This dude dumbed down the deep concept of moral truth for 2 separate

>>9012650
>he keeps forcing same shitty thread every day to engage in another session of same he said she said
Kill yourself.

>moral truth
keking at humanities and their made up words

>>9012650

god you just know the words coming out of her mouth are "Well, I just feel.."

>>9012686
>>9012685
Define truth.

>>9012829
Current frontier of scientific consensus

>>9012845
>I need to drink water or I'll die of dehydration.

So the above statement isn't true?

>>9012857

>I need to ingest fluid, orally or intravenously in order to not become dehydrated, potentially to the point of death.

But semantics are beneath us.

>>9012845
Is your definition true?

Peterson is just a cogent Glenn Beck

who keeps posting this fag?

>>9012877
>semantics are beneath us
Semantics is about accuracy in meaning. I think it's very important. If you dislike analytics, philosophy isn't for you.

>>9012845
Why? What made this true?

File: f.png (11KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 633x758px

>be me
>in highschool (18 no underage b&)
>jock says i never get laid
>tell him that that can't be true
>he says that it is a fact
>tell him that truth isn't as simple as that and that for me empirical truth is embedded in a larger metaphysical framework where truth claims are evaluated on their darwinian merit
>tell him that if it were the case that i never get laid i would not reproduce and that therefore my genes would die out
>tell him that my genes dying out goes against the higher darwinian principle in which the framework of science is embedded and therefore it is ultimately wrong, since the lack of survival of my genes would necessarily go against moral truth
>he says that's a bunch of bullshit and things are either true or false
>pause for about thirty seconds, consider the implications of his views, fight back a tear
>tell him that his rational empiricist perspective is highly dangerous and that that kind of thinking leads to all kinds of horrible consequences and that he should read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so that he can see that for himself
>he says i'm still a virgin nerd
>girls laugh

>>9013946
kek

>>9012650
Isn't Harris a moral realist himself?

>>9013946
>>be me
>>in highschool (18 no underage b&)
Anyone who says this is underage.

>>9012650
>Taking a word that already exists with an established meaning and giving it your own, different, meaning.
Btw you're a pedophile. Oh that just means 4chan user.

>>9014007
Yes. The distinction is that he is a moral naturalist.

>>9014022
What is that 'established meaning'?

File: JUST.png (714KB, 722x616px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 722x616px

>>9014022
>raves about SJWs making shit up and expecting people to accommodate them
>does the same

>>9014039
a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true>

This is what 99.9% of people agree it means

>>9012845
that's a pragmatic truth but not real truth

All knowledge is predicated on faith.

Prove me wrong.

>>9014107
Prove yourself right first.

>>9014122
I have faith that all knowledge is predicated on faith.

File: Münchhausen.jpg (249KB, 500x789px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x789px

>>9014142
you played yourself

STEMgods - build spaceships, develop new technology, explore space, describe the world down to the subatomic elemental particles, all using fundamental methods of scientific research and impersonal language of mathematics.

Humanitiesplebs - YOU CANT KNOW THAT YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO KNOW KNOWING THE KNOWLEDGE OF KNOWTH. NIETZCHE WROTE SOMETHING IMPORTANT WHILE HIS MOM WERE MAKING TENDIES LEMME QUOTE YOU THIS

>>9014152
but 4 real f a m

all truth claims are based on unprovable axioms of which the radical skeptic can just deny the self-evidency of

>>9014046
Hypocritical old cunt. This is incredibly far up his own ideological bumhole

File: sopranos.png (1MB, 1058x988px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1058x988px

>>9014156
Yes. That's why you should always be a radical sceptic if you like winning debates.

>>9012650
>smug giggles
Nervous laughter?

>>9014022
>Btw you're a pedophile. Oh that just means 4chan user.
This has always been true.

>>9014178
Peterson was the one going 'ha ha' nervously with his parchment throat.

I fear for his mental health desu.

>>9012686
>made up words

>>9014185
But how can it be true if the people being labelled as pedophiles kill themselves as a result? Checkmate.

>>9013946
FUCKING KEK SAVING THIS PASTA

I don't care at all for either of them, but Peterson got absolutely embarrassed. He couldn't at all form his argument into a coherent mass. I get his definition of truth, but he has to realize that no one else really uses the word that way. He also presents no argument against Harris's and simply rejects the 'micro' examples that completely destroy his points.

It really was shameful on his part. He came across as a big-headed philosophy undergrad. Truly, truly embarrassing performance.

>>9014486
>no one else uses pragmatic epistemology
His only issue is systematizing it.

>>9014142

i have knowledge that all faith is predicated on knowledge

>>9014743
prove it

>Pseud who couldn't get a job at a real university argues with a Stanford educated intellectual
It's like a toddler trying to beat up a prize fighter.

>>9012829
There's a difference between truth and what is true.

Truth is the phenomenon. It is the thing itself. It is action.

True is in relation to a representation. Does a model, theory, statement using language, matches with reality.

>>9014155
Shit bait

>>9014764
>stanford
not intellectual

>>9014486
absolutely wrong. He proved that every microexample is completely irrelevant because Harris can select all the criteria and context, thus setting up a situation that simply does not happen in the real world

>B-but what is they were great biologists, and the were morally good people, and there was absolutley nothing wrong with the lab equipment, and they had all relevant information about the dangers of smallpox but still killed half the world!

he was setting up impossibilities, every time a fair example was directed at harris he was able to expand the scope to be primarily contingent on moral truth rather than the scientific truth at the 'local' level.

