Why has this guy suddenly amassed such a cult following? I listened

You're baffled about him and not about guys like Harris who are even more full of shit?

your blue pilled fagot

>>9821031
What he's saying isn't that complicated, dude. Harris just won't concede anything outside of his material scientism mind and gives his fans the illusion that he's hyper-rational because of it.

>>9821036
>You're baffled about him and not about guys like Harris who are even more full of shit?

I can have a conversation with Harris about his views and be confident that one of us would leave with something to think about. Talking to Peterson is akin to conversing with William Lane Craig, he's a snake that shrouds his arguments in sophist. Unless you sit down and thoroughly dig in to his points he'll force you to make absurd concessions that will leave you frustrated. Sam perfectly revealed him for what he is, a fraud.

>>9821041
>material scientism
you mean reality?

>>9821031
>>9821057
instead of just saying that sam revealed him to be a fraud why don't you say how he did that. anyone can say x showed y without demonstrating it

>>9821057

are you retared?

Craig raped Harris

>>9821057
>WAAAH IF I FEEL LIKE I LOST THE FIGHT THEN THE OTHER IS A DUMB DUMB
Ressentiment at its finest.

people are even dumber than you thought they were

>>9821031
>Harris: I’m getting a little confused about what you're claiming, so let me just go over that ground you just sketched just to to get myself on track. So it seems to me that you're saying that the reductio ad absurdum of a Darwinian conception of knowledge would be if we ever learned certain truths that got us all killed, well then that would prove that these things weren't true or that this was an intellectual dead end…

>Peterson: Yes, they weren’t true enough, I would say.

>>9821031
>I'm baffled at what's happening with this guy

Really? Then you're stupid.

>>9821031
He's defending the canon and heroic virtues. The identity crisis young men are facing makes Peterson's messages attractive.

>>9821118
>>9821111

yeah wtf pretty simple

>>9821031
father figure + some science + basic traditionalism

it was just the right moment for a guy like him, he has had youtube videos for years but now that things don't "just work" anymore people are realizing that tearing down structures is not the solution to all problems.

>>9821031
sam.. easy on the positivism

>>9821031
Listen to his Joe Rogan podcasts instead. A favorable interviewer makes all the difference in how he comes comes off.

>Harris: For the philosophers in the audience I'll make one more pass, just entertain this example: so you have two labs...

>Peterson: Okay

>Harris: …that are studying the smallpox virus. And they both have the same conception of the smallpox virus in hand. They both are working with the same tools that. they got same physical tools, the same intellectual tools. One lab weaponizes it and kills five hundred people based on some motive that we would obviously want to criticize. And the other lab creates a vaccine and immediately saves the same number of lives. Now they both have the same description of smallpox rattling around in their brains.

>Peterson: No they don't because otherwise one wouldn't weaponized it. You're expecting me to assume the initial propositions which is these labs are identical except for the outcome. It’s like no they're not identical, because the outcome would be identical then. So you know it's kinda like Joshua Green’s moral story…

>Harris: I can fix this, I can fix this. Let's just not go to Green yet. Then the difference between the two labs is not a difference in their motives right, we're not just good people in one lab and the opposite in another, there's just some trivial difference in their equipment or just good and bad luck which causes one to accidentally let this virus leak out and kill people, and causes the other to successfully produced a


>vaccine. Whenever you ask members to of these labs what smallpox is and what they're trying to do they say the exact same sentences, but we have a different outcome.

>Peterson: Okay, well that's a whole different issue though, because they're not weaponize it, and they just made a mistake.

>Harris: Yeah, they made a mistake, but if they were playing around with smallpox and it was highly unpragmatic given the fact that people immediately died. And if the other lab hadn't produced its vaccine, everyone could have died. So here we got two linked to conditions that share the same epistemology, they got the same truth claims about smallpox, one is inadvertently killing people, highly non Darwinian non pragmatic on your account, the other is saving people, and in fact is the only bulwark against the consequences of the ineptitude in the first lab, right?

>Peterson: Okay well fine. First of all I don't think it's a very good example because it only causes the death of a few people, but let me let me counter with a real world example.

>Harris: No no no don't change the example - scale it up.

>Peterson: Okay

>Harris: Let's say they're killing half of humanity and the other labs saving as quickly as they can, the remaining half of humanity.

>Peterson: Okay well what would happen…

>Harris: Give me your conception of truth to describe what's happening here.

>Peterson: See you’re binding it again and because you say well one is exactly the same as the other except there's a there's a snake in one.

>Harris: There’s a hole in somebody's glove right, whatever, you can make trivial as you want.

>Peterson: Sure how about if we make it that the engineers didn't check the damn O-rings carefully enough so the space Challenger blew up. Okay so what would happen in a situation like that? Well what would happen would be that there would be a tremendous investigation into the cause of the error. And there would be moral, ah, part of that investigation would be a moral investigation. Were people being blind? Were they being careless? Were they following proper procedure etcetera. So, the first thing that would happen is that people would assume that there were genuine reasons in motivation that might have caused it. Now they wouldn't have been among the scientists necessarily they might have been among the equipment suppliers, and so we might say well maybe that piece of equipment happened to be made by slaves in China, and they weren’t too concerned with its quality. So then we might say well you know maybe that's throws the whole moral validity of the Chinese system into doubt. So that little mistake in the lab that you're describing that has this horrible consequence ends up tied up into all sorts of other things.
>Harris: But it need not be. Grant me the possibility of a little mistake that allows for smallpox to get carried home on somebody's briefcase and spreads an epidemic. It's obvious that this is possible. This is the kind of thing well intentioned people guard against working in those labs all the time.

>Peterson: Well then I would say that that was evidence that the moral notion about mucking about with smallpox was a bad idea.

>Harris: Except in this case you can't say that, and you certainly can't link a bad idea to the epistemological truth value of our understanding of smallpox.

>Peterson: Well I think you can.

>Harris: We have the other lab on the other side of the earth by the only possible method available to us producing the vaccine that will cancel the negligence of the first lab and save humanity.

>Peterson: Okay, a reasonable person would look at that situation and say well how about we don't muck about smallpox anymore, despite the fact that we got really lucky and the errors and the benefits cancelled one another out, it seems to anyone sensible that that was pure damn fluke, roughly speaking, and the idea that we should be delving into that particular bit of knowledge is ill advised. That's what would happen, and that's what I think about that example.

>Harris: Okay but it was it was a fluke in both directions right?

>Peterson: Sure but that just shows that messing about with the substance to begin with was ill conceived. Any, like, any logical investigator would immediately conclude that, it's like you're saying from a utilitarian perspective the net consequence was basically zero.

>Harris: Not that, but to say that it was ill conceived is a perfectly intelligible and defensible thing to say, but that doesn't at all suggest that anyone in either lab was wrong about the physical character of smallpox.

>Peterson: Right.

>Harris: And we need a conception of truth…

>Peterson: They were wrong in a more profound way. They were right about rearranging the chairs on the Titanic but they were pretty damn wrong about the fact that it might sink.

>Harris: Okay but that has nothing to do with the truth value of any statement about smallpox. It has nothing to do with if someone says “is this a a retrovirus?” We're gonna wait…

>Peterson: It does the way the way that I define truth.

