoops found one

>>9011017
No that not axiom

Performative contradictions are not proof of untruth because you are merely viewing reality or lack of reality through the lens of rationalism

>>9011040
How do you know?

>>9010794
Fuck off, that anon had a good point.

Our presuppositions can be existential (what exists, i.e., truth), evaluative (what is good, i.e., morality), or prescriptive (what we should do, i.e., ethics).

They are all axioms at an equally foundational place within our belief systems. They inform each other, sure, but you can't argue that one should be different by simply saying the the other is more important. We need all three to function. You can't say truth supersedes ethics, or morality supersedes truth, they are different unprovable positions that appear at the bottom of our opinions.

>>9011066
No they don't. Sense data is more foundational unless you want to pretend otherwise and enter into contradiction.
Your notion of unprovability rests upon a notion of truth which you seek to simultaneously deny in your proposition.

>>9008435
>It really isn't.
And you say this based on...?

>If you are competent you get elevated.
Save for those many cases in which people ruled because they had the correct connections, or were born into monarchy, or they were good spokesmen. Spontaneous hierarchy might be based on competence, but it's not at all the only kind of it there is.

>>9007611
>scientific definition
irrelevant

>>9007645
>empiricism is troo cuz muh sensory organs

>>9011051
I don't know anything but i know that that is not an axiom

>>9010994
You do, I just like the giggles and the ideas it gives me, no higher spiritual purpose whatsoever

For someone mad about pomo JP is certainly pomo as fuck.

>>9011138
You asserted a contradiction.
Try again.

>>9011090
>sense data is gud cuz i sed so
>>9011168
contradicitons are bad cuz i sed so

>>9011090
Sense data is not a belief. When you receive sensory dats you can simultaneously apply existential, evaluative, and prescriptive beliefs to the phenomenon.

How does my proposition seek to deny truth? I'm saying that truth is one facet, as compared to morality and ethics, and that we are limited in using the results of one strand to comment on the validity of another.

>>9011168
What's wrong with contradictions?

>>9011190
Autists think a memetic definition of truth must be correct

>>9008048
Fucking degenerate

>>9010985
As if! The fucking alcoholics are the ones throwing psych users in jail, not the other way around.

>>9011223
Not because of alcohol, though. Most of my friends are pretty heavy drinkers and all of them dabble in psychedelics as well.

>>9011223
>the judiciary system is composed out of alcoholics

Kek

File: images.jpg (12KB, 468x314px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 468x314px

>>9011231
>>9011234

>>9011190
>what is wrong with asserting x and not asserting x together

>>9011254
If believe contradictions are coherent then why assert anything? Your actions betray you.

>>9011254
yes that is equivalent to what i asked. so now answer it

>>9011259
>If believe contradictions are coherent then why assert anything?

Why not? Why do anything? Reality is absurd. Sysiphus is happy.

>people act like pain is real therefore pain is real
>meanwhile hallucinations exist

File: cc760f7025f0f74a0dea9f35c84b0f67.jpg (253KB, 1200x1803px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x1803px

>>9011234
>mfw looking up the statistics on lawyers and alcoholism

>>9011277
>answer
What is an answer? Why are you acting so consistently why is this conversation still about meanie and not about red ferrets which burrow 3 feet but no more than 15 on the moon?

>>9011309
BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY!

>>9011312
Seems to me you are only pretending to not believe these things. Even laughing at the absurd is a belief like any other.

>>9011317
To clarify, belief is an action or stance, truth is a property of propositions, true independent of your beliefs, for they don't involve them.

>>9011317
You're assuming you know what my words mean when in reality im saying something so idiosyncratic you have no idea what im saying btw you dont realize how absurd this conversation actually is because there are factors outside of your subjective reality that you cannot understand such as that youve replied to 3 different people in this chain of conversation thinking they were all the same person

Pathetic.

I don't see the supposed gulf between Sam and Peterson at all.

Peterson conceded several times to Sam that a proposition is either true or false, but that he has a metaphysical issue with saying that scientific facts are *Absolute truth*.

Of course Sam just couldn't handle this, because he's a scientist, and he just had to spend 2 hours of his life autistically trying to convince Peterson that only scientific facts are true.

>>9011342
Doesn't look like anything idiosyncratic or subjective to me. Perhaps I have found the truth and you simply have not.