Pursued far enough, it always comes back to morality. Reminded me of Tolstoy's last couple chapters in War and Peace actually

>>9014966
at Peterson, rather

>>9014832
Stanford gets a lot of shit about being an entrepreneurial university (ie, spawned google) but they do have some pretty good humanities programs as well. Like, the english department has Orgel, Greene and Hoxby to make it the Shakespearean powerhouse of anywhere east of Harvard. I've also heard from a friend their linguistics programs are top notch, but can't really judge.

>>9015037
Humanities as a whole is terrible. The very humanist concept of it.

Harvard is also awful.

File: stop doing that.jpg (4KB, 208x206px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 208x206px

>>9012650
Stop making Peterson threads.

File: 1485205611043.jpg (77KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 768x1024px

>>9012783
>her

>listening to two boring assholes argue about the word truth for 2 hours.
literally why

>>9015205
Because they are both interesting people for different reasons.

Unfortunately they simply couldn't have a discussion and had to have a "debate" where the goal was to win.

>>9012650
Harris's intractable immobility was fucking cringe. An atheist literally acting like a creationist. I never thought I'd see the day.

>>9015229
>"The main criticism directed at me has been that once we hit this impasse, I wasn’t a gracious enough host to let the dialogue proceed to other topics. I understand this complaint (and even anticipated it during the dialogue itself). But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence."

I agree here and thought it was a reasonable position to take. A part 2 will make it worth it.

>>9014722
and justifying the reduction of truth to "survival" over, say, flourishing etc.

>>9013946
keeeek nice one anon

>>9014966
Harris didn't directly bring this up, but the microexample of slavery would point out quite a bit of silliness in Peterson's view.

There are millions of examples you could think of that disprove Peterson's ideas.

Harris burns him big time with the inability for Peterson to 'cash in' his truth. If global society functions absurdly well and everyone is undeniably happy and everyone makes tons of money, etc. and then one day we die for any number of reasons (that could be combinations of chance, human error, assumed positive behavior with unforeseen consequences) then suddenly that renders all of the previous, lets say, 1,000,000 years of undiluted joy completely untrue and immoral.

Peterson's excuse for this would be that we didn't know the whole truth, or there was something we should have foreseen or some error in or conceptual framework. This is, frankly, retarded. It's like morally adding 1 to infinity. It's unfalsifiable because no matter what bad things happen, Peterson can say that they happened because of some untruth that is forever outside the current framework. If humanity was happy for billions and billions of years and then was wiped out by a comet, Peterson would say that our truth was wrong because it didn't include or foresee the comet. No matter what happens he will always be able to add 1 to it.

>>9015695
This blogpost from Harris literally spells out why a part 2 will be pointless and cringeworthy.

Sam is just going to say "But it's not scientifically true" the whole part 2 discussion if there is one, mark my words.

>>9016244
There's no need for a part two. I enjoy listening to Peterson's exigis but even when on his own terrain he begs the question all the time.

His view of truth begs the question pretty much. Religion is True -> Goodness is True -> Goodness is what helps us survive -> Religion Helps Us Survive bc it is Good ->Religion is True.

>>9016257
His argument isn't that "religion is true" anyway. That's just a red herring.

He has a Jungian view of religion which is absolutely *not* a commonly held view of religion.

>>9013946

Probably the best thing to come as a result of that podcast

Nassim Taleb does what Peterson doesn't

Taleb calls it sucker vs nonsucker and doesn't use pseudoscience such as Jung or evo-psychobabble to back that up

Taleb isn't hundred percent correct but much more balanced imo, he does his best to have facts backing up his claims

To put it bluntly Peterson uses fantasy to back up his own claims. But Peterson wins at his own game, his philosophy might be largely nonsense, it is a 'Darwinian truth' itself. He clearly has managed to get a cult following.

I think we will see, read and hear a lot more about Peterson. Critique most likely will not hurt him that much, in fact it gives him more attention and followers.

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

103KB, 956x709px

>>9016281
I like this one too.

>>9016277
Ehh, I'd say that his "religion is true" red herring isn't a red herring. It fits his very definition of true - it helps keep us alive by instilling a moral framework. This isn't necessarily wrong; I don't disagree at all.

I think a lot of people's issues are with his redefining of the word 'true', a redefinition that helps to define is view of the truthiness of god/religion/whatever. There are plenty of examples one could imagine in which moral evil allows for the continued existence of the human race.

>retard that's more interested in using linguistic acrobatics to win disputes than actually getting to the bottom of things
Could you be more of cliche, anon?

>>9016297
Yeah but his argument isn't that a religion like Christianity is literally true because pragmatism.

His argument is that religions like Christianity have a deeper mythological narrative which is vastly older than the religion itself, and that this underlying mythological narrative speaks about correct action in the world(because it is evolved).

The reason he believes this is because he thinks that ancient people didn't have the sufficient abstract language we have as modern humans to articulate these "correct actions" so they had to couch it religious language.

>>9014764
>appealing to authority
It's like a toddler trying to argue with adults.

>>9015830
>flourishing
arbitrary, whereas there is a much more clear distinction between death and notdeath

>>9016236
I suppose so, but i think rather than peterson claiming it wasn't true those 1 billion years he would say it was true proximally, it was true on a more finite level, it was true enough to propel society for that long.

His argument is impossible to refute, but that doesnt make it bullshit. I mean he's a religious person, his style of truth is a more fiathful approach that simply cannot be disproved with science, they dont operate on the same plane.

But it sill seems like it makes more sense to me. I cannot wrap my head around how morals can be second to sceince or how science could shape our morals.

"We are moral infants and scientific giants, that's not good" is something Peterson said that I believe is true, and extremely dangerous.