>Harris: We’re going to wait to see if everyone dies or not before we answer that question. We can't think about scientific truth in that sense again for many reasons but certainly because we can't wait around to see if everyone dies to find out if we're making sense in the present.
>Peterson: The thing is, Sam, we do think about it that way already. We think about it that way all the time. We think, well, messing around with smallpox, is probably a bad idea because it might be fatal, anytime we have any inkling that the outcome of a scientific experiment might be catastrophe on the broadest possible scale, we immediately decide that that's a bad idea.

>Harris: Well, of course, but then again that's not, that has nothing to do with epistemology, that has to do with danger and survival and risk and things that worry us.

>Peterson: Right, which I would say are higher truths. So it does have something to do with epistemology.

>Harris: You can call them higher values but they're not they're not truth in the sense that, when it comes time to have an honest conversation about the factual accuracy of any statement about whether or not something is likely to be true, when you’re talking about probabilistic truth, there you're not talking merely about the risk of species annihilation.

>Peterson: I know that's because you leave that question out of the, you leave that question out of the realm of consideration.

>Harris: And for good reason.

>Peterson: Well, for good proximal reason, but maybe for bad distal reason.

>>9821154
>>9821159
>>9821165
good shit. i have to listen to this.

>Harris: But for most things we want to talk about there is no implication of danger on that scale at all. And yet we still have to make strong truth claims. We can make this is prosaic or as weird as you want, if someone says that your wife is cheating on you, presumably that's within the realm of possibility, provided that you have a wife. And you're going to want evidence, and what would constitute evidence? Well here's 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 seventeen pictures of her at 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 right? Now the claim about whether or not she's cheating on you is an intelligible claim, we can drill down on what it might mean, does she have to be having sex with this person to be cheating on you? Let's say yes, she does, okay so that is 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 wind up killing yourself, we could say at the end of the day well it would be better if he hadn't known that. It would certainly be better if she hadn't done that. It would've been better if he had married a different woman, surely we want to say that.

>Peterson: It might have been better if he had 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 such a way….


>Harris: Jordan you have to grant one thing here, there is one piece that doesn't get moved here. We 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.

>>9821154
>>9821159
>>9821165
>>9821169
just tell me what to think, i'm not going to read all that shit

One of the few people in the Academia who have come out against the politically correct, extreme liberal bias of the Academia with success.

Also he has helped people to sort themselves out.

>Cult.
Just because people who like him defend him from detractors does not cult make.

File: 10762585.jpg (417KB, 699x700px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 699x700px

and this was Jordan's response

>Peterson: (pause) Well. You know, I think we've been going down this road for so long that I’m not exactly capable of them at the moment of making the micro example - macro example leap because you're making a case there that’s sort of quasi-associated with science, that’s the photographic evidence, and the Realism that's associated with that, and then you're making the claim that, you know, it's not true that she wasn't having an affair, I’d have to take that apart more. He killed himself, like you're throwing a lot of things in that example that I believe are contextually important to my unpacking the ethics behind it. You know, because you're equating the fact that she had an affair to him committing suicide which, you know there's a whole backstory there. And it also depends to a large degree precisely on what you mean by an affair, which was something that you brushed over. So you know you're acting, that's the problem with these damn micro examples, is that and this is why I don't trust Josh Green’s work, because you set up a narrative that's completely fictional and you act as if each of the subcomponents of the narrative are isolated truths that have no external context. You say well the external context has no bearing on the issue at hand, and that’s just generally not true. It has a lot of bearing on the issue at hand.


the man is the personification of a pseudo-intellectual

>>9821182
>pseudo-intellectual
>has an actual scientific career and plenty of citations
ok, lets just believe le ebin rational man instead

>>9821182
>you set up a narrative that's completely fictional and you act as if each of the subcomponents of the narrative are isolated truths that have no external context. You say well the external context has no bearing on the issue at hand, and that’s just generally not true. It has a lot of bearing on the issue at hand.

He's absolutely correct here, though. Not even a Peterson-fag. Harris is trying to paper over the nuance and complexity of real moral quandaries because they muddy his vision of a pristine, pseudo-empirico-rationalist ethics.

File: Ok.gif (2MB, 412x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 412x229px

>>9821193
>has an actual scientific career

>>9821203
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

>>9821178
Opposing PC liberal academia has been an industry for nearly 30 years. It never hurt the careers of Roger Kimball, Dinesh D'Souza or David Horowitz.

>>9821212
but it's mainstream now

>>9821177
You think you should just go back because you're on a board specifically about reading

>>9821239
>reading transcripts from shitty internet atheists
no thanks

File: sigh.gif (448KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 500x275px

>>9821194
>Harris is trying to paper over the nuance and complexity of real moral quandaries because they muddy his vision of a pristine, pseudo-empirico-rationalist ethics.

>truth doesn't depend on whether you die or live
>no it's more complex than that, you're missing the nuances. You see you need to comprehend the moral rationalist traditionalist paradigm shift nested within the psychological realm of consciousness to know what I'm saying. You just don't get it

>>9821251
it's not that hard to understand though

>>9821182
How exactly? The example posited was not a matter of measurements or facts but of a interpersonal dynamic between two people in a relationship, the betrayal of trust, and the ethics therein. You're the fucking psuedo-intellectual if you think brandishing statistics can answer every fucking philosophical question. Fucks sake.

>>9821031
IDK what his material you've listened to but most of it is definitely not ambiguous, he's gained fame exactly because he takes such definite, strong stands on a variety of issues.

>>9821182
nigga what? he smoked Harris cleanly and utterly

>>9821251

Just saying something isn't relevant doesn't actually mean it isn't relevant. You don't just get to dismiss the facts that disagree with your picture of reality. If you get hit by a truck, asking the driver to grant you the possibility that his truck didn't actually hit you isn't going to get your guts back in your body. Harris is the anti-realist here, not Peterson.

>>9821194
This. I'm not with Peterson on about half the shit he says, but finally reading this debate (I was here when it happened but didn't care enough to watch it) it's pretty obvious Peterson has a much firmer grasp on the nature of life and reality. Harris is intelligent in the way professional chess players are intelligent, quick, precise, strategic, analytical. Peterson is intelligent in the way you would expect a psychologist to be, he stays within the realm of the human psyche and stays away from "on paper" arguments.
I can see why people idolize Harris but he's purposefully ignoring the human factor in his arguments because they won't make sense when humanity is considered.

Peterson is really about as honest as they come
He believes every word he says
Not necessarily gonna say he's smart or right about anything but he is honest and has good intentions
I think anyone with a decent sense for people can tell this much

>>9821212
Hardly in the same sense as it is now. Now there's open critique and resistance.

>>9821269
>Just saying something isn't relevant doesn't actually mean it isn't relevant.

and saying something is relevant when it isn't doesn't make it relevant. No matter how much slithering Peterson does his death won't stop 7 from being a prime number

>>9821274
once you learn Harris is basically a rich kid it explains a lot

>>9821031
he's a good father surrogate. most men these days are either reddit or chad.

Petersson's popularity makes his ideas popular. His ideas are popular because the new generation is coming apart at the seems.

