At what age did you grow out of Jordan Peterson?

>>129456628
No idea who that is

>>129456628
this is now a spoderman thread
>tfw no spoderman folder

>>129456628
>pic
>valid
Pick two. Fuck this kermit cocksucker

>two bit academic
>he says as he posts on 4chan

File: 9e3.png (144KB, 534x400px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 534x400px

No idea who that is

>two bit academic
>was a professor at Harvard and U of T
Pick one and only one.

>>129456628
Never, I never really was on board with him C. G. Jung is a hundred times better.

File: image.png (222KB, 477x446px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 477x446px

sort yourself out kiddo

>>129456628
t. messy room

>>129456628
>Strawman is now humor

Jesus when will the left learn things are funny WHEN THEY ARE TRUE.

But they wont since they define true as "that which I agree with", hence why they strawman characters and morally judge them OVER AND OVER AGAIN FUCKING REEEE

>>129456628

I decided I really didn't like him when he spent five minutes not answering the simple question of whether or not he believed in the supernatural. He whined that he 'didn't like the question', arrogantly went on about how anyone who even asks him doesn't even understand the question, then said he 'acts as if God exists' which is a blatant dodging of the question. I wish Christopher Hitchens were around to roast his fucking balls. Say what you want about that bloated drunk old man but he cut through smug overbearing academic babble like nobody else.

I'm watching him talk about Frozen now, and I just find him more and more absurd. I can't even discern what his problem is or what about it is 'propaganda'. Elsa learned she couldn't run away from shit she started, Ana learned that Chad Thundercock was a dick and she should get with the weird yet dependable loner guy. What's so fucking bad about that?

>>129459571
If you've listened to any Peterson you'd know he wouldn't have a problem with Hitchens calling him out. He seems pretty concerned with truth and if he realizes he's wrong about something he'll probably rethink his position.

>>129461408
t. butthurt peterson fan. get rekt faggot, he got BTFO

The guy is brilliant but if you edge lords want to throw away all his opinions because you don't agree with his view on a fucking Disney movie you should neck yourselves.

>>129461408
>if he realizes he's wrong about something
that's the whole point, anon, he's always speaking extemporaneously, with no real direction or thesis, and his lectures are 90% conjecture, with 10% allusion to Nietzsche, Jung, and Piaget. He's not even wrong. he seems like a scatterbrain, albeit a well intentioned one.

>>129462672
That's why people like him. He supports his theories with a ton of evidence but isn't so rigid that he's unwilling to change his view.


This is also why people like Dawkins are garbage. He things he knows everything already, he's only in it to inflate his ego.

>>129456628
So defend post modernism OP.

>>129463476
>He supports his theories with a ton of evidence
what theories? he has no theories. his lectures are mostly conjecture, and he seems to surprise himself when he makes a cogent point.
>This is also why people like Dawkins are garbage
kek

>>129456628
I'm sorry you don't get it
I love JBP

File: peterson.png (47KB, 581x235px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 581x235px

He's literally just a retard spouting stupid shit about topics he looked at for half a minute, producing papers and literature written in stupidly chaotic English.
Only people that understand these topics even less than Peterson would take him for anything other than a crank who is hiding his ignorance behind confused and fancy language.
Example of him spouting dumb shit attached.

>>129464347
Note that this isn't just a single offense, here's another dumbfuck quote from "The Architecture of Belief":
"A moral system -- a system of culture -- necessarily shares features in common with other systems. The most fundamental of the shared features of systems was identified by Kurt Godel. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system."

>>129464347
you are just a contrarian. you just like the feeling of being superior and shit on anything that anyone likes, if any of your obscure interests became popular you would hate them in a betrayal of yourself, but it's not really a betrayal of yourself because you hold no real values, you *only* liked it because it was obscure. If a large collective agrees with anyone, you will be the first to call them out for their 'dumb views'

>>129464467

you're too stupid to understand moral axioms, apparently. that sentence makes perfect sense. it is you that are simply not intelligent enough to keep pace with peterson. sorry.

Jordan peterson saved my life.

You haven't sorted yourself.

Sam Harris is autistic.

>>129464826
No one is saying you can't like him, moron. He's a good story teller, no different than Robert Anton Wilson. He's no intellectual, that's for damn sure. When your professor is giving a lecture, and he asks the class, "I've been thinking about this for a while, tell me if you think this sounds right", you are listening to a charlatan.

>>129465340
Did I say that he was saying that I can't like him? you're the moron. and the post you just replied to also applies to you 10x

>>129464826
What? How is your reply even remotely related to anything in my post?
Are you projecting?

>>129465121
Gödel did not prove that axioms cannot be proven.
Even ignoring him completly missunderstanding Gödel's incompleteness theorems, he is still extrapolating from well defined mathematical axiomatic systems to 'moral systems', which is in itself dumb and pretentious as fuck.
Only a retard would consistently missapply mathematics outside of mathematics to make his followers believe that the authority of mathematics contributes to the truth of his statements.

>>129465340
He teached at Harvard.
Also, asking what the other think is a very socratic technique.

>>129465121
>moral axioms
>Godels incompleteness theorem
kek

>>129465340
>He's no intellectual
He has explicitly stated he does not consider himself an intellectual. Which isn't a bad thing.

>>129465590
read it again, search your soul you know it to be true.

File: 1484780184128.jpg (47KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 645x968px

>>129456628
Maybe he didn't agree that the positive message message in Frozen was positive?

>>129465608
>He teached at Harvard.
What possible relevance does that have?

>>129456628
Butt-rekt post-modernist fag. lol

>>129465985
I doubt that many charlatan teached at harvard.

>>129456628
I only started hearing about this guy a few months ago, I don't think he's saying anything particularly interesting. Like the pic you posted suggests, he seems to blame everything bad on postmodernism.

>and as I sat there with a messy room wondering how can I make a name for myself in academia, Sesame street lights up the television screen, and I don't even watch television so I took it as a sign. "That's it!" I thought to myself. So I began mimicking Kermit the frog and, well, you know the rest of that story.

>>129456628
Irrelevant and unknown person.

>>129465677
No one is saying it's a bad thing. He's an engaging speaker, bordering on cult leader. His appeal is that he's speaking against things you don't like, and he does it convincingly. You're suffering from confirmation bias, he's a sincere scatterbrain that loves to talk, full stop.

>>129465608

>teached

American education, everyone.

"Positive" messages for women are shit because they will just LARP as men, won't have kids or substitute kids with foreigners.

Positive messages for men are good because they get off their lazy asses, assume responsibility and fix the world.

Yes, women should also assume responsibility but having kids is their main one.

>>129462672
basically this guy is a practicing clinical psycologist who was successful and thought 'ok how do i help more?' so he buddied up with the cuckanada edu system and became a 'professor'

you are right about him speaking 'with no real direction'. i have only watched his class lectures, im not a podcast kind of guy, and i agree with what you are saying but imo i think you are looking at it with the wrong lense. he isnt a professor of academia, he studied and was successful at practice in his field and then is basing basically himself/his ideology on information and experiences he learned from being a successful psychiatrist.

obviously this can be bad, we see this bad side when professors add in their worldview and college kids become rabid cultural marxists. peterson however tries very hard to stick to his im here to sort YOU out bit and not become political

>>129466162
Anon, I graduated from NYU and had plenty of wacky professors. You don't even know what it is that he taught at Harvard. It could have been Psychology 101.