>>9011282
hallucinations are real for that person experiencing them to the degree that it effects their reality

>>9011399
it was also annoying how his examples were in such a vacuum and that he thought they could justify his stance.

>terrorists capturing you and killing you based on the odd/even numbers of hair you have

then claims to understand pragmatism

>>9011280
You're typing this post. Why are you typing this post? You have a reason to. You prefer typing to not typing otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. You're also still alive meaning you haven't killed yourself. You're doing things. You have a reason for doing them regardless of you knowing them or not. You are serving some sort of will inside of you. You're an animal. You can say nothing makes sense etc etc. You still believe things.

File: IMG_1220.jpg (585KB, 3000x2342px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 3000x2342px

DEAR DOCTOR SAM

READ THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO

>>9011475
No I don't :^)

>>9011399
>because he's a scientist
The validity of Sam Harris's scientific credentials are questionable at best.

>>9011647
Perhaps, but he's obviously a scientist in the ideological sense.

>>9007874

>I think this guy has some overwhelming psychological issues

Dude, everyone studying psychology has issues.
I haven't met a single person who studies psychology who isn't a nut in some way.
Most chicks in psychology are train wrecks and/or date train wrecks.

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

103KB, 956x709px

kek

>>9011861
Lol you aren't any different

>>9011861
This is right.

t. studying psychology

>>9011399
>but that he has a metaphysical issue with saying that scientific facts are *Absolute truth*.
he's saying more than that though.
I'm not sure of all his positions but he seems like an intelligent person. I doubt he believes scientific facts (as we know them) are absolute truths.
Peterson on the other hand is making it impossible to use the word true as in true/false. The concept of true/false is essential on a logical level.
Peterson could just as easily have said "Something is "red" when it leads to the survival of the species". When asked "is this car red" he would reply "Well that depends on what the car was used for". Now this, while idiotic, would not be too much of a problem because knowing whether or not something is red is not too terribly important. Knowing whether something is true or false is instead perhaps the most fundamentally important concept we need to know. You can't just get rid of it.

It really is even more ridiculous than gender pronouns. This would be as if the gender pronoun crowd insisted that you use he/him to refer to one of their many genders but also to stop using it for men because it doesn't fit with their own definition of he/him.

I get the sense that this whole forced argumentation's point is to say "We need to start focusing more what's right and wrong [on a moral level] and less on what's true or false".
Peterson could just say "I only want to focus on matters that are relevant to morality".
Playing this whole game on top of it is useless and nonsensical.

>>9007874
He's been through a lot of shit recently. Basically put onto the national spotlight for his views against gender pronouns to the point people were saying he should be charged with hate crimes on TV. Also having to juggle being a teacher as well and in fear of losing his job. Lastly having the dregs of the internet come up to support him probably e-mailing him about all their problems, he hasn't admitted it but when he did that pepe video I was sure he visited /pol/, r/theredpill, stormfront, etc and was extremely troubled by what he found there.

>>9011399
>I don't see the supposed gulf between Sam and Peterson at all.
>proceeds to describe the gulf

>>9011898
>proceeds

>>9011861
Yeah, but that's also because they know stuff about humans that most people don't. For example, that to be a regular normally functioning person you need to constantly be in denial about parts of reality and immersed in all kinds of illusions. And that breaking out of that fucks you up. Being aware of illusions and then consciously participating in them is hard. Some people can manage, though.

>>9011900
As in, please send in some money to fund my project to describe the gulf, m'lord.

File: adf05786a7f3688a09b26d321b0468f7.jpg (28KB, 325x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 325x300px

>>9011907
Indeed.

>>9011907
I MEAN, IT'S APPALLING THAT POSITIVE ILLUSIONS ARE TAUGHT TO STUDENTS. IT'S.. NIHILISTIC BEYOND BELIEF.

>>9011907

They enter the field as nuts. They're pulled to it like autists are pulled to their so-called STEM god tier fields. It's not that they become quirky people because they've had some insights.

>>9011907
>muh terror management theory

Settle down Becker.

>>9010837

I'm naturally suspicious towards people who love to entertain the idea that the individual doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

File: cringe.png (42KB, 399x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x322px

>Sam Harris

The guy has turned into a total self-aggrandizing, self-publicizing hack.

At least the other "Four Horsemen" had the good grace to die with dignity - whether literally (Hitchens) or metaphorically (Dawkins/Dennett, whom you never hear about nowadays).