>>9821287
we are not talking about numbers here, we are talking about thought experiments concocted in sam harris mind

File: large.jpg (72KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x376px

>>9821287

>facts are facts
>therefore we can say it would have been better if I hadn't been hit by that truck
>we see now how the problems of ethics are resolved
>I feel good about this

>>9821297
right, they are thought experiments, that means Sam decides the facts of the experiment.

>>9821287
>No matter how much slithering Peterson does his death won't stop 7 from being a prime number

Calm down, Harris. Nobody can take mathematics away from you, booboo.

One guy is saying that true means true. The other guy is saying true means true + beneficial to survival. It's obvious who's right. Peterson's definition will contradict itself if it doesn't lead to survival.

>>9821327
I don't understand how people are defending this

>>9821365
you know, you can understand how peterson defends his thesis *and* disagree with it at the same time. you can have your cake and eat it too.

>>9821154
>>9821159
>>9821165
>>9821169
How does Harris have a career?

>>9821392

what did he say that was wrong?

>>9821031
read nietzsche. he's holding up one of the lesser gods that arises in the wake of the christian death of god. it's not like people leave christianity or fedora atheism and then go on to be non magical thinkers, or that jung doesn't attract magical thinkers.

>>9821154
Jesus Christ, I can see why Scott Adams's kill shot of "analogies aren't good arguments" mercilessly tore Sam Harris apart. For such a scientific mind, he can't seem to rely on concrete propositions as evidence and instead always has to come up with either awkward analogies or bizarre hypotheticals, which are basically analogies for reality.

>>9821415

If you have a problem with thought experiments you have a problem with western philosophy. And thought experiments aren't analogies.

>>9821419
he doesn't say thought experiments. not all thought experiments are awkward analogies or bizarre hypotheticals, and the foundation of western philosophy since plato has been btfo awkward analogies and bizarre hypotheticals, which is why zen seems so exotic to western girls in search of colouring books, you goddamn plucked chicken.

>>9821415

I stumbled upon a "Sam Harris forum" (kek) yesterday and he attracts the sort of fans you'd expect.
A lot of hero worship about Sam's "razor sharp" thinking and how he "destroys" everyone who dares to cross him on his podcast.
A pleb man for a pleb world.
His only use was triggering shitlibs about Muslims, but he isn't even good for that anymore ever since went full Hitler about Trump.

>>9821421

It doesn't matter what he calls it, Harris was engaging in a thought experiment.

>>9821432
And in response to that thought experiment, he got pointed out how sloppily constructed it was, just like Socrates would have done to it. Peterson isn't that great, but you have to be pretty blind to not see which side of the dialectic method he represents in that exchange.

>>9821104
There is no better response to the relativism inherent in physics and psychology.

>>9821439

Again, Peterson argued that "true" doesn't mean "true." He's just wrong.

>>9821444
>i'll ignore we were talking about Harris arguing by analogy
>yeah but look at this other guy's flawed analogy
mmkay fan boy, i totally see why tolkien was not a fantasy writer unlike that awful grrm. kek

>>9821451

What the fuck are you talking about? Nothing you said has anything to do with the argument.

>>9821169
>>Harris: But for most things we want to talk about there is no implication of danger on that scale at all. And yet we still have to make strong truth claims. We can make this is prosaic or as weird as you want, if someone says that your wife is cheating on you, presumably that's within the realm of possibility, provided that you have a wife. And you're going to want evidence, and what would constitute evidence? Well here's 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 seventeen pictures of her at 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 right? Now the claim about whether or not she's cheating on you is an intelligible claim, we can drill down on what it might mean, does she have to be having sex with this person to be cheating on you? Let's say yes, she does, okay so that is 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 wind up killing yourself, we could say at the end of the day well it would be better if he hadn't known that. It would certainly be better if she hadn't done that. It would've been better if he had married a different woman, surely we want to say that.

What in the fuck is this lol.
Is all this displaced aggression over Peterson BTFO him in the conversation?
There's no way you can convince me that dreaming impromptu a thought experiment where Sam in detail tells Peterson that his wife is cheating on him and having sex behind his back and that he then kills himself isn't displaced aggression.

>>9821454
>wants to say argument by analogy is a valid argument
>presented with an argument by analogy
>"i don't understand, that's not an argument"
you're priceless, babby

>>9821292
>most men these days are either reddit or chad

or pol9k which is arguably the worst category to find yourself in

Because young people don't want secular liberalism anymore

>>9821461

Thought experiments are not analogies. And Tolkien has nothing to do with what we're talking about, analogy or not.

>>9821177
Socrates didn't die for this.

>>9821057
WLC is an actual philosopher and theologian. Harris is a rich white kid who bought his way into a degree and relevance, and Peterson is a backwater psychologist who became flavour-of-the-week for being a level-headed anti-SJW polemic.

>>9821031
He inspires hope to the hopeless and tells them what they want to hear.

>>9821467
>Thought experiments are not analogies
You just tried to tell me they totally were. Note how my argument starts
>>9821421
>he doesn't say thought experiments. not all thought experiments are awkward analogies or bizarre hypotheticals
to which the response was
>>9821432
>It doesn't matter what he calls it, Harris was engaging in a thought experiment.
You have no idea how priceless idiocy like yours is. Well, I guess you could look up either of their bank accounts and see a good estimate XD

>>9821061

Notice that this post was never answered.
Slide shill threads.

>>9821455
I think Peterson is known for using the cheating wife analogy to explain his idea of the underworld. harris probably adopted it because of that

Just reminds you how fucking stupid and how susceptible to trends the majority of people are.

Most people are pretty close to philosophical zombies. No other explanation for the rise of SJWs and alt right.

>>9821478

>tfw you realize that Socrates was the cultural marxist of his day, that his activities were undermining the fabric of traditional Athenian life, and that executing him was totally justified.

whoa

>>9821493
It was answered with the transcripts but if you want to be specific. Sam points out that Peterson is redefining truth to be mutually exclusive to the survival of humans, which is absurd.

>>9821505

Really because I read the same transcript you did and think Peterson is totally correct and Harris sounds absurd. Maybe that's why you should directly answer calls to elucidate your opinion instead of just literally copy pasting transcripts and expecting everyone to agree with you.

>>9821505
>Sam points out that Peterson is redefining truth to be mutually exclusive to the survival of humans, which is
peterson is well aware of the fact that he believes in the pragmatist conception of truth. pointing that out to him isn't an argument that he is being absurd, it's just a description of his beliefs.

It really was interesting to me that Sam, the supposed moral realist, had a problem with Peterson saying truth also has to serve life, in his podcast.

That said, Sam might've agreed with Peterson, had Peterson been better at debating.

>>9821517
can I get a quick run down on sam's moral beliefs?

File: Article Lead - wide999584621gj3li5image.related.articleLeadwide.729x410.gj4kfh.png1440732211088.jpg-620x349.jpg (23KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x349px

>be public intellectual
>order a photoshoot
>make the face

>>9821521
He's just a typical moral consequentialist.