>>129464347
that sentence is only hard to read if you are illiterate as fuck

File: Absolutely Degenerate.png (100KB, 258x330px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 258x330px

>>129456628
Jew please go.

File: 1493180436079.jpg (72KB, 680x622px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 680x622px

>>129463765
You are aware that nearly 100% of psychology in its current state is conjecture right?

File: maxresdefault654.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

The SJW far left is picking up on just how much of a threat Jordan Peterson really is. The man is uniting the lost flock of millenial men, urging them to sort their lives out and improve on themselves before they go out and fix the world. The SJW menace to western civilization knows what is just beyond the horizon, their ultimate undoing is being baked in to society right now and Peterson is the chef, the Shepard collecting the lost flock of disillusioned young men and guiding them toward western civilization's salvation. This thread and any you see popping up on the internet, especially founded on such weak criticism is only the beginning. The far left is afraid and does not know how to deal with this man.

>>129466832
That sentence is also plain wrong, but no one reading the book would notice because the rest of the book is written in a similar gibberish manner.
"Active apprehension of the goal of behavior, conceptualized in relationship to the interpreted present, serves to constrain or provide determinate framework for the evaluation of ongoing events, which emerge as a consequence of current behavior."
I can guarantee you that he puts as little thought into idiotically complex sentences like these as you would when reading the book.
You either end up reading every sentence thrice to check for inconsistencies or you skim through more gibberish without being able to immediately validate whether the author is a crank.

>>129458334
>>Strawman is now humor
>when will the left learn things
>they
>they
That's a strawman. You're using "the left" instead of judging individual arguments.

File: 1496969648231.gif (1000KB, 475x242px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 475x242px

>>129464347
You were so busy being a faggot that you forgot to ask, "What is his definition of 'God'".

In his world view "God" is essentially ultimate reality, or more precisely the mechanisms behind ultimate reality. If there is no "God", there is no perfect version of reality to strive towards. But chances are you are going to get wrapped up in the meaning of the world "God" and instantly think about the Christian God because you are a narrow-minded cunt.

>>129467344
how is this sentence hard to read exactly?

I read his entire book at the only moment I struggled was when he started talking about alchemeny and even that wasn't due to the writing but due to the topic

>>129466685
I agree, although I don't know enough to comment on his politics, he comes off more like a self help guru than a professor. I'm also very leary of the fact that he's asking for and receiving donations.

>>129467417
It's a sweeping generalization you moron.

>>129467417
He wasn't trying to be funny
Is it normally difficult for you to figure out when people are trying to be funny?

He's a bit stream of consciousness when speaking but he does raise interesting and thought provoking points.

But even he said in one of his talks that he doesn't present his ideas as if they are complete and resolved, he presents them as ideas he has yet to have refuted.

>>129456628
>At what age did you grow out of Jordan Peterson?
After i stopped watching the Muppets

File: stupid.png (732KB, 1091x692px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1091x692px

>>129464826
>contrarian
>betrayal of the self because you hold no real values
See pic related
>>129465121
>moral axioms
See pic related.
>>129466685
>he learned from being a successful psychiatrist.
>not realizing a PhD in psychology makes you a psychologist (intellectual) and not an actual doctor.
>not realizing the income potential is exceedingly less as a psychologist and unless you write self-help books you're not going to break more than 100k with clinical practice
>not realizing that you're a retard if you spend 8 years getting a Psychology PhD only to make ~100k whenever you could have went to med school and psychiatry residency in the same time and been making around $250k minimum and actually be able to prescribe drugs.

>instead of judging individual arguments.
See pic related.

>behind ultimate reality
The thing in itself, right? You say this to a guy on the street he'll laugh at you. What a stupid statement, really. See pic related.

>>129467440
Is that an anus?

>>129467440
You should re-read the post, because I am not even attacking his assertion about god, but instead his missapplication of mathematics outside of mathematics as an authority to back up his arguments and his complete missunderstanding and butchering of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

>>129466491
>No one is saying it's a bad thing
You implied it was by stating he is no intellectual and commenting on how professors give lectures. You seem to be educated, not all professors are eloquent and well spoken. Some of them can barely hold a lecture without going on a tangent.

>His appeal is that he's speaking against things you don't like, and he does it convincingly.
What points of his would you refute then? He is 100% spot on when he discussed the directionless lives that young men are living in our society. Guys that find no purpose in life and sit on their ass and jerk off after binging on video games for most of the day. Even worse is that the amount of wacky bullshit coming from the left is hard to comprehend. The DC pride parade had gay protesters that stated the parade wasn't inclusive enough. Take a moment to think about that. It's a disgusting state and I'm glad someone has the balls to take the national stage and say it. It's also encouraging that he is trying to help young men find that direction they lack, or at least facilitating it.

>You're suffering from confirmation bias
>implying

>>129467773
Forgot to tag you for this:

>judging individual arguments

And you:
>>129467440

for

>ultimate reality
in initial post here:

>>129467773

Gents, study the picture hard and do some serious reassessment of your lives. Intellectualism is a mental disorder.

>>129467606
It's also a strawman, he misrepresented the argument of hundreds of millions of people by saying "the left".

>>129467583
very much self help; like i said he was a practicing psychiatrist that realized he could help groups of people earlier on in life before they fuck up too bad (college freshman) by becoming part of the education system.

"Maps of Meaning is a university course taught by Dr. Jordan B Peterson. It describes how the world is portrayed in story form in myths, rituals and religious conceptualizations and how that is related to brain function and behavior. In doing so, it presents a solid alternative to nihilism and totalitarianism"

>>129467440

Isn't "God" in his world view the ultimate Darwinian truth how you should act in the world in line with the K-selection strategy of being able to replay social games which benefit all players at all times?
It's a K-selection strategy because religion makes people invest time and resources in having kids, building communities, sustaining them, and improving them and making sure the offspring do this, too.

>>129467336
>The far left is afraid and does not know how to deal with this man

Let them be afraid, they have already lost. The battles to come are just a formality.

File: k58zo6m.png (644KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 800x800px

>>129462672
this is actually precisely why I like him. Don't take him so seriously and you can glean some decent points of truth from the thicket of words he rambles out

>>129467773
see >>129468097

>>129466628
>American
Irish eyesight, everyone

>>129467344
>"Active apprehension of the goal of behavior, conceptualized in relationship to the interpreted present, serves to constrain or provide determinate framework for the evaluation of ongoing events, which emerge as a consequence of current behavior."

no idea what that’s supposed to mean

>>129459571
>>129464347
>>129464467
>>129465590
>>129467344
>>129467773
BEWARE-these are reddit users. Their verbiage is reddit tier.

>>129456628
Why can't we separate ideas from the people who have them, Peterson being wrong on one thing or losing one debate or whatever has no bearing on a completely separate idea/lecture. Peterson has interesting ideas so I listen to some of his lectures.