Harris, on the other hand, is nothing more than "Le ironic Buddhist neurologist who posits a retarded belief in the scientific basis for morality."

>>9011940
Not nearly as bad as peterson though.

>>9011886
>Peterson on the other hand is making it impossible to use the word true as in true/false.

I hate to link this on 4chan, but I suggest you read this link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/5pjyme/to_those_of_you_utterly_confused_by_this_weeks/?sort=new

File: 1343384242476.jpg (1MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x5000px

>>9011958
>Peterson isn't retarded
>he is just obsessed with needlessly contrived semantic pedantry
>just look at this reddit link!

>>9011967
Did you even read it?

>>9011974
Yes

>>9011932
As an implied outsider to both of these fields, how would you even know what secrets they apparently don't have?

>>9011979
Then I don't see how "semantic pedantry" is an accurate representation.

But whatever.

>>9011958
(I'm the guy you replied to btw)

I *think* I get it. But I still don't get why such a viewpoint is necessary or even preferable.
Just because you can conclude that the gun can be a paperweight doesn't mean that other statements about it can't be just as true.
In the gun scenario, I don't understand why one can't simply say that the most relevant truth to your survival is that it's a weapon. Saying this doesn't in any way make the statement that it could be used as a paperweight less true. Why can't it just be left at that? Why can't we just call it the "truth most relevant to your survival" or something of the sort?
Why muddle the discussion by insisting that that's the only kind of truth and everything else is not true?
It's silly.

>>9011988
You might have been born retarded or ESL. It's not your fault either way so don't feel too bad.

>>9012000
Tripth doth speaketh wisdom.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 13.25.03.png (15KB, 804x70px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 804x70px

>>9011958
>
Jesus.

>>9012002
What an original comment on 4chan.

>>9012007
What an original comment on 4chan.

>>9012008
Both of you, let's not clog up the board with this inanity. At least insult each other like you're not 8 year old trans fedora chickz OK?

>>9012000
>Why muddle the discussion by insisting that that's the only kind of truth and everything else is not true?

But that's the point. Peterson considers the pragmatic truth of the gun as a weapon *more true* than the "microfact" that a gun is a paperweight or that it is a collection of 10^28 carbon atoms.

And he's right.

>>9012013
Yep. Now what? oh yeah! It was a debate between two people I'll never meet about a topic that will never make a difference!

>>9012017
How is this relevant? Nobody is forcing you to take an interest in this topic at all.

>>9012013
Yeah, but what if you desperately need a paperweight to protect some important information that's printed out and the only thing you had with you in that moment was a gun?
The problem with Peterson's way of thinking is that it's going to vary case by case.
Truths that are not useful in one situation are going to be useful in another.

>Is the car red?
It doesn't matter.
>What if the terrorist took off in the red car and we need to find him before he blows up the nuclear power plant?

>>9012018
Just adding another perspective, anon.

>>9011243
So, basically my dude, you're proving psychonauts hate alcohol for associating the ilegality of psychedelics to the whole supreme court being composed exclusively by alcohollics.

This is the main reason I never got really into the psychotropics / delics communities, you people are self righteous as FUCK.

I agree every drug oughta be legal, but I won't create a fucking carbonic chain boogeyman as to why I'm being "prosecuted" or whatever (and don't even compare the situation of a hackey sack fag busted with a sheet of acid and some poor dude arrested with meth / crack).

It's much better to be "prosecuted" because you "know the truth" than be busted because you clearly devote a large part of time partaking in illegal substances abuse. It's not so difficult.

>>9011907
You know when STEMfags tell you philosophy is useless and most people can think that up alone without even reading the texts? They're actually thinking of psychology.

I mean, this is pretty easy to understand to anyone who took 7th grade history and studied the Enlightenment.

>>9011938
You probably feel very smart for this post but a lot of what you're thinking as "denial of the individual" is more "the individual doesn't have complete control over his subjectivity and development", which is a pretty evident statement.

>>9012009
Yeah, no point in arguing about inanity when we're getting 4+ daily threads on Peterson x Harris, two proofs of the inherent inanity of the anglosphere

>>9012035
It was clearly hyperbole to make a more general point about which group has had ACTS of hatred against them. It was in direct response to some weird accusation that psychedelic users have more hatred to alcoholics than the other way around.