He thinks he has revolutionized consequentialism though, but he hasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

>>9821529
seems fair to make that peterson comparison then. I wonder how sam would respond to that if someone pointed it out to him

>>9821511
>>9821513
truth =/= truth + human survival
by redefining truth then attempting to scurry and deflect when confronted, it shows how intellectually dishonest he is. Finally when forced in to a corner he comes out with it. He's a snake oil salesman

>>9821517
Sam Harris is a weird guy, he is kind of a utilitarian, but when he had the e-mail exchange with Chomsky he was arguing that it didn't really matter how many deaths a decision of the US president caused, because he had "good intentions".

he likes to play the rational man but most of his positions seem to come from a standard rich kid household "common sense" point of view

>>9821536
you're just attacking the idea of the pragmatist conception of truth without having a proper understanding of why people under that philosophy define it that way in the first place. what makes you think you know how truth should be defined? at least look into pragmatism before bashing it

>>9821536
don't be a retard, he is just saying that our conception of truth is influenced by our psychology and evolution

even if there are objective facts, there's no such thing as objectivity when it comes to which facts we care about and select and study. this is not rocket science

>>9821537
>Sam Harris is a weird guy, he is kind of a utilitarian, but when he had the e-mail exchange with Chomsky he was arguing that it didn't really matter how many deaths a decision of the US president caused, because he had "good intentions".

Which sounds exactly like hypocrisy, doesn't it?

>>9821540
That's not what I'm replying to, I'm explaining why he's intellectually dishonest, the definition most people work with isn't his and by dodging, deflecting, and refusing to first explain it is why I consider him a fraud. Only after constantly keeping his feet to the fire did we actually figure out his truth. Whether you agree with his definition is another topic, I doubt most of his followers would genuinely agree with him there

>>9821521
can I get a quick run down on sam's moral beliefs?

He once advertised himself as being one of the "four horsemen of the apocalypse"
What else do you need to know

why is kermit fighting zoolander?

>>9821544
>even if there are objective facts, there's no such thing as objectivity when it comes to which facts we care about and select and study. this is not rocket science

I honestly think the fedora brigade are too memed by "rationality" to understand this.
It's just easier to go through life with the idea of truth as a matching paradigm. Put the square block in the square hole. That's Sam's idea of truth. His philosophy is a child's game that has been constructed for him to play with.

>>9821558
You're holding him to a standard you wouldn't hold anyone else to. Let me explain. You agree that people disagree on what counts as moral or immoral, right? Yet most people, Sam included (listen to his recent podcast with the dilbert guy) throw around those words all the time without explaining what they mean by them exactly. That would qualify him as a fraud according to the standard you're using now. Part of having a long conversation like that in the first place is to get each other to explain those terms we disagree with each on their meaning. Truth happened to be the one jordan and sam disagreed on and the way each of them defined truth was stated in the convo. The way you're talking makes me think this was the first time anyone ever cracked the code on what peterson means by true, but it's not, he has defined it that way himself other times. I agree it would be better for the two of them to just explain all their words upfront but that is just too high of a standard to hold an informal debate to. If anything it's good that their definitions came out during the convo unlike how sam never explained his definition of morality with his talk with the dilbert guy.

>>9821576
>The way you're talking makes me think this was the first time
makes me think you think this was the first time*

>>9821432
>Setting a bankrupt situation out of nowhere
>Thought experiment
Nope. The premises can be invalid.

>>9821558
>the definition most people work with isn't his and by dodging, deflecting, and refusing to first explain it is why I consider him a fraud

Well he did explain his definitions of truth several times in the podcast with Sam, but Sam wouldn't accept the existence of any other philosophical concept of truth besides a correspondence theory of truth.

>>9821576
>You're holding him to a standard you wouldn't hold anyone else to.
To use your terms properly and explain them if you're operating under a different definition is not a high standard. This is what I meant by him being ambiguous.

I have to come forward here and take back my point about his lack of defining being the main issue. His definition of truth being tied to human survival is where I stopped taking him serious.

>>9821591
He explained it as Darwinian truth nested in moral truth, the people listening will only have a faint idea of what he means. He couldn't just say I believe truth is what helps you survive because that just doesn't sound the same

>>9821618
>To use your terms properly and explain them if you're operating under a different definition is not a high standard.
I provided an example of sam not living up to that standard, do you agree with my example? If you do, then its clear that what peterson did is normal informal behavior. If you don't then you are truly holding him to a standard you don't hold others to.

Also to respond to what you said to the other person in your post. You seem to have understood what he meant just fine so what is your problem? You say "the people listening will only have a faint idea of what he means" but why would you think that when you understood him?

You always know a discussion has reached abject pointlessness when this amount of definition dissection comes up.

>>9821591
>but Sam wouldn't accept the existence of any other philosophical concept of truth besides a correspondence theory of truth.

I'm not the anon you are responding to you but this is a joke. Who are you trying to fool? People who havent heard the conversation?

It was not, simply, that Sam just wouldnt accept anything else besides what he already believed in.

It is that when Sam asked him repeatedly to make sense of his theory of truth, Peterson either would not or more importantly could not justify his theory of truth.

He wants to marry the word truth to the good, or the wise, or something to that effect, and Sam pointed out repeatedly how this had no good effect for the use of the word truth in practically all its contexts. If truth means wise, what is a wise man who is lying? We can no longer make sense of these sentences because "truth" and "wise" can be substituted for one another. We lose the worth truth for no gain. Its idiotic.

>>9821634
>I provided an example of sam not living up to that standard
no you haven't. It's also important that the defined term underlies his beliefs and isn't trivial, unlike Petersons "truth". Provide me the transcript or video + time

>Also to respond to what you said to the other person in your post. You seem to have understood what he meant just fine so what is your problem?

I actually didn't and was confused until it was more clearly stated

>>9821653
>no you haven't
I said look at how sam threw around the word moral and immoral in his discussion with the dilbert guy

>Provide me with the transcript or video + time
how about you go fuck yourself

>>9821651
>and Sam pointed out repeatedly how this had no good effect for the use of the word truth in practically all its contexts.

Peterson repeatedly said that knowledge couldn't simply be constrained by objective criteria; knowing how to synthesize smallpox might be locally true knowledge, but what you do with the knowledge must be included in a total conception of Truth.

I mean, Peterson is essentially a monist that denies there can be a dualism between what is objectively true, and what is metaphysically/morally true.

It's not a common opinion, but several philosophers have echoed the same idea, like Parmenides and Heidegger.

>>9821664
>I said look at how sam threw around the word moral and immoral
from what I remember they were discussing whether Trump's character was moral and both were agreeing and disagreeing with their own justifications. Definitions of what they find moral and immoral was implicit in the conversation. There are no parallels here to what Peterson was doing.

>>9821678
>both were agreeing and disagreeing with their own justifications
dilbert guy stayed out of the discussion of what is moral while sam kept asserting that past behavior from trump was immoral without any justifications. part of the reason why he didn't offer up any justifications is because dilbert guy stayed out of the convo of what is moral so he never asked sam to explain himself. however he was just throwing the word around without explaining it as I said.

>was implicit in the conversation
lmao, so you're agreeing with me that sam never explained his definition of morality just like how peterson didn't before he was asked. that is the parallel here. except you're saying the definition was implicit in sam's case but not in jordan's case for no apparent reason

>>9821695
Sam and Dilbert dude were making their definitions clear when arguing whether what Trump did is right/wrong and why

Sam had to claw hard to get a clear understanding of what Peterson meant by true.