>>129467917
>You implied it was by stating he is no intellectual
Anon, your assumptions are your own.
>Guys that find no purpose in life and sit on their ass and jerk off after binging on video games for most of the day
Again, speak for yourself.
>implying
Implying that his students are being cheated. They are a captive audience, listening to the incoherent ramblings of a scatterbrain and not receiving the education for which they're paying.

Pretty sad shareblue has to attack jordan peterson now.

Don't like the guy for being a globalist/multi-cultist.

>>129468597
Fair enough.

>>129467773
Are you so retarded that you believe that there is literally no underlying anything to the universe?

We heard it here first. Physics is not real and time is only man made and does not actually exist.

>>129467336
this anon gets its

File: 1497007969770.png (586KB, 700x601px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 700x601px

>>129467904
> does not understand that to apply morality to more than one entity, basic maths is required.
> does not know what discrete math is.

okay.

File: physics_is_not_real.png (21KB, 481x180px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 481x180px

>>129469862

>>129470103
What the fuck are you on about?

File: 1495228413414.jpg (8KB, 198x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 198x199px

>>129470188

>>129470294
> What is Boolean algebra

File: man a Psychology PhD is so impressive!.png (123KB, 804x874px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 804x874px

>>129468673
>Dr. Jordan Peterson
>Clinical Psychologist
>McGill University (Ph.D)

What are you trying to show me? That you're wrong twice. He still isn't a psychiatrist.

>No M.D.
>not a psychiatrist

Clinical psychologist. There is a difference. A big one.

Only an intellectual would pursue psychology over psychiatry. That's why he went into the professing gig, because it's more profitable to teach than to practice as a Psychologist.

>>129468810
Irish sobriety, more like.

>>129470664
I still have no clue what you're on about.
I am complaining that he is *missapplying* mathematics outside of mathematics, not that he is *applying* mathematics.

>>129459571
The fixer upper song is cancer alone.

>>129456628
Peterson is right about Frozen. The most privileged woman in the land runs away from her minimal duties. Like mereda in Brave. In Frozen most men are evil, capitalism is evil and if you love your abuser with true love, like Anna loves Eliza, you might live..

File: got a load of this intellectual.jpg (66KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1200x800px

>>129469862
>talks about philosophy and intellectual topics
>pretends he knows about physics
If Oppenheimer sat around talking about "the Ultimate reality", instead of actually proposing real life hypothesis that are actually testable, no nuke would have ever been developed. In fact, if morons like you were in charge of science, we'd still be living in the fuckin stone age, kid.

Science isn't intellectualism. Get your shit straight and stop trying to shift the argument.

File: 1477426746259.jpg (28KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x300px

>>129467417
>The left
>Independent thought

lmfao

>>129456628
Source on the Frozen affirmations?

>>129467821
Leaked CGI sarlaac pit of the next star wars

>>129471621
>no nuke would have ever been developed
you say that like it's a bad thing

>>129456628
Because you've contributed more?

>>129456628
yeah I needed some info on postmodernism and I tried watching this guy's video and I just got more confused. Apparently postmodernism is evil and only applies to people who disagree wth him

The only arguments people have on this board about Peterson are strawmen. If someone actually took one of his arguments and deconstructed it and gave a well thought out explanation why its wrong i would be impressed. In reality i shouldnt be impressed since Peterson has so many fucking outlandish arguments from the surface it shouldnt be impossible to put together a counter-argument with some substance. Nope just strawmen from larping 4chanlets, you pathetic lot should read more books

>Getting tired of the savior of mankind
Commie pls

> Postmodern thought isn't cancer
You shareblue faggots need to go back.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm about to hit 99 woodcutting on runescape. What have YOU done with your life, lately?

>>129475247
Gödel proved that axioms cannot be proven, thus faith in god is required for proof.
>Gödel didn't prove that axioms cannot be proven
>There's a giant logical leap between "Axioms cannot be proven" and "Faith in god is required for *all* proof"
>Counterexample: We define the peano axioms, thus for all n in N0: n + 0 = n. No faith in anything required.
For the statement "Faith in god is required for *all* proof" to be true you would have to choose definitions for "faith" and "god" that are so arbitrary and broad that they're useless and counterintuitive to what anyone else understands under these terms.
So the first part of his statement is wrong, and the second part of his statement is only true if you're willing to twist the common definition of "god" and "faith" to fit the statement into uselessness.

>>129474675
you can ask over and over again but all there really is to be a postmodernist is to:
1) say that the person who disagrees with you knows nothing about postmodernism
2) wear funny clothes/colors

>>129474675
On this specific topic, Peterson makes very compelling arguments and deftly points out fatal flaws in deconstructionism, specifically with respect to Derrida. However, this is no great accomplishment, as Searle and others exposed Derrida when Peterson was still a teenager.

I didn't even grow into him because I'm not a retard falling for a "psychologists" memes.

>>129459571
I like him for that reason. His thoughts are interesting and he understands we truly know nothing and is always open to new views as long as they aren't full of complete shit

>>129456628
mate you have got to stop making these shit images

JBP is the prophet who has saved the west.

File: 1493605335538.jpg (81KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x536px

>>129471621
>does not know Science is a type of philosophy
>does not appreciate the significance of philosophy
>does not understand why doctorate most degrees are all doctorate of Philosophy

And if Oppenheimer stat around talking about baking bread, no nuke would of ever been developed. I guess we don't need bread and bread never had any significance.

File: 1496711772995.png (297KB, 751x448px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 751x448px

Jordan B Peterson is the savior of the West. And none of you unsorted sunshine buckos have a clue if you think he's full of snakes.

>>129478230
Science has been removed from philosophy like since, Newton-Kant.

Never liked him. Listened to a few of his videos and he just babbles on and on about irrelevant shit.

Pro tip for newfags, anytime you see someone being shilled out of nowhere be very wary

File: 1496367660910.jpg (62KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 657x527px

>>129456628
That's not how the meme fucking works shill.

File: 1490735923196.jpg (123KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x1000px

>>129478548
>1 post by this ID

Hello, shill.

fuck off leftypol

>>129477665
Your point is moot because even if that information is available to everyone someone has to bring it forward or else it will be willfully ignored, hidden and eventually forgotten. Solzhenitsyn has for example delivered and detonated a information nuke on communism, but it is still alive today like the vermin ideology it is. And Petersons point is the importance of repeating and retelling these stories to the masses because we are not going to taught this, especially by the people who does not want you to hear this.

Peterson bringing up Solzhenitsyn is a great start, but If you want to reach the masses that can't even fathom reading more than a sentence, that book is going to do jackshit because reading is already such a task for everyone! Look at what mainstream media has degenerated news into, it is only headlines people read which means they can write what they want in the articles.

>>129478372
Literally your opinion.

>>129478862
Hello newfag memer. Did I burst your cult of personality bubble?

>>129456628
Lol i smell an SJW infiltration. Quick call the gestapo!!!

>>129464467
Wenn du nicht so viel Zeit verschwendet hättest im Crystal Meth Rausch den ungewaschenen Anus deines Freiers sauber zu lecken dann wäre dein Gehirn nicht über die Jahre auf Erbsengröße zusammengeschrumpft.