>>9016308
Oh, I don't disagree with you or him in this respect. I really do believe what he says in relation to the spread and positive morale frameworks that are presented in Western religions. I also buy his view that these morale frameworks that have been couched in religious language have existed for so long because they have some innate value. These things are fine, and arguable and interesting.

But, w/r/t the Peterson debate, all he is doing is redefining 'truth'. Just because things are 'good' (progressive in a darwinian sense) does not in any way make them 'true'. Again, it is very easy for someone to come up with plenty of 'evil' scenarios in which the species could spread and 'flourish' (in terms of numbers). These examples (such as a global slave state, a cannibalistic alien species breeding us, etc) seem to show that Peterson's definition doesn't quite work without resorting to the sort of +1 nonsense I mentioned above.

>>9013658
>>9016305

>>9016326
I agree, without religion or at least an agreed (no literally) upon set of mythical structures it is hard to come up with a valid basis for morality. His connection of myth/religion to darwinism/survival is fine and dandy. I have no problem with that.

But, he is, simply, redefining truth, or at the very least, using it in a context that fits his argument and has nothing much to do with how anyone at large uses it, even within the philosophy community.

Things can be good, and morale, and there can be a foundation for such things (religious/mythical) but i fail to see how this is cause to change the standard definition of truth.

>>9016329
Yeah but don't you see that these flagrant thought experiments are so hypothetical that they are by definition non-pragmatic, which is why he objects to them in the first place?

Besides, he conceded several times that it would be "true enough" but not capital T-True™ because such hypotheticals don't include moral truth.

>>9016355
Ok, I'm with you...but his issue of 'cashing in' makes it so you can never bring up any real world example, because if it's something currently occurring he would say we'd need to wait and see if it fails...this extends on and on to infinity/post-humanism.

I understand this is hypothetical but It's not unrealistic: The human race destroys earth or makes it uninhabitable through our technological advancements and lack of oversight and whatever the hell else. We then go to another planet, and another. We colonize the galaxy, occasionally destroying planets, but then we reach the point where we can build our own out of the previously ruined ones...this continues forever. At what point does our actions become untrue or wrong? Is it only when we die as a species? Is it correct as long as we continue to breed?

Here's a highly abstract example but still: A group of travelers is walking along an unending path. They have no food so they eventually end up eating the elderly. Those that are eaten do not want to be eaten and it is incredibly painful. The travelers keep breeding and eating and breeding and eating. They have medicine that makes it so none of the ill effects of cannibalism occur. This goes on forever. At what point do their actions become wrong? Are they never wrong? Unless they die? Etc...

File: 1476166155630.jpg (214KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1024x768px

>>9014107
>>9014122
>>9014142

There is no difference between 'faith' and ' knowledge'

>>9016377
Well Peterson says what is true must include moral truth.

But what that moral truth entails is obviously a matter of debate to him. I sincerely doubt he thinks it would be justified to eat old people in the scenario you made just now.

>>9016466
I think this hilights how wishy-washy his thinking is on this subject. The way he frames his argument in the Harris debate makes it so he can constantly shift the goalposts/definition of truth depending on the outcome. I cannot see how his argument isn't circular.

>>9016479
He admits to gerrymandering the definition of truth... But this is what pragmatists do compared to the correspondent theorists of truth.

>>9014100
There's no such thing as *random adjective* truth, there just is. Science defines the limits of our perception, it's as truthful as human knowledge can get.

I don't quite understand what's happening here; I've just become aware of this.

Peterson seems to be stating that if we are to base ethics in scientific realism, then we must make a teological appeal to embodying the ideal man/woman.

What's with the telos?

There would be no telos in a scientific theory of anything.

I'm not exactly sympathetic with Harris either, just to clarify.

Also, wtf is Darwinian truth?

'The Darwinian framework is a moral framework'

'The highest truths are moral truths; in thinking that from a Darwinian perspective'

What the fuck is he talking about?

It sounds like he's sneaking teology into the descriptive (and most definitely not prescriptive) account of the origins of life.

What am I missing?

The problem with the podcast was that both of them are trash tier pseuds, one because he thinks rigidly and the other because he cant express himself at all in a debate.

Maybe im making his case stronger than it is here, but i dont think Peterson denies scientific fact exists, he denies that scientific fact should be a synonym of the word truth (which is the basis of materialist realism, as he calls it).

Such a conception of truth is, historically, a recent development. For our forefathers, truth was a word which also referred to moral and perhaps aesthetic truth, something that is expressed in the idea that God is truth. What Peterson is getting it is that a reduction of truth to scientific fact is inherently dangerous, in his pseudo-Darwinian formulation, because it both removes the moral questions that should be asked when pursuing scientific inquiry, and on a social level, because it empties religions and traditions of their evolved moral truth content by reducing the conversation to whether the specific supernatural doctrines make any sense (as Harris and Dawkins and others objections to religion illustrate) and ultimately leaves most individuals with a void which ideologies can easily fill with predictably terrible consequences.

I wonder how Harris would of responded to such a view, probably the same tbqhf.

File: Screen shot 2013-04-04 at 2_47_33 PM.jpg (22KB, 309x218px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 309x218px

Harris was being a dick by not letting the conversation move forward, but Peterson is just plain wrong, and I can point it out with his own philosophy.

If a person claims that they are nonbinary, and that that's TRUE to them, Peterson's pronoun argument is that the biology is contrary to their position and that this cannot be the case - that they are either male, or female, being nonbinary is not a "thing".

But say that receiving this condemnation of their nonbinary identity, the person is so distraught that he/she/ze/whatever kills themselves. By Peterson's own admission, then, his insistence that they are either male or female is FALSE, since it killed them, and what would have kept them alive - acceptance that they are nonbinary, would be TRUE.