My problem isn't solely definition, it's also the definition itself. The mix of ambiguity + absurdity is my problem

>>9821724
>Sam and Dilbert dude were making their definitions clear when arguing whether what Trump did is right/wrong and why
no they weren't. all sam did was assert that things like telling lies to the public was morally wrong. there was no "why" to what he said that encapsulated what he meant by moral and immoral.

>Sam had to claw hard to get a clear understanding of what Peterson meant by true.
yes, which is what should happen in these kind of conversations. we didn't get a clear understanding of what sam meant by moral in his dilbert conversation because dilbert guy deliberately stayed away from discussing morality so he didn't ask sam to clarity.

>My problem isn't solely definition, it's also the definition itself. The mix of ambiguity + absurdity is my problem
its absurd from the point of view of a different theory of truth. you're talking as if the theory of truth you hold is the correct one right off the bat and since this one strays off the path it isn't worth consideration. well, you should know that you have to justify your own theory of truth before you can call something else absurd for not being the same as your own theory of truth. as I said earlier read into pragmatism's conception of truth, peterson as inspired by that philosophical tradition

>>9821484
>(((white)))

>>9821057
>>material scientism
>you mean reality?
read Berkley

>>9821739
>no they weren't. all sam did was assert that things like telling lies to the public was morally wrong.

right, and this is in line with most people's definition of morality. If he said it was morally wrong to help the needy I would expect an explanation/definition

>its absurd from the point of view of a different theory of truth.
yes, I'm not going to argue you here. I find his "truth" absurd, I do not share his perspective.

>>9821421
Sam Harris doesn't have the expertise or the background to properly construct thought experiments about much of the topics that he debates. It's always some awkward, ridiculous, and ultimately simplified scenario that is designed to bolster his argument about some policy issue without having to do the research to find evidence that it would work. I find it ironic that people who would criticize theologians for arguing about "how many angels can dance on a pinhead" instead turn to charlatans like Sam Harris for "razor-sharp scientific thinking" when he's doing the same garbage but couched in "rationalist" language and appearance. Pure sophistry.

>>9821165
Not often that Peterson comes off as a rational and composed person. Harris must be quite the character

>>9821769
>right, and this is in line with most people's definition of morality.
I'd be surprised if even a plurality of all current people on earth had a moral framework in line with that. morality is an intensely debated subject, to say that it is okay for sam to leave his terms unjustified because they are commonly held is bogus. everyone needs to justify their terms in an intellectual conversion. dilbert guy wasn't interested in discussing morality so he didn't push sam to justify his terms. hoever sam and jordan were interested in truth so sam got to the bottom of what jordan meant. it really seems like you're letting what is popular get a free pass. "x moral framework is common so people don't have to do y", "but x truth framework is uncommon so you have to do y", that is silly.

>If he said it was morally wrong to help the needy I would expect an explanation/definition
that's just you saying "if he said something uncommon I'd need an explanation but common things get a free pass". I'm saying that this is stupid and that you should be saying "anyone who has a position on any debated term should justify it in the conversation no matter if it is commonly held or not". that is the standard you're holding jordan to but not sam.

>yes, I'm not going to argue you here. I find his "truth" absurd, I do not share his perspective.
the point I was making went straight over your head. I was saying that you can't call it absurd without justifying your own theory of truth. because how could it be absurd if we don't even know if your theory of truth is right? if it's wrong then it might not be absurd

RAZOR
SHARP

>>9821193
>muh citations

65% of those citations are 'look at what this idiot thinks and I will tell you how he is wrong'

File: XdkPivg.jpg (331KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 5000x5000px

>>9821805

>>9821584
Yeah this is the main point here and really Peterson and Harris are talking past each other. If either had a most basic understanding of formal logic it would have been obvious that a hypothetical can be valid according to the premises given but the premises and resulting conclusions don't necessarily relate to our own reality and are thus not sound. Instead of talking about 'nuance' or whatever for however many minutes Peterson could have simply accepted the conclusions of Harris without accepting that they apply to our reality and Harris probably would not have known what to do next.

>>9821799
Yes, common definitions for terms don't have to be constantly repeated. If Trump murdered a man and someone called it immoral, would I ask him to define morality?

>the point I was making went straight over your head. I was saying that you can't call it absurd without justifying your own theory of truth. because how could it be absurd if we don't even know if your theory of truth is right? if it's wrong then it might not be absurd

it is absurd because it is neither empirical or rational. I have't read much on pragmatism and know I don't agree with it if it leads to views like his. We're discussing axioms here, anything other than using your senses (including empathy) or using your logical faculty sounds just like idealism to me.

>>9821816
Also this is why these two are pseuds, citations be damned. No one needs to redo epistemology from the ground up.

>>9821840
they are 2 pop "intellectuals" having a public debate about things plebs care about, they aren't trying to revolutionize philosophy as far as i know

>>9821838
>If Trump murdered a man and someone called it immoral, would I ask him to define morality?
if that took place in a intellectual discussion like it is on sam's podcast then yes you should ask him to define his moral system.

>it is absurd because it is neither empirical or rational
for the sake of argument I'll grant you that his theory of truth is not empirical or rational. granting that does not get us to it being absurd. you would have to explain why a theory of truth needs to be empirical/rational for it to not be absurd.

>anything other than using your senses (including empathy) or using your logical faculty sounds just like idealism to me.
and you are making the same problem here. x doesn't match the position you currently hold so its nonsense. no justification at all, just an assertion that if it doesn't do x its bad. like I said I granted you those things for the sake of argument, I don't really believe that what he says isn't empirical or rational.

>>9821840
From an evolutionary perspective, epistemology can be redefined as what is practically useful. It's as close as redefining epistemology as possible. Too bad Harris can't think outside his comfort zone.

>>9821844
>plebs care about epistemology
Never change /lit/

>>9821857
>plebs care about epistemology
yes, plebs care about knowing things, who would have thought?

I wish I could make a band with Peterson.

>>9821863
Kek. Plebs are not interested in 2 hours discussion about epistemology.

>>9821854
>and you are making the same problem here. x doesn't match the position you currently hold so its nonsense. no justification at all, just an assertion that if it doesn't do x its bad. like I said I granted you those things for the sake of argument, I don't really believe that what he says isn't empirical or rational.

I disagree with his axioms, I can't prove wrong an axiom. I do not accept his axioms because they are neither empirical nor rational.

This is my argument.

If you can get from an empirical or rational basis to "1 + 1 = 2 is based on human survival" then please do. I can't see how.

>>9821874
>the catholic church never owned europe
>the protestants didn't arise out of epistemological dispute
>that hasn't fucked up the west for longer than 2 hours
mmhmm

>>9821878
Lmao. Shitpost harder.

>>9821838
I should clarify that what I am doing here >>9821854 is meant to show you how commonly accepted things need to be defined and justified. you used the common words of "empirical" and "rational" as reasons for saying peterson's position is absurd. that isn't enough in an intellectual conversation, you need to explain what you mean and justify why it matters here, just like sam needed to when he called trump's past actions immoral and like peterson tried to do once he was asked by sam

>>9821876
I'll have some fun and actually do that. evolution has granted humans the ability to percieve the world in a 3d dimensional way and be able to distinguish between different things in the 3d environment. those two abilities are around due to them being advantageous to our survival. for example, if you are about to attack another tribe with your group of 1 + 1 +1 people and you hear 1 + 1 + 1+ 1+ 1 + 1 other voices in the other tribe then your brain interprets that as being more than your group and you decide not to attack them because you realize it would not be good for your survival. if humans did not need to distinguish between things in our environment there would be no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2 to us because everything would be 1, to clarify, we wouldn't have evolved the ability to distinguish between things so the concepts would not be rational to us. that is based on human survival

>>9821876
This is a tricky one. Not the anon you're talking too but let me give it a shot.