>>129457508

>C. G. Jung is a hundred times better.

...

no shit

>>129459571

you're out of your depth

>>129468810
Ask me how i know that mick is a woman

>>129456628
>1 post by this ID

when did this stop being a meme?
such a great way to point out shills and move on

>>129479071
>Your point is moot
How is my point moot? I clearly stated that Peterson is an excellent source for learning about deconstructionism, and attributed the scholarship to it's rightful author, Searle. Exactly what problem do you have with this? Would you have liked me to omit the original source? Peterson adds nothing to the original analysis other than to put it into a modern context, which is what I pointed out to the poster.

>>129476438

There is no big deal for some educated man to "twist" common definition of God and Faith. There fuckload of denominations and even more separate religious systems.

You arguing like there some "common" definitions, and it's obvious lie.

>>129456628
t. asshurt tranny

>>129462672
>can't understand pretty simple philosophical ideas displayed in a very intuitive way

are you sure you might not be the one with a scattered brain?

>>129468597

>he is not rigid and rambles about disparately related topics. Basically a pop philosopher

>that's why I like him! He tells it like it is!

God damnit. Why is this dude a fucking meme?

>>129468810
>canada
>not american

>>129456628

yeah Peterson is pretty weak on the JQ

>>129479796
I am not claiming that there are common definitions, I am claiming that you would have to twist the definitions into complete broad uselessness that no one else would consider reasonable anymore.
If you would like to argue against that, hand me reasonable definitions that make the statement true to prove your assertion.

>>129480111
>im mocking you by putting words in your mouth and then disputing my own biased strawman arguement!

So brave
Watch some of his videos you contrarian faggot

File: 1497186007211.gif (2MB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x220px

>1 POST BY THIS ID
YOU FUCKING MONGS ARE EASILY BAITED AND HELPING THE ENEMY
IF THIS WAS WARTIME YOU'D ALL BE SHOT
SAGE

So his philosophical break through is what... have principles but be open to change them based on new information? Isn't that just critical thinking?

>>129479776
Your post reads as "Peterson isn't actually doing anything particularly groundbreaking". Which is both true and irrelevant.

>>129467344
What is so hard about reading for you? I'm American and I can still read Russian better than you can read English which is MUCH easier than Russian you dumb ass. National average IQ my ass, you guys are literally fucking brain dead.

File: Sort.png (247KB, 376x600px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 376x600px

>>129468555
>>129469888
I'll just check these here and...

Yup, praise. Truth digits.

>>129480166
The man is hiding his power level big time, he knows what would happen if he went too fast

>>129464347
He's not wrong this is just a platitude.

>>129480227
I'd also like to add that Peterson himself barely ever properly defines the terms he uses in his book, greatly contributing to the uselessness of all of his statements.
You might refer to the dictionary, but if you use the definitions from the dictionary, many of his statements do not make sense anymore.
As a result of that, it is easy to agree with Peterson and it is difficult to disprove him.
Additionally, Peterson is hiding the meaning of his statements behind stupidly complex phrasing.

File: 1495677677353.jpg (77KB, 842x845px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 842x845px

>>129467947
That's not how this works. Read some aristotle. There are far more levels of examination than just individual level.

File: FaceApp_1491956717166.jpg (83KB, 804x804px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 804x804px

>>129471078
He's saying you're a fucking idiot for asking him to re read the post based on your assertion of what you THINK it is.

Christ you are stupid. If he has to read it to comprehend what you're forcing it to be, then you're not just wrong you're just agitated that you can't seem to wrestle the meaning you want out of what he's said, instead of giving it thought.

Dipshit.

>>129480473
>Your post reads as "Peterson isn't actually doing anything particularly groundbreaking"
And that's exactly how I meant it. He's an engaging professor with some notoriety. The cultish adulation he receives on /pol/ can only be attributable to a lack of education.

>>129468844
>"Having a goal is a really good framework for Animals because it helps them interpret their universe a lot better than not having a framework."

do anymore "babbys first time reading something other than Magic Tree House/Goosebumps" lebbitors have questions?

>>129480473
Truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not they believe it." The logic in the words grated. "The first rule of scoundrels?

Sara MacClean

MacLean is a self-proclaimed feminist and speaks widely on the intersection of feminism and the romance genre

>>129456690
fpbp

>>129480550
You're missing the point.
Your assertion is that I am not able to comprehend his language, this is wrong.
I said that Peterson makes it unnecessarily difficult (read: more difficult that necessary) to understand his statements, so that you either end up skimming the book and not really checking each statement or end up reading every sentence thrice.
His book isn't just a two page long paper full of sentences like this.

>>129480391
we know its bait but why pass up an opportunity to ridicule underage lebbitors who cant into intro philosophy/psychology. just sage the bitch

>>129481089
You dont get what his appeal is then.
He is not talked about here because of any groundbreaking research or revelations.
He is in the spotlight because he stands up to SJW madness and offers explanations and counterpoints.

File: moore_gillette_kwml.jpg (61KB, 281x426px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 281x426px

If you like JP, I would read this book.

>>129471510

>The most privileged woman in the land runs away from her minimal duties.

She is a fucking ice witch my dude, she was freezing the town. I've only passively seen my sister watch Frozen like, twice, but from what I understand she ran into the mountains because she thought her presence could destroy the town. She made a sacrifice, and then her sister or whatever chased after her to try to convince her that she could control her powers and live with the town again.

>>129481275
Just say

>I don't like it

And be done with your "opinion" piece, you have neither the intellect or verbal ability. You basically just said

>i-i-i-i just j-just don't like the way he said itttttt

Also Sam Harris filibustered the entire shit.

>>129456628
There's nothing of value to be gained from understanding postmodernism, except to guard yourself against that braindead form of thinking.

>>129456732
>spodermin

>>129480227

I can do this in JBP perspective, but this not relevant. Relevant is what I think Peterson himself think about the issue. I believe he is very careful NOT to bring definitions, forged by millions years of evolution, to a mess. He is pragmatist, and will not damage something already shaking and trembling in a name of reason, just to please fedoras like you. That's why he is dodging questions about faith and so on, and I'll not blame him for this.

>>129481460
>You dont get what his appeal is then.
I understand exactly what his appeal is and why he's popular right now. I just know a charlatan when I see one.

>>129481056
What kind of dumb ass mental gymnastics are you on about? Be direct or fuck off.
If I do not understand a post because I feel that it is too vague, I can interpret the meaning of the post in too many ways and you refuse to clarify further, then there's no point in continuing the argument, because I can not accurately respond to your post.

>>129478230
>science is a type of philosophy

At the most rudimentary sense, it does follow a system of logic ('ie' a "philosophy") if that is what you are trying to say. But to associate it with the field of philosophy in a general sense is plain wrong, or "intellectually dishonest" as in intellectual like yourself might say.

Even Wikipedia states:

>Historically, "philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge.


>>does not appreciate the significance of philosophy

Not whenever it becomes obscure, unrelatable, and abstract to the point where it becomes pointless and futile. Intelligent outside observers see people so caught up in it that it engaging in it as completely irrational. Every day people laugh at you. It serves no practical or rational purpose. You're going down a rabbit hole with no end in sight. There is no gold at the end of the philosophic-intellectual rainbow.