File: 1425792088894.gif (4MB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 400x308px

>>9016868
Wow. You sound like a real pronoun apologist.

you are either genetically boy, girl or Jamie Lee Curtis

>>9016906
No, frankly I love Peterson and I am extremely compelled by his resistance to the pronoun thing and his views on religion. BUT I have to be fair, I realized just how paradoxical his own theory of truth can become if used against him. It makes no sense. He literally thinks every single thing that has a true/false dimension also has a moral dimension. Me saying "this table is made of wood" apparently has a moral dimension to him, and the empirical truth of the statement is second to the "moral direction" of it.

>>9012650
It doesn't help the Peterson was fucking horrible at essentially articulating a cogent epistemological pragmatist philosophy.

>>9016712
You mean Teleology, right? If so yes. You're not missing anything. A lot of Anons on here simultaneously hate SH and are enamored by JP so they herald pretty much anything JP says as incisive

>>9012845
terrible definition

>>9016919
I've listened to many of JP's lectures and always felt that he is unconcerned with logical consistency wherever it comes in conflict with traditional western schools of moralist thought.

His argument for "meaning" from human experience is that a person who is in pain acts differently than one who is not. He's quick to allege that anything worth a single byte of information is tantamount to "meaning". Therefore, it is meaningful to act on pure ideology. One such ideology may be "nothing has any meaning", entirely disassembling his own argument.

>>9016997

Yes, teleology.

Oh, well why the fuck couldn't Harris understand that?

And, why, when Peterson was just about to articulate his point (finally), Harris cut him off (about 50 mins in), after not letting the point go?

Harris was being a sausage and Peterson is injecting purpose into the purposeless, from what I can gather.

Although, everything Peterson made sense if you accept his 'truth serves life' axiom, which Sam seemed to instantly forget about.

>>9017033

Omg I'm near the end and Sam keeps asking how humans dying due to knowing certain truths invalidates said truths.

THE FUCKING AXIOM, SAM!

THE NIETZSCHEAN-ESQUE DEFINITION OF TRUTH, SAM!

>>9017064
a nigger who thinks religion is a inherently good thing has no rights to quote Nietzsche m8, Peterson seems to take protestant abnormalcy and imprint it on human nature.

Yeah mate, we gotta dare, we gotta go beyond and reach the level of the gods themselves. Either that or realize that most things we've done from the illuminism onwards were a mistake and escape to comfy hobbit anarcho-communist communes in the woods.

>>9017075

Well, his thoughts are far from Nietzschean, no doubt.

But his definition of truth is inspired by Nietzsche.

And yeah, he's sneaking meaning into the meaningless.

I seriously don't understand the humanities and their obsession with telos.

But seriously, Sam forgot the axiom and while Peterson didn't explain it very well/clarify, it was this absence of memory that led to a painfully awkward end.

>>9017090
These men are two intelectual non-entities famous for anything but their work in their field, you shouldn't really try to take anything constructive from this debate.

If you really hate trannies that much, Zizek has a book (partly) on identity politics, The Ticklish Subject deals with this, with benefit for being 20 year old book thought and written as a book, not some spastic reaction to SJWs protesting filmed with a fucking iphone.

>>9017102

I haven't taken anything from this, other than the knowledge that Sam can't 'assume X' and then proceed to engage in reasoning based on that assumption; a.k.a. deductive logic.

I don't hate trannies, where did you get that from?

>>9017064
>accept my axioms
>why
>just cause :3
Philosophy in a nutshell

>>9017166

Ok, Harris is saying that metaphysical naturalism, realism, physicalism, reductionism and whatever else science encompasses, can provide a basis for ethics.

Peterson says that science leads to a sort of hopeless nihilism and that therefore, in order for science provide moral guidance, its value system will have to be altered.

His suggestion is this 'Darwinian truth', whereby 'truth' is defined as that which serves life and is bound up with goodness, wisdom, beauty, etc.

Peterson only mentioned this once explicitly and failed to remind Harris and clarify this point.

Harris kept forgetting this different definition of truth and then when he did seem to remember it, he didn't address the it/launch relevant counter arguments.

It was very awkward towards the end.

As for Peterson's theory, I reject it and concede that science leads to a sort of hopeless nihilism, or perhaps an unjustified hedonism or even a sort of Epicurean-esque egoism (maximising long term happiness/wellbeing, and therefore not indulging in intensely pleasurable, but risky and damaging activities, such as drugs or unprotected promiscuous sex).

Anyway, that podcast kind of ended up being a waste of time.

>>9017491

P.S. Yes he didn't argue for his axiom, but it is based in pragmatism, which you're either familiar with or can google.

I don't endorse it, just to clarify.

>>9017491
>science leads to a sort of hopeless nihilism
But why? Does Peterson think we still live in deterministic newtonian world?
>moral guidance, its value system will have to be altered
That sounds hella preachy and fascistic, ironically coming from "muh freedom of though" advocate

>>9017158
I don't think you as an individual do, but a lot of the Peterson memers meme him because he yelled at SJWs about Jung or something i don't even want to know anymore, I just want /pol/ to go.

>>9012845
Nice paradox.

>>9017491
>science leads to a sort of hopeless nihilism
That retarded spook is usually used by people whose whole idea of scientists comes from superhero movies and science fiction literature. Strange to hear it from someone in academia, even if he works in a meme field.

>>9017582
Explain yourself, baka

>>9017563

cry more

>>9017588
Most people are not scientists or great thinkers in science. Many see the lack of evidence for a god as a reason to become hedonistic materialist because only the material matters. it is why so many atheists believe that Christian and Muslims worship a 'Sky Daddy' or an 'old man in the clouds' who only shows up to punish them for masturbating.