For the most part of humanity, numbers were not an issue at all. It's when numbers are used creatively or destructively that it matters.

In other words, 1+1=2 is a fact but how you use that fact is what matters. If you try to make a better world, fine, but you can also use numbers to make it worse.
1+1 is true but only the use is what makes it functionally true. And that's the only layer that matters given reproduction.

That's why Peterson would say that epistemology is nested within human survival.

I am not convinced I articulated that properly but it's one of the hardest question.

>>9821484
>Backwater psychologist
>Taught at Harvard
>Tenured Professor of UoT the 2nd ranked Psychology program in the entire WORLD
>Numerous papers with thousands of citations
>Backwater

Why do people keep trying to undermine Peterson and paint him this way? Are they just asshurt Marxists?

>>9821975
yes. And insecure.
It's only projection at this point.

>>9821898
>if humans did not need to distinguish between things in our environment there would be no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2 to us because everything would be 1, to clarify, we wouldn't have evolved the ability to distinguish between things so the concepts would not be rational to us. that is based on human survival

The claim you're making here is that reality is different from what we perceive, that 1 + 1 = 2 because it helped us survive, not because it's true

but wouldn't it make more sense that perceiving what is true helped us survive. You have to make an extra assumption here that we evolved a different perception of reality from the real reality where 1 + 1 = 2

Only when you start from that assumption does what you're saying rationally make sense

>>9821921
Isn't this like, lifted from "Decline of the West"?

>>9821975

They don't know what they're talking about (surprise) they just casually sling insults.
It's "me not like thing" tier.

>>9821982
>You have to make an extra assumption here that we evolved a different perception of reality from the real reality where 1 + 1 = 2

I mean where 1 + 1 != 2

>>9821484
>Professor at University of Toronto
>10,000+ citations
>"backwater psychologist"
Harrisniggers please leave.

>>9821982
>The claim you're making here is that reality is different from what we perceive, that 1 + 1 = 2 because it helped us survive, not because it's true
The claim I made falls in line with kant's transcendental idealism. through evolution we evolved to perceive in a certain way and that the foundation of what we deem rational is our biology. so yes 1 + 1 = 2 is rational to humans because of our biology and not because it speaks of any truth independent of our how we perceive things.

>but wouldn't it make more sense that perceiving what is true helped us survive
evolution is about what increases reproductive fitness being able to get passed on, why are you trying to shoehorn truth into that? You are assuming that there is a true way to perceive the world independent of being a biological being, as if one correct way to perceive the universe exists independent of any biological beings being there to perceive it.

>You have to make an extra assumption here that we evolved a different perception of reality from the real reality where 1 + 1 = 2
see above

>>9821975
>>9822023
First of all, citation count is irrelevant, and second of all being a passable psychologist does not make you a passable philosopher or cultural critic.

>>9822035
>>evolution is about what increases reproductive fitness being able to get passed on, why are you trying to shoehorn truth into that?
Because essentially that defines truth. What gets passed on.

>>9822046
>Because essentially that defines truth. What gets passed on.
And you guys still pretend to hate postmodernism and materialism? Give me a break.

>>9821876
>>9821898
>>9821982
>>9822010

This is not an interpretive argument. Stop making category errors.

>>9822050
Postmodernism destroyed what got passed on while I try to preserve it.

>>9822035
Evolution is thrown out the window when you're questioning the very reality it empirically resides in. How this perception came to be would be beyond our knowledge.

>>9822044
>Citation count is irrelevant
As opposed to what? How else are you going to measure the quality of his work? Based on your subjective opinion? If people cite his work then they view it as valuable. If nobody cites it, it wasn't a real useful contribution. What is your method? Do you even have one?
>passable
There it is again, the constant attempt to denigrate Peterson any time you can. It's like you kids just can't stand to say one positive word about him. No, he is not "passable" he is extraordinary. He is an elite psychologist.
> does not make you
Yet that's not what we're talking about, note the words that he used "backwater psychologist" What the fuck is up with you retards? Are you seriously just butthurt lefty/pol/ losers?

>>9822044
>still claiming that number of citations is not relevant to determining whether one is influential in an academic field like an absolute retard
>switching the goalposts from backwater psychologist to influential philosopher
HARRISNIGGERS NEED TO GO BACK TO PLEBBIT WHERE THEY CAN MAKE NON-ARGUMENTS IN PEACE

>>9822046
>Because essentially that defines truth. What gets passed on.
the point I was making went over your head. my point was why are you assuming that evolution favors mutations and such which help the organism perceive the world in the biologically independent true way.

I agree that evolution gives rise to perception which gives rise to what is true for that species but that isn't the kind of true I was talking about there

>>9822067
>Evolution is thrown out the window when you're questioning the very reality it empirically resides in.
I'm not questioning the biologically independent reality, I'm just questioning that there is one true way to perceive it.
>How this perception came to be would be beyond our knowledge.
I don't see how this is relevant.

>>9822068
>As opposed to what? How else are you going to measure the quality of his work? Based on your subjective opinion? If people cite his work then they view it as valuable. If nobody cites it, it wasn't a real useful contribution. What is your method? Do you even have one?

Citation count is utterly meaningless. Academics cite each other to pad counts all the time. What's in vogue, and what is correct, are not necessarily the same. Good papers will usually have a high number of citations, but this is not a sufficient or even necessary indicator of quality.

>>9822071
He is both things, and I'm hardly a "harrisnigger" given that I shat on Harris and upped William Lane Craig.

>>9822091
>I'm going to argue that all of the normal indicators of academic influence exhibited by Jordan Peterson are insufficient in his particular case without giving any evidence as to why because he makes me feel bad and I don't like him.
Crypto-Harrisniggers need to be rounded up and shot. They're nothing more than brain-damaged sycophants skilled in the art of deception and sophistry. They are a menace to society and intellectual discourse everywhere.

>>9822087
>I'm not questioning the biologically independent reality, I'm just questioning that there is one true way to perceive it

You don't know the biologically independent reality. Your theory is based on the assumption that there was an environment in the biologically independent reality that caused us to perceive a completely different reality.

This is the assumption you are working off and it stems from neither an empirical basis nor a rational one.

>>9821031
Pseuds.

>>9822091
>Citation count is utterly meaningless
Quite a stretch to say that. You suggest that it is "utterly" meaningless simply because some academics self reference each other? As if the only citations are self referential? Quite a logical leap.

>Some academics cite each other (this is apparently a bad thing)
>This means that ALL citations are utterly meaningless, they mean NOTHING!