>does not understand why doctorate most degrees are all doctorate of Philosophy

You're the one who fails to understand that the name (which originated in the 1600s) is just a vestige of the past definition of philosophy. If you ever were enrolled in a STEM-related PhD program, you would not take a single philosophy class and your dissertation is most likely going to have nothing to do with philosophy.

>And if Oppenheimer stat around talking about baking bread, no nuke would of ever been developed. I guess we don't need bread and bread never had any significance.

This literally makes no sense.


All you manged to do is make yourself look like a retard and further exemplify that "intellectuals" get caught up in the most stupid, irrelevant details, ultimately failing to make any sense at all.

>>129456628
>Oy vey, sort yourself out and pay more tax dollars for white genocide and free birth control for Stacy!
>Don't forget to donate to my Patreon, goy! I'm only making $500,000 a year!

>>129481275
The statement is not at all wrong. Active apprehension of goal orientation DOES provide a useful framework for interpreting your present reality you dumb fuck, THAT'S ALL he was saying and if anything I made it more complicated.

Jesus fucking Christ dude, I'm not even insulting you at this point or anything but you need to get your head checked because your brain must be emitting entire words when you read sentences. You definitely have a malignant tumor in your brain, man.

>>129482066
How is he a charlatan?
Is he only faking standing up to SJW nonsense while also trying to guide young people away from the fangs of toxic postmodern ideology?

File: AdHominemAttackChristianLutheranLCMSDebateDoctrineCreedFalseTeachingConfessionsBible_zps125c74fb.jpg (278KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 640x640px

>>129482320

>>129456628
oh look! it's another character assassination!

>>129481591
I am pretty sure I said a bunch of other things as well, like him being vague with definitions and him stating incorrect facts.
It is inherently more difficult to identify whether someone is a crank when that person is vague and additionally using needlessly complex language.
If you wish to disagree that some uses of language are more complex than others or that >>129467344 is not more complex than necessary, go right ahead.

>>129481872
See >>129480879.
It baffles me that someone would believe that vagueness and lack of proper definition are something good to have in a discussion.
He is making it easier to agree with him and more difficult to disprove him. That isn't a good property.

>>129482148
This has been your argument the entire thread kraut, I'm beginning to think you're brain dead.

>hurr everything everyone is saying isnt Simone enough for me to digest in a single bite

Maybe its because you are pure sophist trash? If you have a problem with comprehension, break out a fucking dictionary.

>>129467904
>you should re - read...

What the fuck? So you have an idea of what's being stated, but because someone offers you a counter argument your fucking """ARGUMENT"""is for him to re read it, until he sees it your way?

You sound attention deficient, like you can't take going through something without it being easily fed to you.

>>129482320
I did not claim that his statement about active apprehension of goal orientation was wrong.

epic leftypol image

here's the thing with him, is that personally I don't much care how legitimate as an academic he is. his "cult following" probably does consist generally of immature pieces of shit like myself, and I don't give a shit.

I don't really have a respectable opinion other than I like what he has to say and he speaks to the downtrodden.

>>129482342
He's a charlatan because most of his lectures, regardless of what class he's teaching, sound exactly the same, are extemporaneous, and chase the same inane rabbit trails. In his analysis of Genesis, for instance,when describing the garden of eden and the archetypes in the bible, he attributes latin meaning to Aramaic words and then equivocates the two so that they conform to his "thesis".

>>129482842
>This has been your argument the entire thread
Complex phrasing, vague statements as a result of weak or no definitions and incorrect understanding and application of mathematics has been my argument for the entire thread.

>So you have an idea of what's being stated, but because someone offers you a counter argument your fucking """ARGUMENT"""is for him to re read it, until he sees it your way?
No, because I cannot respond to his refutation, as his refutation wasn't targeted at the intended meaning of my post.
I apologize if the meaning of my original post was not clear enough, but it should be clear by now, especially with the follow-up post.

>>129481102
english isnt my native language mcfatso

>>129464347
From a rationalist perspective, he's not wrong, to have a concept of proof, one must have a base truth, though he is wrong in that faith alone is able to form an axiom, it's not logical, for then anything could be the axiom, making proof possible, always.

>>129480059
>are you sure you might not be the one with a scattered brain?
Quite

fuck off shill, i'm not gonna call you your preffered gender prounoun and there's not a damn thing you can do about it

>>129483925
I agree with you.
Despite him incorrectly citing Gödel as source, it is correct that axioms cannot be proven, and thus you need an axiomatic system to prove other assertions.

>>129483663
>wasn't targeted at the intended meaning of my...

So, who's being vague?

You're having your anus all tangled up in knots over that, yet you can't articulate well enough to explain your own position. Sounds like YOU don't know well enough to discuss what you're ''''positing''' here.

Anyway, complex phrasing is an illegitimate point to be railing against. Get your dictionary, and try again. If your understanding of his misapprehension of mathematics was concrete, why haven't you been able to give an explanation beyond

>he's wrong

Start arguing at any time kiddo

>>129464467
That makes perfect sense, don't assume your ignorance and stupidity is actually proof of him being incorrect, assess yourself first.

>>129467344

I don't know the context of that sentence, but is it saying "Being skeptical/cognizant of your goals helps you understands whether what is happening around you serves those goals, and how your actions are playing a role in what is happening around you."

Which, admittedly, is a very simple concept. If you know what you want, then you can be better equipped to act on it meaningfully and understand when things that are happening around you, or things you are doing, aren't contributing to achieving whatever it is you want.

>>129456628
Globalist shill thread.

>>129484295
>So, who's being vague?
In that case, me, which is why I also further clarified the intended meaning of the post in addition to telling him to re-read it.

>Get your dictionary, and try again
I mentioned this before, if you apply definitions from the dictionary to his book, you'll find that many of the statements in his book are wrong.

>why haven't you been able to give an explanation beyond "he's wrong"
Because Gödel's incompleteness theorems are very well defined and anyone can immediately look up the one and only definition of those theorems to see that he used it incorrectly.
There is only a single accepted definition and I expect you to look that one up.

Now before you complain that I'm doing the exact thing Peterson is doing: Peterson's statements use terms that are not well defined and even appear wrong if you use common definitions.

>>129484342
Can you explain why the following is correct?
"The most fundamental of the shared features of systems was identified by Kurt Godel. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system"

Methinks there are a few jealous academic shitposters here.

Jordan helps people and likes to explore ideas and provoke thought.

Nobody is 100% right, but when listening to intelligent people you always learn something useful, unless you are an arrogant fucking knowitall with an inferiority complex.

Go clean your rooms Burger and Krautfag.

>>129485159
I agree with you. This is sheer rubbish.

File: there you go again.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>129485159
>>129484951

>Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
>system of propositions
>predicated upon assumptions
>cannot be proved from within the confines of that system

We're reaching levels of intellectualism that shouldn't be possible.

>>129485798
If you don't clean your room, you'll quickly find yourself at the bottom of the lobster dominance heirarchy, and believe me, that's no place you want to be, bucko!