>>9017605
The definition of truth isn't defined by the current frontier of scientific consensus, so your definition is a paradox.

>https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/823732461817524229
I would never call JP humble, but I never tought he'd be smug... This makes him seem really far up into his own ass.

>>9017700
>many atheists believe that Christian and Muslims worship a 'Sky Daddy'
But that's just another pointless generalization based on fedora ledditors. I realize this is anecdotal, but I've only ever met people like this when I was an undergrad at a tech university. Most mature irreligious people find something else to replace the need for transcendental and are not aggressive towards religion in my experience. I'd say there's no more ultra-materialistic atheists than there are fundamental Christians nowadays.

>>9012650

Who is the gesticulating qt?

>>9017844
a tranny. or maybe you mean peterson. nice dubs tho.

>>9017588
I'm a lab monkey and both myself and many of my friends, colleagues, and former classmates are hopeless nihilists.

>>9017833
>I'd say there's no more ultra-materialistic atheists than there are fundamental Christians nowadays.
I think that might be the case, though I still meet plenty of atheists who think religion ultimately thwarted our development and when I try to explain that there is plenty of wisdom to be found in religion they reply with something like "why should I trust a book written 2000 years ago?" (I've legitimately heard this once. I replied by saying that the human being of today is still the same as the one from 2000 years ago and their teachings then are still applicable. He still didn't buy it.)

Not the guy you're replyng to btw just wanted to jump in.

>>9017588
>>9017851
A friend of mine is one of those science-worshipping atheists and I witnessed him becoming an aimless hedonist over the years.

>>9017845

It's too bad that he odds of finding a qt trap are so low, and that even if I did find one I would have to put up with a ton of sjw LBGTQ+- nonsense on a daily basis.

>>9013946
Can't handle the bantz. Classic

>>9012650
>bitches about made-up things
>bitches about how nobody understands his made-up thing
can't wait for the second podcast when he starts crying.

File: ugh.png (119KB, 421x404px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 421x404px

>>9017851
>>9017911
>it's twenty seventeen
>he's not a secular humanist

>>9017919
sorry

>>9012650
>Those smug giggles throughout the podcast tell the whole story, these two aren't even on the same level AT ALL.
or the 20-second pauses tell the whole story.
and you're right, peterson is a space cadet.

>>9017947
>he is a secular humanist
lmao

>>9017947
>Fourteen thousand two hundred and four divided by two backwards
>not realizing that a humanism needs a holistic system of self-reinforcing beliefs integrated into a steuctured social hierarchy to be maintained

Holy...

>>9017833
Atheists in general have some very similar beliefs despite lack a religion. They are not worshiping gods so they change their views to worship other ideas such as social justice or government power. Atheists have no belief in a higher power in a god so they place it else where.

>>9017881
I agree with everything you've said.

File: image.png (5KB, 468x467px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 468x467px

>>9017968
>but it's hard

>>9017974
>implying believing in an old man in the clouds is somehow better than believing in absolutely anything else

can there be two definitions?
lots of words have definitions

>>9018032
*multiple

>>9017993
>secular humanism is a failed system
>it's my fault for not fixing something I was never a part of

>>9018004
The idea that the God of Christianity is an old man in the clouds is a fallacy and untrue.

File: 14280504993030.png (121KB, 1360x1360px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1360x1360px

>>9018055
>a collection of personal beliefs is a failed system

>>9018032
Then we'd need another word for truth. Why replace an already existing word, already describing something pretty much everyone agrees upon >>9014093. If we do, he'll probably start trying to hijack the new word to implement his own meaning to that too. If he wants to say truth + usefulness then he can damn well say it, instead of trying to take an already existing word with an already established meaning.

Harris:
“But for most things we want to talk about, there is no implication of danger on [a large] scale at all. And yet we still have to make strong truth claims. We can make this as prosaic and as weird as you want. If someone says that your wife is cheating on you. Presumably that’s within the realm of possibility if you have a wife. And you’re going to want evidence, and what would constitute evidence. Well, here’s evidence: I saw it in a dream. Well that’s bad evidence. Well, here’s evidence: I hired a private investigator and here are 17 pictures of her in various locations with a man you’ve never seen before and he looks like Brad Pitt. Now all of a sudden presumably you’re interested. Now the claim about whether or not she’s cheating on you is an intelligible claim. We could drill down on what it might mean - does she have to have sex with this person to be cheating on you? Well let’s say ‘yes’, it does. So then there’s a claim about what she’s actually doing with this person in a locked room somewhere when you’re not around. That’s a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you wind up killing yourself based on your reaction to this unhappy truth. If you then wound up killing yourself we could say at the end of the day well it would have been better if he hadn’t known that, it would certainly be better if she hadn’t done that, it would have been better if he had married a different woman, surely we would want to say that.”

Peterson:
“It might have been better if he would have paid attention to his damn marriage, and to attribute the cause of his demise to the existence of the photographs, this is why I brought up Josh Green, is that investigations into this kind of morality always frame it in such a way that…”

Harris:
“Jordan, Jordan, you have to grant one thing here, there’s one piece that doesn’t get moved here. You cannot move the piece that, because you killed yourself, it’s not true that she was having an affair. That move is not open to you, and yet you’re acting like it is.”