And what do you even mean by academics citing each other? Who else are they supposed to be citing? Non academics? Why do you think they are citing each other in the first place? Are you seriously suggesting that there is a groundbreaking discovery out there that is highly useful that is not cited at all because... reasons? That they are just throwing useful knowledge away because? Not only that but that the majority of the papers cited by a large amount of people are all the "false" papers and that they are all low quality? You say they're not an efficient indicator of quality. If not citations, again, I ask, what is your alternative? How do we measure the output of an academic if not by citations? What is your alternative system? Oh yes and let's get into specifics. What about the things Peterson has published is wrong? Please explain and demonstrate.

>>9821884
what? just because you skipped over the scholasticism period doesn't mean that catholic epistemology didn't fuck up the western tradition for hundreds of years. that's like thinking refusing any conclusions which did not fit with historical materialism from science in the USSR didn't fuck up their genetics program.

>>9821921
>numbers were not an issue at all

say that to the guy who came up with the number 0

>>9822137
>that catholic epistemology didn't fuck up the western tradition for hundreds of years.
"Catholic epistemology" led to the formation of universities in which to autistically study Plato & Aristotle, which then led to the foundations of the scientific revolution. The Western tradition wasn't fucked up you fedoric mongoloid.

>>9822117
How is this not the rational conclusion to draw from the theory of evolution? We know that how we perceive the world is decided by evolution. For example, everyone knows that different species, or even people, can see the same thing as different colors. Why? Because our brains perceive the same light wavelengths as different colors in different species/individuals. Can we say anything about what the "true" color is of a given wavelength? Or would we all recognize that as a silly question because it depends on how evolution has shaped our brains. That is what I see the rational choice as. Just as it is silly to say there is true color it is silly to say there is a true way to perceive anything.

So yes, this is based on the assumption that there was a biologically independent environment which gave rise to biological organisms capable of perceiving the world in their own ways.

I am probably oversimplifying the issue but isn't it quite clear that Harris just speaks about truth in absolutist terms while Peterson addresses the human component in the epistemological debate namely that that which is true should also serve mankind. Moreover, when we make assumptions about truths in the world it goes through a filter which makes value assumptions about whether a thing is true or not. I can see how this is more difficult to say with just plain scientific hypothesis as there is not necessarily a value structure that you would apply to such terms. One could however argue that theses basic scientific truths serve man in that they grant information to a person from which that person can then make order out of the chaos that is endemic to life. For example when man first discovered fire and the wheel.

I don't necessarily believe any of them is either correct or not though I align more with Peterson's view in that there is a higher truth than just scientific truth and the way in which we can attain it is through a pragmatic lens. Nonetheless, it is so difficult to create value structures in a world that is generally uncaring - only an Ubermensch can fulfill such a task.

>>9822183
>How is this not the rational conclusion to draw from the theory of evolution? We know that how we perceive the world is decided by evolution.
because you're applying what you perceive to a "biologically independent reality" that doesn't even share the same mathematical laws according to your theory. What evidence do you have for evolution beyond what you perceive?

File: 1501258582491.png (40KB, 142x165px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 142x165px

>>9821805

>>9822230
>because you're applying what you perceive to a "biologically independent reality" that doesn't even share the same mathematical laws according to your theory.
Instead of saying biologically independent reality lets say the noumenon (in contrast to phenomenon, as kant would say). What am I applying to the noumenon that you are having a problem with?

>What evidence do you have for evolution beyond what you perceive?
None, what is your point?

>>9822260
So it's an assumption based on nothing. Empirically you have no evidence for it. You've dissolved rationalism in to empiricism so that's a no go.

>>9822284
you didn't answer my two questions. why would you parade around as if you finally debunked what I had to say before you even clarified what you just said to me

>>9821057
>>material scientism
>you mean reality?
Wow, really makes you think doesn't it

>>9821031
Refusing to use certain gender pronouns for certain people. His continued success comes from the fact that a lot of his stuff resonates with people in general and at least sounds useful from the afront. Clean your room is a meme now but it's a much needed message for people in this era to hear, even if Michael Jackson said it first. Too many people want to change everything about the world without sorting themselves out first.

>>9822290


To your first question I already answered it>>9822230
>because you're applying what you perceive to a "biologically independent reality" that doesn't even share the same mathematical laws according to your theory.

>>9822314
All you say there is that I am applying something that I perceive to the noumenon. I understand this as a statement saying that I am applying a certain perception that humans have evolved to the noumenon and you are taking that to be a mistake because human perceptions don't apply to the noumenon. I asked what I was applying. You still haven't answered. I am not saying that the noumenon doesn't share the same mathematical laws because as I said the noumenon isn't knowable, aside from that it gave rise to organisms which perceive the world in their own ways. so what am I applying to it that I shouldn't be?

>>9822135
Academics cite for many reasons, for social purposes, and based on what is fashionable in their field. Being cited does not necessarily make your work high quality; and Peterson's psychology is completely irrelevant to his cultural criticism and philosophy. Not sure why you're sperging out over simple explanations. No serious academic would measure his worth in citation counts.

>>9822337
>I am not saying that the noumenon doesn't share the same mathematical laws
sorry for some reason I was thinking "physical laws" as in physics. disregard that one part

>>9822337
>aside from that it gave rise to organisms which perceive the world in their own ways.

I'm saying this is an assumption. You can't prove this. You can't reason this. You can't reason the rest of your theory without this assumption

>>9822360
>so what am I applying to it that I shouldn't be?
you are applying evolution to it.

>>9822360
>>9822374
>>9822337
I have to go m8, your theory is evolution lead to your reality which led you to perceive evolution.

Your perception spontaneously coming in to existence is equally valid

>>9822360
>>9822374
I think what you are trying to say is that I am saying the theory of evolution holds true independent of biological organisms perceiving anything. I'm not saying that. All I mean by "it gave rise to organisms which perceive the world" is that the explanation for how humans got here *ACCORDING TO HUMANS* using empirical science *BASED ON HUMAN PERCEPTIONS* is that stuff existed before life and then life appeared and evolved into current life. Tell me how any of this is an assumption or unreasonable.

>>9822392
I know you're gone but I'll respond/clarify anyway. I'm not saying that it is a real biological independent truth that evolution gave rise to humans which were then able to perceive evolution. I'm not attributing evolution to the noumenon like you think I am. I'm just saying that that is the case for humans, as in that is the empirical/rational explanation which best fits how we perceive the world.

>>9821269
>Harris is the anti-realist here, not Peterson.

Nonsense, because I gather that Harris is asking Peterson to parse the ethics of the situation.

Thus if a truck driver's brakes fail, through no fault of the truck driver, it doesn't change the fact someone was struck by the truck, but it does change our moral calculus of the driver's culpability. In short, the "external context" has a lot of bearing on the issue at hand.

>>9822454
Ugh. Scratch that. I misread your post.

>>9822156
>Plato & Aristotle
Come on now, anon, why did they suppress half of Aquinas then? The shit that's most important now is the shit that hewed too close to the Greek line of thinking that upset their epistemological basis. It was precisely the paradigm shift away from that as the basis of all thought that brought about the enlightenment and brought things like angels dancing on pinheads back into the conscious imagination. #THOMIST SHILLING #DUNS AND MARY DID NOTHING WRONG

File: 1501317431559.png (179KB, 366x392px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 366x392px

If you get more of your information and commentary from podcasts or YouTube videos than you do from actual reading,

then you're fucking trash.