File: image.jpg (319KB, 1524x1194px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1524x1194px

>>129456628
HEY GUYS DOESN'T ITSUCK THAT MAINSTREAM NORMIES ARE WAKING UP TO THE NWO AND BECOMING NATIONALISTS

DOESN'T SUCK THEY ARE AWAKING TO OUR SIDE

DOESN'T SUCK WE MIGHT ACTUALLY WIN

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, WE WANT TO LOSE, RIGHT GUYS

I SWEAR I'M NOT A DISSENSION SOWING SHAREBLUE SHILL OR ANYTHING

>>129484951
>>>129484295 (You)
>>So, who's being vague?
>In that case, me, which is why I also further clarified the intended meaning of the post in addition to telling him to re-read it.

Work on that.

>>Get your dictionary, and try again
>I mentioned this before, if you apply definitions from the dictionary to his book, you'll find that many of the statements in his book are wrong.

What is context - personally I don't see anything wrong with extrapolating on an idea, by bending the language - A BIT - if you're going to discuss things congruent with a general "non-absolutist" stance to avoid being a purist. This is probably why some of his talks come across as deconstructionist - he's merely speaking from within that paradigm and also looking at its facets from the outside, which inherently BEGETS this kind of language, and I wouldn't expect less from a philosopher which he is doing only partly - to marry the conversation with psychology - after all, the point of most of his discussion is about ""individuals""

>>why haven't you been able to give an explanation beyond "he's wrong"
>Because Gödel's incompleteness theorems are very well defined and anyone can immediately look up the one and only definition of those theorems to see that he used it incorrectly.
>There is only a single accepted definition and I expect you to look that one up.


OK I looked it up:


>Gödel's incompleteness theoremsare twotheoremsofmathematical logicthat demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formalaxiomatic systemcontaining basicarithmetic

So to infer, this would imply the limitation of what Peterson defines axioms.

Axioms are limited. Proof is impossible without axioms.

He's talking about faith. You can debate what faith is, but that is rooted in the unknown. Hence why you're AWARE that I can take a position in your argument, on the same basis. That's why these things are loosely defined, and why they are currently being debated.

>>129486454
""""So to infer, this would imply the limitation of what Peterson defines as GOD"""

Is what I meant

Fucking auto spell check

>>129465340
>When your professor is giving a lecture, and he asks the class, "I've been thinking about this for a while, tell me if you think this sounds right", you are listening to a charlatan.

Says someone with no apparent experience in academia. Pro tip: real intellectuals explore ideas.

>>129483304
As far as i can tell he is paid to talk about what he considers important as a successful clinical psychologist and there is no set lecture structure he has to conform to.

As for your specific example I dont follow him enough to know most of his lectures or know how valid your criticism here is, but everyone makes mistakes and may draw wrong conclusions, thats why discussions and debates exist.

>>129456628
That's a weak bait

also sort yourself out.

File: fat guy quote.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>129486454
>imply the limitation
>axioms

>>129486809

>real intellectuals
>"ideas" (not defined)

Intellectualism is cancer.

>>129486454
Basically he's saying it "WOULD" require(s) belief in God for an axiom to lend it self the ability to outline what we know as proof.

A scientist goes on FAITH that his experiments will work.

That HOPE is an ideal.

That ideal, is GOD.

It can be explained further but that's the gist of it.

Godel.... rofl

Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.
Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance—from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives

>>129487243
>an axiom
>lend itself the ability to outline we know as proof
>HOPE is an ideal
>it can be explained further but it doesn't make any sense to begin with.
NEURONS ACTIVATED.

>>129487236
>didn't read anything

Opinion discarded, into the trash

>>129486809
>Says someone with no apparent experience in academia
Don't assume anything about me, especially not my level of education.

File: 1493552104903.jpg (8KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 210x240px

>>129456628
As long as he keeps shitting on trannies, I have no quarrel with him.

>>129468175
well put

>>129486454
If the context is sufficient, sure. If you're reading his book you'll find that it's often very ambigious, though.

>So to infer, this would imply the limitation of what Peterson defines axioms.
Wrong, this is not what the theorem states.
>Axioms are limited. Proof is impossible without axioms.
This is not what these theorems say.
I do not even understand where that kind of missunderstanding that you and Peterson have comes from.

>>129487432
Do you often think of things that can happen but aren't sure of the outcome?

How often to people place importance on the future?

Isn't that like bargaining with the future for a better outcome? As if it were a person. That's where the idea of gods come from, as if they are people you deal with, god "approached" man first as a personality, then as a set of ideas within the time-matrix we know as past present future

Go fuck your self you intellectual devoid cretin, go back to the children's table

>>129486984
In the example I gave, which is one of many, he uses the incorrect meaning of an Aramaic word as the cornerstone of an hour lecture. I know what honest mistakes are. This was obviously something completely extemporaneous, he pulled something out of his ass and lectured on it for an hour.

>>129487699
See

>>129486770


Also, its premise is that an axiom has an inherent mathematical limitation.

The second part is what I'm deducing from the logic Peterson uses.

Its saying that, if for proof you need an axiom, and that axioms are limited - thus implying something beyond the idea of what an axiom IS and IS limited by -

Its OFTEN that say, scientists believe in something they can't prove, without done level of FAITH

>t. Higgs boson

>>129487777
>intellectual devoid cretin

>>129482300
Do i really come across as an "Intellectual?"

Also

>Does not know what a Thesis is.

>>129480682
But Spinoza proved the predicate calculus is sound AND complete.

>>129478548
>irrelevant shit
Wrong already.

>shilled
His patreon is dis-proportionally huge compared to his subscriber count.
There's a lot of hours of him on youtube so you'd know what you're getting.
People clearly see potential and want more from him.

He's old and mentions he doesn't have time for hedonistic pleasures like sex, drugs, or fast cars.
Every contribution he gets will be put to efforts that will make minds think enough to act on reducing unnecessary suffering in the world.

Pro-tip for newfags, anytime you see someone trying to dismiss someone or something, investigate and know more about it.
Trying to deny people of knowledge is malevolent as fuck.
Fuck you.

>>129488364
>thinks splitting hairs and being an intellectual purist makes his existing arguments any less devoid of creativity

Sorry I meant lack of creativity. I meant that you're the type of person to take your nose high into the air based on your ability to memorize, not take leaps and chances to be creative with any information handed to you. Keep flinging you're terse little green texts around, like the good monkey you are

>>129488517
Honestly, yes you did. As for thesis, that is a fancy word for "point".

>>129456628
Oh wow, another d&c thread
Sage

>>129488299
>>129486770
Again, your understanding and his understanding of these theorems is incorrect. Gödel did not prove that axioms cannot be proven.
Axioms are per definition unprovable.
He is simply citing a source which he believes mathematically validates his assertion, when he literally just pulled that source out of his arse because he couldn't comprehend a fairly simple theorem or didn't bother to read up on it properly.
He didn't even just cite it once, no, he cited it incorrectly multiple times on completly different occasions.
That's bullshit.

Divide and conquer shit

>>129487777
>That's where the idea of gods come from
I know Peterson makes absurd claims like this, without qualification, which is why I consider him a charlatan.