Peterson:
[20 second pause in conversation as Jordan collects himself rather than agreeing with this most basic logic]
“Well, I think we’ve been going down this road for so long that I’m not exactly capable at the moment of making the micro example, macro example, leap. Because you’re making the case there that it’s sort of quasi associated with science, that’s the photographic evidence, and the realism that’s associated with that…”

>>9018072
>not understanding that personal beliefs that don't mutually reinforce both internally to the individual and externally with his compatriots are doomed to fail
>not seeing the writing on the wall when the nu-atheists became irrelevant

So who's right:

Existentialists, rationalists, empiricists, or pragmatists?

>>9018214
Just pick the one you like. Non of them are objectively true.

>>9018218
so existentialist?

>>9018243
Sure why not. There are worse ones out there.

Any chance anyone can explain Peterson's belief in a God (which he has claimed) in layman terms? To me it seems that he's redefining completely at his own will, which goes against a number of things he usually stands against.

File: iSsXXDdX.jpg (84KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 736x736px

>>9018211
>secular humanist beliefs don't mutually reinforce because I said so

>>9018259
It's basically: Religion is not empirically true, but it is true in some way anyway because it works.

>>9018262
>species is going extinct
>"lol you can't prove it's poorly adapted to its environment"

>>9018159
And I had so much respect for JP before this podcast. Sad!

>>9018267
But where does belief in a God fit into this, and is he really required in this case? With Peterson it comes down to morality and how one should act, right? I'm finding it hard to understand why this is different from any other school of thought based around this matter. Isn't it more spiritual or religious without the God aspect?

P.s thanks for the answer

File: k46j9df9-1385375390.jpg (100KB, 1462x957px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1462x957px

>>9018271
>tfw he makes your point for you

>>9018277
I don't think he has ever addressed actual faith.

>why this is different from any other school of thought
No it's not really a new idea. He is arguing that religious doctrines function as backbone and safety net for a culture.

You should watch his appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast, he explains his point of view quite clearly there. Rogan obviously didn't get it, but he nods along to the monologue.

>>9018211
>>9018271
>nu-atheists became irrelevant
>species is going extinct
>tfw you realize he's a not interested in philosophical discussion
>tfw you realize he's just an angry christfag being mad most christian values are not dependent on muh mystic fairy tales

File: Screenshot_2017-01-11-03-07-36.png (686KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1080x1920px

>>9018284
>tfw he posts made up statistics
>tfw religion is on the rise
>tfw non-religious spiritualists make up most of the "nones"

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/21/americans-spirituality/

>>9016341
>people dont use this so its bad waaaaaah stop triggering me

>>9018289
I vaguely remember a video of Peterson being asked by a pastor whether he believed in God, and he answered "yes" outright, but never clarified (which is why I was looking for clarification after this Sam Harris podcast). I haven't seen him on Joe Rogan yet, so I'll check that out. Thanks again.

>>9018214
Absurdists

>>9015218
Harris intentionally kept on pushing the point because he was scared shirtless of actually having a debate with peterson.

>>9013946
You're a very talented young man, this was good stuff

File: d6f359e1d06ac434f6d511b060368510.jpg (44KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 604x604px

>>9018301
>Gallup stats are made up
>posts fucking projections
>the kekkest of keks

>religion is on the rise because I really really want it to be

>he thinks secular humanism has anything to do with spiritualism

>tfw you realize he's not a christfag but either a contrarian teenager or straight up mentally retarded

File: 1483380990422.jpg (112KB, 1016x541px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1016x541px

Sam won, but just about every analysis I have read supporting Sam's positions has been flawed. I think the problem is Harris hasn't done enough philosophy let alone real logic/science to really tackle some of the things Peterson embodies.
Take sam mentioning rorty as the arch pragmatist, rorty has been repudiated by many pragmatists and doesn't hold the views that sam seems to think he does (at least as far as I have read).
Harris also only seems to have a meme tier grasp of philosophy of science, I think he is roughly popperian but I dont think he has read popper in detail. This leaves him open to attacks via induction and underdetermination.

Sam also has no understanding of formal logic, although he can reason fairly well. Anyone who starts going on about "Truth (tm)" needs to understand tarski and a bit of formal science before they comment.

Peterson is not even wrong.

Ironically it is Peterson who can't get his ought from an is.

>>9017075
Nietzsche longs for God. He hates Plato, and he hates the platonic conception of God. Which is exactly what Harris is invoking by taking his notion of truth as aprioi.

Nietzsche thinks everything comes from will to power, even truth. The only way to get to scientific truth is if yours is a 'will to knowledge' which nietzsche will admit never happens except in the most Autistic of autists. It's in the middle of BGE

Peterson is not redefining truth. "You shouldn't kill people." "That's true." It's perfectly reasonable to call this statement true, although we would also easily agree that it isn't the whole truth.

Harris was acting as if logical truth is the only thing we call truth and he cherry-picked examples that were as close to a logical proposition as possible. "The house is on fire. Room A in this house is not on fire. Is room A on fire?" This is just a logical deduction and there are only one true answer to it, of course, but Peterson's entire argument is that, as a human actor in the world, the only decisions you can make are decisions about how to act. And those are always predicated your particular situation, on your morality, on your philosophy.

Logical truth only exists within a degenerate model of the world and the 'Newtonian worldview' is in danger of elevating this model to a status it doesn't deserve, forgetting about the hard problems that don't have simple answers. And this is evidenced especially in the Atheist position of attacking religion without offering an alternative.

>>9018331
>tfw a guy who projects a conflation of humanism and spiritualism calls you mentally retarded
>tfw he thinks doubting his uncited gallup polls is stupid but doubting well cited pew research is rational

>>9018159
Are you the same person that made the reddit thread your post is from?

>>9018372
Nope. I only copy pasted that transcript of the conversation because it was pretty revealing. Many times did Sam say something true that according to Peterson couldn't have been true since it wasn't useful.