>>9822480
How is this relevant to the thread

>>9822491
What other type of person would pay such close attention to Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson?

>>9822480
>information obtained from the most up 2 date mediums is bad
>information obtained from by default, outdated medium, is dae based.

what did you fucking retard mean by this?

>>9821031
he's actually educated and cultured unlike most youtube sophists. I can watch his videos without trying to constantly hold back a cringe unlike Sargon of Cuckad, Molymeme, ect. He's still a low value sophist though, idk why this motherfucker makes hundreds of thousands a year on Patreon.

>>9821057
Sam Harris got absolutely crushed in debate by a fucking c a r t o o n i s t

I can never, even ironically for the sake of memeing, take him seriously again. I used to be one of the people who would shitpost threads with his Ben Stilleresque mug here and I can't even bring myself to do it anymore. I deleted my entire collection of Harris pics.

File: 1495408936248.jpg (62KB, 396x691px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 396x691px

>>9821076
>your brain on contrarianism
Craig is just as retarded as Harris I hope you know.

>>9822570
>I can never, even ironically for the sake of memeing, take him seriously again. I used to be one of the people who would shitpost threads with his Ben Stilleresque mug here and I can't even bring myself to do it anymore. I deleted my entire collection of Harris pics.

Damn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tBXqs0pRVQ

How many people do you think watching videos like these are actually following anything being said? 50%? 30%? 10%? 1%?

I'm surprised he is gaining the traction he does. The rate of a videolog's success is usually how well it delivers memes and in a lot of these there's none.

>>9822570
I feel the same way. Harris isn't even a challenging anti-hero or villain. He's just a stupid cuck who caters to some of the most basic pseuds in the world, those who can be swayed literally by a person having the pretenses of being an intellectual through demeanor, posturing, vocabulary, etc., instead of evaluating their ideas. A literal sophist, but of the dumber kind.

>>9822570
>a fucking c a r t o o n i s t
Why do you think the profession matters? Can't Dilbertguy be smart despite "being mere cartoonist"?

>>9822844
It's just the tranny thing. It was always just the tranny thing.

>>9822868

I think that Sam is sincere but just deeply, deeply memed. He and his audience are perfect for one another. It's actually quite beautiful in a way. They found each other.

>>9822844

What is the evidence that no one is listening?
The massive and sudden resonance he's having?

>>9822899
>It's just the tranny thing. It was always just the tranny thing.

Nah. You want it to be the tranny thing because it has a short shelf life and you want him to go away.
He's already pivoted to his new shit. The tranny stuff was an accident. But this other stuff he talks is what he's been preparing his whole life.
Of course it's a fine line to walk. And Peterson himself may fall off. But the chord he is striking isn't going away so easily.

>>9822570
Initially I was so very confused why /lit/ likes Ben Stiller posting much, it was like 18 months later I learned it was Harrises mug

>>9822929
>>9822844
What's great about JB is that he makes people be interested in what he is talking about, like how all the fedora atheists turned to fedora christians.

>>9822868
Disliking sam harris this passionately is just an elaborate game of elitist "im more sincere"ism

>>9822943

I was talking to my friend about this yesterday.
Every once in a while a cultural figure arises from out of nowhere and it almost feels like they were made for the situation they suddenly find themselves in and have been preparing for it their whole life without realizing it. Peterson is interesting because it was like he was sent here by some kind of cosmic force.
His ability to interest people is because he literally embodies his own message. Peterson IS the archetypal hero.

>>9822929
>What is the evidence that no one is listening?
Look at people's behavior. Look at the comments. Look at posts in Nietzsche threads. Most people listen only with one ear.

>>9822963
>tfw you'll never be the world-spirit on horseback

>>9821031

I find that he gets a ridiculous amount of irrational hate here on /lit/, which I find surprising since I'd assumed /lit/ is one of the smarter boards on 4chan.

I'd recommend watching some of his older lectures if you want a clearer understanding of who he is as an intellectual.

File: joseph_chaboard_napoleon_on_horseback_canvas_print.jpg (30KB, 380x504px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 380x504px

>>9823013

>>9821553
>e in their equipment or just good and bad luck which causes one to accidentally let this virus leak out and kill people, and causes the other to successfully produced a

As soon as Sam Harris begins talking on Politics he is worth just tuning out

>>9823039
>I'd assumed /lit/ is one of the smarter boards on 4chan.

/lit/ is actually one of the dumber boards on 4chan b/c it's one of the dedicated "smart" board so it attracts loads and loads of pseuds

>>9823041
>on Politics
What fucking capital "P"? Fucking pseud.

File: Most expensive item ever D2 70kfg.jpg (35KB, 375x367px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 375x367px

The fuck is with all these Peterson VS Harris threads? Sure the first one was a shitshow, but did anyone actually listen to their second podcast?

Sure Peterson can get carried away with his myth narratives and Jungian archetypes, and yea Sam can be prone to oversimplification and falling victim to rhetoric, but he's not wrong about everything.

Their second conversation was pretty amicable and interesting, way better than the first. Yall should listen to that instead of the epistemological trainwreck that the first one was.

>>9823059

I listened to the entire 2nd one and honestly can't remember a single thing they talked about.

>>9823068
i just remember the part where Harris read a section from his book where he does a mythological analysis of a random food recipe or something like that

>>9823094

Oh God now I remember.
I actually wrote a huge post on here about how stupid that was too.
Harris is an absolute moron.

>>9822952
It's not really passionate unless you're really bothered by sophists who try to misdirect, evade, posture, etc., and ruin a conversation. We're all guilty of that kind of behavior to some extent but Sam Harris is the poster child for it despite presenting himself as an intellectual.

>>9823097
I vaguely remember that too. I think his point was that a person (deranged, by our standards) could open a random book, like a recipe book for example, and arbitrarily form a mythological narrative out of it. He was trying to make a point against Petersons meta-narrative myths or whatever they're called. Sam thinks they're arbitrary and not necessarily a source from which to derive a moral fabric, whereas Peterson thinks there is something about these stories themselves that makes them inherently moral, somehow.

File: molymeme.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>9823111
nice trips. also there's no need for Harris anymore when we have this new "rational" living meme

>>9823059

That's a sick bow, did you find it yourself?

>>9823114

>Peterson thinks there is something about these stories themselves that makes them inherently moral, somehow.

Peterson thinks they frame practical actions in a way that maximizes the potential for success.

>>9823129
lol fuck no. That's the single most expensive item ever sold on jsp. Went for 70k

>>9823131
Going off your words, what is it about these stories that "maximise" the potential? Are there really no other narratives than can do better? And is meant by success here

>>9823139
>>9823131
what is meant by success here?*

>>9823120
Molymeme isn't annoying but at least he's not into method acting for the remake of The Intimidation Game or something. Harris is what a pseud would imagine if they were asked to describe what a smart person sounds like.

>>9823171
is annoying*

>>9823139
>>9823142

You'd have to ask Peterson. He gestures toward primordial evolutionary concerns like 'snakes in the grass, ergo a snake in the Garden', but it's not convincing. As for success, he means 'sexual fitness', i.e. offspring, but also what every other self-help guru means by it, something like 'satisfaction with one's life' that has an unshakeably conventional appearance, i.e. the career, car, house, wife, and mistress I've always 'wanted'.