>>129456628
>>>129464347
You don't need axioms for proofs. Rules of inference will suffice. Once you have rules of inference, every tautology can be added as an axiom without changing your system.

>>129456628
Never was on board in the first place. I'm disillusioned with any sort of internet celebrity because I know I can't trust 99% of them.

>>129485159
are you opposing Godel?

>>129489586
>You don't need axioms for proofs. Rules of inference will suffice.
I'd like to see you prove a statement (e.g. with the Hilbert system) without an axiom.
>every tautology can be added as an axiom without changing your system
This is true, but doesn't attest that axioms are not required for proof.
After all, a proof is just the application of an inference rule to an assumption, i.e. an axiom or something that has been proven from an axiom.

File: 1497173949572.jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>129456628

>>129489339
If he didn't prove they couldn't be proven (not what I said) then what is implied by stating that they are limited? That they can be used, but only finitely? Why do people discover things then? What of Peterson talking about the other? He's not USING it to explain his argument, as much as he is asserting something outside of that paradigm of thinking, because that paradigm of thinking does not explain the uncertainties and the margin of the unknown that is CONSISTENTLY dealt with when trying to produce "proof"... I.E. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...

Its like saying axioms aren't enough (that's TRUE) so it requires something more

What's hard to understand about that?

>>129489856
You need to separate the lecture from the person.
Doesn't matter if the lecture is coming form a hobbo on the side of the street.
If it make you more knowledgeable about things you don't know, don't just dismiss the opportunity because of your biases.

>>129489886
No, I'm opposing Peterson.
*Assertions* are the subject of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, not *assumptions*.
This is very well defined in a mathematical context.

>>129489886
The predicate calculus is sound and complete. Peterson's impoverished summary of Godel's theorem is missing the most important bit (deductive system with equivalent proving power of Peano arithmetic). Don't understand the distinction? Then shut the fuck up and start studying.

File: 1467255820304.png (399KB, 631x632px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 631x632px

>>129456628
This is how a 101 level faggot argues his positions. The level of self-loathing you undoubtedly feel is insufficient.

>>129489339
Also you're not arguing, you're conflating the relation he's making between both ideas because of a singular statement.... I'm sure I'd he explained it in depth you'd complain about that too --- the rules are not meant to be played all the time Hans, sometimes they are meant to be broken.

>>129484220
You mean to say it should have been Tarski? Godel actually discovered the undefinability theorem before him in 1931 but it remained unpublished.

>>129490121
>then what is implied by stating that they are limited?
Axiomatic systems cannot be both complete and consistent.

>Why do people discover things then?
This is completely irrelevant to the subject. Just like Peterson, you're attempting to extrapolate from a well defined mathematical context.
This is futile.

>He's not USING it to explain his argument
He is using it to attest his argument.

The rest of your first post is gibberish to me, especially the part on requiring something more than axioms.

>>129456628
Release images are only funny when they are true you know.

I don't like Peterson either way but your strawman looks like you are in your early to mid 20s and maybe average in the intelligence departement.

>>129488008
This would be easier to judge if you could be more specific.
Lots of languages have similar roots and can therefore have similar etymology, so just because the word came from one language doesnt mean it cant also have a similar meaning in a different one.
Like i said, would help if you elaborated here.

>>129491082
>gibberish

You're like one of those people who "listens" but does not "hear" not that I'm condemning you for being so wrapped up in semantics, but its not everything - and that is the limitation you're experiencing throughout the thread. Were not discussing mathematics here.

There is plenty in math and science to assert that I should not go on living. But I do. And so do you. Why not end it all? You know why, it doesn't require an explanation.

Do you require an explanation for everything in your life? If so, you must be sad.

https://youtu.be/xP5MfjW9TuU gf

>>129456628
Clean your room, faggot

>>129456628
The only thing you got right with that Jordan memeball is the fact that joe Rogan only pretends to understand what Peterson is saying.

>>129491586
>Were not discussing mathematics here.
I was complaining that Peterson abuses mathematics to attest his argument.
If you do not want to bear the burden of being mathematically incorrect, do not abuse mathematics to attest your silly statements.

>Do you require an explanation for everything in your life?
Stop projecting.

>>129492036
I'm not so sure you can accurately say he's """abusing""" mathematics, as much as you are conflating the relationship he's making between the two assertions within the statement.

I.E. butt mad

>>129492263
>as much as you are conflating the relationship he's making between the two assertions within the statement
These are some hardcore mental gymnastics.

>>129469459
This

>>129492489
Lol you mean like every iteration of your

>teeeewww skeeewps

Tier reasoning?

>>129465590
>Gödel did not prove that axioms cannot be proven.
that's not what he claimed you mouth breathing moron

He didn't choose to be in the position that he is. The SJWs on his campus pushed him into the spotlight. He was just defending his own freedom of thought and speech. A lesser man would have crumbled under that kind of pressure. He deserves a lot of credit for speaking out.

>>129492906
>Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system.
Mathematically, an assumption is either an axiom or a requirement for a statement that has been proven from an axiom.
Since the second option doesn't make sense, the only option that's left is the first one.
Also:
>Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved).
Gödel did not prove that proof without an axiom is impossible.

>>129457508
this is like, his core teaching

>>129489027
Is being an intellectual a bad thing?

>>129493640

Your first green text lays it out plainly you dummy -

You can't prove something within the confines of that very system.

You're right he didn't prove you couldn't have proof without an axiom, SO WHO DID? CLEARLY NOT GODEL

that is what Peterson is saying - the 'thing' nessecary exists or ""must"" exist outside of the confines of that system

>>129493640
>>>129492906
>>Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system.

>cannot be proved from within the confines of that system

>from within the confines of that system

And you say mental gymnastics?

>>129464347

wahh he said god is real, which means my ancestors are in hell for all their misdeeds, wahhh.

>>129486809
>>129465340
hmm. Have a look at this, he doesn't consider himself an intellectual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbPkF1qhY8

>>129494194
***didn't prove you couldn't have proof ***with***

>shit-tier *words* meme for OP
>unmarshalled arguments

>>129480473
he is getting this info out to people who wouldn't have it. like us.

>>129456628

Jorkumm Patatersburg.

>>129494194
>You can't prove something within the confines of that very system.
*Assumptions* that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system.

>You're right he didn't prove you couldn't have proof without an axiom, SO WHO DID? CLEARLY NOT GODEL
What?

>that is what Peterson is saying - the 'thing' nessecary exists or ""must"" exist outside of the confines of that system
What?

I swear to god, this shit is getting too fucking stupid.
Stop being such a fucking brainlet.

File: 1490146895790.jpg (86KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x706px

>>129464347
oops i'm off this spook train

Like with anyone, I take the good and ignore the bullshit. Jordan Peterson is just a guy with some interesting ideas, he's not a infallible prophet or anything and I think he might be a bit narcissistic

File: TWO.jpg (234KB, 462x549px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 462x549px

>>129494771
Dude again, you're attention deficit doesn't allow you the time to comprehend what you're reading - you just cherry pick the most buttblasty thing you can find and keep repeating it, line it wasn't already nested in the very argument you were making

>hurrrr WHAT HUH

Stay butt hurt

Pic related, its for (you)

>>129456628
>>129481235
>>129456690
Spotted the Brockpuppets. The BrockSerb always gives it away. Sage and hide, Anons. They're sliding something.