>>9018362
>Peterson is not redefining truth. "You shouldn't kill people." "That's true." It's perfectly reasonable to call this statement true, although we would also easily agree that it isn't the whole truth.

True in the sense that we agree that's how one morally ought to act. Not true in the sense that that's what physical reality actually consists of, which a lot of examples Sam gave were, which Peterson subsequently claimed weren't true since they weren't useful.

>>9018333
That phrase was only cool when Pauli did it. Now it just outs you as a meme tier sperglord who studied stem or the history of it and thought the figures were worthy of being emulated. It just screams cringe.

File: 468a2df9a8aa.jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

>>9018365
>conflation of humanism and spiritualism
>tfw he actually doesn't understand what he's arguing against
>tfw he doesn't understand the difference between a poll reflecting objective reality and projections reflecting the wishes of Pew's latest donor
>tfw he has to use projections for the most christfagged country in the world to prove his false claim
>http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38958/bsa28_12religion.pdf

>>9018391
He conceded that it is true "in a sense" several times. Granted, Peterson definitely didn't help his case. He just couldn't find the words to explain to Harris' where he was mistaken and Harris just pulled out more and more retarded examples at a rapid rate.

>>9018403
>It's a high school textbook

Hoo boy, ya done me a doozey there. I fold.

>>9018362
What if the room is a safe room or all the door were fire proof? Technically the room is not on fire in either case. The house is on fire, as in a majority of the rooms in the house is on fire. It all boils down to language and how specific it is in describing reality.

Peterson was redefining truth different from how everyone else does. He wanted Darwinian Truth, in such a way that Truth is what helps the most amount of people survive, in a way connecting truth to morality. So in Peterson's world, Germ theory is less or more True depending on whether the scientist who works on smallpox create vaccines or create viruses. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

File: 2.0.png (46KB, 532x495px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 532x495px

>>9018420
>has no actual counterarguments
>yer stuf is stuped an dum

>tfw he was a contrarian teenager all along

>>9018418
It was annoying to me that they were trying to define "truth" as both of these things when they're just different concepts.

I'm reading Nicomachean Ethics and Aristotle is going through different types of knowledge. One is "scientific knowledge" and one is "practical wisdom". How difficult is is to leave it as that, or even just start from there, rather than saying one has to be the ultimate truth?

>>9018455
sam harris was scared to move forward cause he knows peterson would wipe the floor with him

>>9018434
No no, Peterson was a step further than he should have been. Once we agree that logical truth is not the only truth you need an arbiter of that other kind of truth, let's call it behavioral truth. That's where Peterson is a pragmatist and says only through Darwinism can a final decision be made about whether an action was correct or not, whether the actor had a 'true enough' model of the world.

>>9018455
Because clearly Sam was meaning "truth" when he was saying "truth", i.e. an accurate representation of reality, what reality actually consists of etc, whereas Peterson was saying "true and useful". The problem was clearly on Peterson's end here, especially given such an important concept which would've sort of laid the foundation for the rest of the conversation. There's really no good word to replace it, and there's no reason to concede that word to have it mean what Peterson wants it to mean in lieu of what it actually means.

>>9018461
Except Darwinism truth is flawed. The belief that pragmatism is tied to life is flawed. Again Peterson kept trying to tie life to truth and ends up in retarded situations such as germ theory being less or more true depending on lives saved or killed. It's crucial to his view of morality and religion. I'm saying it is not. Pragmatism is all the different things that can be generated. For instance Germ theory is true because you can make biological weapons, vaccines, reduce death by washing your hands before operation, explain microscopy photographs and so on.

And I agree they should have differentiated and used moral truth and logical truth but I found that Peterson was too insistence on hijacking the word.

File: 1485283399136.jpg (38KB, 640x628px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x628px

>>9018651
He raised a whore. What a wise father.

>>9018397
How do you know I am not Pauli?

Anyway,
>"Haha sperg"
>cringe
Might make you feel better about being a irrational thinker, but you are not fooling anyone into thinking you are a suave womanising intellectual.

>>9018690
Why is she a whore? Is this what triggered him into all this Jungian archetype patriarchy stuff?

>>9018698
Insults aside, I'm interested to hear your arguments for Sam's conception. Because I haven't found any good ones. Everyone arguing against it seems to be misunderstanding it.

>>9012783
>autist cannot into communication
Who would have guessed.

>>9014014
When I was underageb& I was very careful never to say stuff like that.

>>9017558

>Does Peterson think we still live in deterministic newtonian world?

No, but I'm sure the quasi-classical universe we do live in is deterministic and bleak enough for him.

>>9017558
>But why? Does Peterson think we still live in deterministic newtonian world?
You realise randomness doesn't give you free will, right? Quantum-memes won't save you.

>>9019672

I'm the poster above you and I'm just waiting for that to come out.

>quantum skeletons

>>9018690
citation please

Free will is a spook

>>9016868
>But say that receiving this condemnation of their nonbinary identity, the person is so distraught that he/she/ze/whatever kills themselves. By Peterson's own admission, then, his insistence that they are either male or female is FALSE, since it killed them, and what would have kept them alive - acceptance that they are nonbinary, would be TRUE.

Jesus I can't believe I have to explain this. The threat of cultural marxism FAR exceeds the threat of some special snowflake offing themselves because they got their feels hurt. On top of that, I think it could be argued that the suicide itself was in the best interests of the world because that ideology dies a little with it.