From a social perspective, that is insane. There were massive social movements against psychedelic drug users, there were many arrests. This was not the same kind of thing going on in alcohol prohibition where it was still secretly an upper class affair. This was, and to some extent still is, an attack on the CHARACTER of those who use psychedelics.

And that attack on character has resulted in real, violent acts against them. The politics around what we are allowed to ingest does not end at your sheltered middle-class tiptoe into weekend raves.

>>9012026
Then you're agreeing with him. Truth is perspectival, following Nietzsche, which is Peterson's thesis.

File: 1483505981275.jpg (292KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 2560x1440px

>>9008741
>takes LSD in the evening

absolute pleb

>>9012053
Please, go back, re-read the guys post about alcholics hating psychedelics and how I replied by claiming "psychonauts" hate alcohol more often.

I'm not talking about the people, and clearly, any hatred towards "psychonauts" (can't you faggots even get high without creating a semi-witty term for it?) is based on a lot more around the subculture than the drugs themselves.

Alcohol (and psychedelics) have little to no bearing between the userbases hatred of each other.

>>9012055
No, I'm not.
"Important to x in this situation" and "true" are two parallel properties of a statement/idea

>>9012059
Not to Peterson, because he's a pragmatist.

>"Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action."

Posted this in the other thread, but this seems to be the active one. So 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 "true + 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. How is this any different from defining racism as "racism + power"?

>>9012065
And that's retarded. And ironically, totally not a pragmatic worldview to hold.

>>9012068
>Why is he trying to change a word when it already has an established meaning? I don't get it. How is this any different from defining racism as "racism + power"?
I noticed this similarity as well desu. Kinda funny.

No one posting in this thread is over the age of 18. This is true because otherwise I would kill your all out of embarrassment.

>>9012070
>And that's retarded.

So what? It's not an uncommonly held view among especially North-American philosophers.

The question is why or not someone like Sam couldn't just accept the different ontological framework and continue having a conversation.

I mean, he even mentions that his thesis advisor when he was at college was Richard Rorty, and that he perfectly understood why someone would be a pragmatist, and yet he just had to try to convince Peterson that he was wrong for 2 hours straight.

>>9012079
I guess maybe he doesn't actually understand pragmatism.

I definitely don't.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why someone would hold such a view other than just for the sake of argument.
It hurts my brain.

Can someone dumb this down for me.

>>9012078
How could you even kill me?

>>9012088
>I guess maybe he doesn't actually understand pragmatism.

No, I think Sam does understand it, I just think Peterson was doing a bad job of committing to it properly when it looked like he might lose face by doing so.

>>9012089
I have psychic powers that I would otherwise use to save and nurture the lives of promising young children.

>>9012091
But why would anyone seriously believe in pragmatism?
How could one be persuaded by it

>>9012113
Same reason people are convinced by any axiom, they just start from those presuppositions.

>>9008023
>comport
How pseud can one man get? Kill yourself, my man.

File: IMG_1008.gif (93KB, 480x750px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 480x750px

From his pragmatist position he doesn't have a foot to stand on against the SJWs. They're playing the same kind of semantic games.

Someone who thinks like Harris would be more capable of drawing a hard line in the sand.

The problem with Peterson is that he personally needs this worldview to justly himself being 'deeply religious', even though he places his lord and saviour in some vulgar pragmatist framework, which makes him just as post-modern as the people he fights.

>>9012385
No they are not. The SJWs aren't coherent in any way, shape or form.

>>9010420
>in the actual sense
how dense are you?

>>9012407
neither is peterson to most of the public

bad pr for his cause

>>9012410
stop being obtuse, it clearly means in the colloquial sense

>>9012411
He's a shitty debater, but doesn't mean you're wrong.

>>9012436
he's*

>>9012440
Well if people stop listening to him because he is a shitty debater his ideas fail to survive.
So according to peterson that means the ideas were wrong.

>>9012768
kek

>>9012768
Tweet this to him pls

Big tears

>>9012768
Kek, btfo

>>9012768
>>9013042
T W O
G A L L O N
T E A R S

>>9012043

But that's not what is being said. The post literally said the individual isn't a thing. It's described as some fleeting event which has no core.
It's self-evident an individual is part of a greater surrounding. It wouldn't make him an individual if he wasn't.

I don't see why you think I wanted to sound/feel smart with that post.