>>9019672
Quantum effects have nothing to do with free will. Even if the universe was a perfect clock, I'd still have free will. In order for that to be false, there needs to be a source of outside compulsion that limits my decision-making process. Show me one, I'll wait

>>9021201
you are limited by the pre-existing vector and velocity of every atom in the universe

>>9021169
>The threat of cultural marxism
In your opinion
>FAR exceeds the threat of some special snowflake offing themselves
Not from the perspective of that person
>On top of that, I think it could be argued that the suicide itself was in the best interests of the world because that ideology dies a little with it.
I hope the irony of condemning "cultural marxism" yet reasoning like a socialist wasn't lost on you. Gotta fight fire with fire, amirite?

>>9021211
>you are limited by the pre-existing vector and velocity of every atom in the universe
But everyone and everything is limited by the same vectors, which in turns makes the 'limit' meaningless. In order for me to be 'limited', there needs to be someone, or something 'unlimited'. I'm still waiting

Their discussion reminded me a bit of Chomsky and Foucault
They're not talking to each other at all, they aren't even interested in the same things

>>9021212
you are seriously asking 4chan if they think the world would be better off if every mentally unstable tranny offed themselves?

>>9021217
it doesn't make it meaningless, it just means that everything is pre-determined

>>9019998
not the guy you quoted
https://www.instagram.com/mikhailapeterson/

>>9021224
>you are seriously asking 4chan if they think the world would be better off if every mentally unstable tranny offed themselves?
"Are you kidding me?!"
>>9021224
>it doesn't make it meaningless, it just means that everything is pre-determined
But it does. The statement
>humans have no free will
By itself implies that something has free will, by comparison to which humans have none. Freedom is not a property, its a relative state. A prisoner is only unfree because some people exist outside the prison and have more rights than him

>>9021253
>The statement
>humans have no free will
>By itself implies that something has free will, by comparison to which humans have none.

This is just the ontological argument reframed for free will. I'm not buying it.

File: rareJP01.png (865KB, 598x597px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 598x597px

>>9021238
Sweet, got me some rare Petersons

File: rareJP02.png (877KB, 598x600px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 598x600px

>>9021871

File: rareJP03.png (776KB, 599x598px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 599x598px

>>9021878
This one takes the cake.

>>9021253
Just to clarify what Sam means by free will, and his argument summed up quite quickly. It's that if you were to go back exactly 2 years in time, you'd make exactly the same choices in the exact same way as you did until you arrive here again in 2 years.

I.e. you couldn't have done anything any differently, your mental thought processes, your environment, the state of the universe at the time, the thoughts that you happened to get etc were all in perfect alignment for what happened to have happened.

This is what he means, if you mean something other than that by free will, it's very likely he'd agree with you. He's definitely not disputing the feeling we have of "making free choices".

>>9018459
this.

>>9021889
>Just to clarify what Sam means by free will, and his argument summed up quite quickly. It's that if you were to go back exactly 2 years in time, you'd make exactly the same choices in the exact same way as you did until you arrive here again in 2 years.
And? I fail to see how that would make my will un-free. You and Harris both seem to equate free will with random, I can't accept that.

>>9018344
In what sense does Nietzsche long for God? Isn't capital-g God, in fact, the same thing as the platonic conception of God? -- that is, the transcendent, eternal metaphysical "center" from which all being emanates, that imposes absolute values and thus rationally structures the world (the grounding of the realist conception of truth you note). He seems to think that for much of history Plato's God imbued the world with meaning and was thus useful, but with the advent of the Enlightenment project the highest values began to devalue themselves, i.e. the will to truth questions the value of truth itself.

The Platonic metaphysical picture is rendered antiquated and is no longer tenable. We must create of our own values immanently, because he doesn't believe believe the world is rational, i.e. that there even are transcendent referents to imbue the world with a sense of objectivity.

I don't see how Peterson can reconcile Nietzsche with religiosity and Jungian archetypes, which reeks of Platonism.

File: 1480204033597.png (67KB, 181x201px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 181x201px

>>9021882

>>9022018
>You and Harris both seem to equate free will with random, I can't accept that.
The will is either random (uncaused) or causally determined. Those are exhaustive. There is no third way.

>>9022060
>I define will as something that cannot be free
>hence free wil does not exist
Thats circular logic, aniki

>>9022043
Will to System boyo right here.

>>9022018
That's what a lot of people mean by free will. That is the notion he's contesting.That's the basis of a lot of religious reasoning, and, as argued by Harris, the penal system that looks to punish rather than rehabilitate.

>I fail to see how that would make my will un-free.
Because the same applies going forward, you can't control your circumstances, which in turn control you.

>>9022074
The will is either caused or uncaused. That is a logically exhaustive dichotomy. X is P or not-P. Are you retarded?

>>9016868
It's the survival of the civilisation NOT the individual. In fact, the individual killing themselves in some way benefits the society (Which is the real reason for suicide) as they harbour ideals which are destructive to it.

The whole point Peterson made (quite poorly) is that you can't create these abstract examples and ignore the broader context.

>>9013946
Gave me a hearty kek.

>>9022043
Nietzsche's longing for meaning now that the platonic conception is gone. He even wants to hurry the process of destruction of values along, which he thinks is going to be terrible, so that we can get to something higher and create our own values.

The peterson reconciles this is by approaching it with more sophisticated psychology. The Archetypes are embedded in your psyche, and you can't create your own values unless you understand them. That aside, Jung's work is heavily grounded in Nietzsche. I think at one point he cites Nietzsche as a bigger influence than Freud. (Who copied all his ideas anyways)

I mean the whole field of psychoanalysis was pretty much started by Nietzsche before it was every actually started.

File: haha.png (540KB, 956x709px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 956x709px

>>9016290