>>129494771
>>129494771
Just say

>I think the concept of God is absurd and I won't allow that to enter my mind as a tool of discussion for the sake of discussion

>hammers on about the specifics of semantics regarding a mathematical theorem he hardly understands

>attempts to use it to discredit a hypothesis

>very argument used states that proofs cannot come from the confines of that very system, while using that idea to assert his ''correctness'' despite that idea being inherently flawed

>>129496023
>I think the concept of God is absurd and I won't allow that to enter my mind as a tool of discussion for the sake of discussion
God is irrelevant in the context of this argument.

>hammers on about the specifics of semantics regarding a mathematical theorem he hardly understands
Stop projecting.

>attempts to use it to discredit a hypothesis
I am not discrediting the hypothesis, I am discrediting the use of the theorem to attest the hypothesis.

>very argument used states that proofs cannot come from the confines of that very system
Wrong.

>while using that idea to assert his ''correctness'' despite that idea being inherently flawed
What?

>>129493919
It is when you're a half baked intellectual, and thinking stops being a means to an end, and becomes the end goal itself, faggot.

>>129456628
Peterson is prophet of KEK, xdxd

But seriously, I like him. A lot of useful advice, from a smart guy, about how to get your life on track. Not to mention, he stands up to SJW propaganda and isn't a narcissist know-it-all.

>>129456628
Not an argument

>>129482827

Jonte...

>>129490186
I take what I can learn from people, but I never develop a desire to become a fan or follow them. There hasn't been any concept or novel idea that I've ever learned from right wing internet celebrities that I didn't already know from /pol/.

I don't and have never cared about Lauren Southern, Milo, Cernovich, PJW, Peterson. They are all just semi-useful speakerheads to me.

Why is it that every time someone interesting, who talks about relevant topics, comes up, some retards start spouting about cult behavior and what not?
You people are like the edgy atheists, pretending your opposition is brainwashed so that you are painted in a good light.

>>129457469
>Is a professor at U of T
>Has published many widely cited Psychology reports

>>129456628
Can anyone make a meme ball of this but have it say
"When you run a successful psychological practice but still accept $50,000 a month on Patreon"

>>129497334
Your first statement is why there is no bridge for you, from one idea to the next. You don't even have to believe in God to think about how this conclusion Peterson is drawing works.

>MUH poorly defined

You know what else is poorly defined? Your ability to listen and read, or think creatively.

It wasn't a discussion for you to begin with - you don't even know that it was wrong - this hypothesis, you haven't given a single example of why it is wrong, you just simply state that such an idea can't be drawn out from godels theorum.

So fucking explain your self then -
Everyone else has contributed creatively, are you done thumping on your hardline inability to think in more than one dimension? Or are you going to keep pretending this isn't a philosophical concept and some "abuse" of mathematics

You are laughable

>>129489580
>without qualification
Isn't he psychologist?

Welp, guess we better defund psychology from universities and throw out all psychological theories then; there's no way to prove any of it's real.

>>129498663
Stop being such a brainlet.
You're willing to interpret anything into an obviously false statement to make it true and then call it 'creativity'.
You're proving my point that Peterson is easy to believe and difficult to disprove, and that retards like you jump onto every argument of his because you're willing to throw in your own stupid interpretation into a vague or sometimes even objectively false statement as opposed to dismissing it as overly vague or objectively false.

>>129499215
Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that a system of finite axioms cannot verify it self.

To have proof of something it must first "exist" outside of said systems, because you won't find traces of it within a current set of defined and inherently limited axioms. This is easily seen is the realm of theoretical physics.

That potential "existence" is a thought, a theory, a hypothesis (exactly what we define as God) ...

>>129467773
What a fucking loser. Can't take heat so you just steal Lv. 1 meme. Kill yourself and then fucking die.

File: 1481634135899.jpg (23KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x375px

>>129456628
1 post by this ID

>>129461611
t. Tranny antifa shill

>>129499215

Also
Prove that it is objectively false and stop rattling your fucking babby cage then, pea for brains. A statement like that isn't relying on objectivity to describe what otherwise "cannot be described" -- how in the fuck can you be objective about that by tossing out ANY other consideration? You like many, are just aggravated that he uses the idea of God to further explain the predicament we are in, are always in, just because someone is using it by name. His definition of God is far wider than what you keep stammering around, much line the original anon who pointed that out to your narrow-minded self

File: Instagram-look-at-this-doggo-b44775.png (137KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x566px

>>129498239

ALL TRUE. Peterson is a mess.

>"So anyways, long before we were practicing science, we were doing perfectly well - in a sense without any real knowledge of the objective world at all. Or at least not any scientific knowledge of the objective world. And so another thing that you might observe about that is that you can survive perfectly well without knowing any science at all in an articulated and developed manner, and of course animals are in that catagory. So that also I think in some sense undermines the claim of science to anything approaching a universal truth because obviously life can get along perfectly well without it." -JORDAN PETERSON

Apparently if dogs don't science - then science doesn't apply universally.

>>129456628
I have never cared about yt faggots like this.

File: 1492391017021.png (90KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x800px

>>129467440
Fires up the neurons

>>129467440
Thats one of his biggest problems actually, he keeps putting tons of unexpected bs in his words without explaining so beforehand.

This was the entire problem with his harris debate. Had he just said "When i say 'truth' i actually just mean whatever wisdom helps us survive as a society, aka a pragmatic view of wisdom". But nononono, he has to have a several hour long completely incoherent dabte over the defenition of truth without even clearly defining his terms.

File: Cringe.png (34KB, 703x261px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 703x261px

>>129456628

I saw through him and his shameless self promotion and pandering to a certain internet community from the beginning but it was all too much when he unironically used "Kekistan" in a Tweet. I physically cringed at that, a grown ass man, this alleged professor, using edgy memes in order to appear "cool" and "hip". It's like when your 50 year old dad decides to make a snapchat account.

>https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/871940438546157569

>>129456628
Triggered tranny

>>129500240
>Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that a system of finite axioms cannot verify it self.
Wrong.

>>129501210
It's amazing how after a couple of hours you still fail to understand a simple wikipedia article.
Please remove yourself from the gene pool.

>>129503619

Yea I cringe whenever he mentions the "Kekistan" garbage.

>>129466811

He taught the same thing he teaches at UofT, it's on his YouTube channel

>>129456628
1. Clean your room
2. Enlighten us about postmodernism

>>129456628
I liked him when I first heard his entry level stuff, but it turns out he doesn't name the Jew nor realize that liberalism is self defeating and always leads into the current problems.

His probably with the alt right is literally "oy vey antisemitism".

He's a laughing stock among actual intellectuals - his metaphors are even more hilarious. For example he focuses on the male near exclusively. If the male is a hero in his metaphor story, then the female should be the princess. Instead he does not talk about females being shit turds in modern society. You need a hero and a princess, not a hero and a piece of shit.

>post-modernists
>think they're intelligent, rational intellectuals
>literally get fooled into publishing hoax articles in their peer reviewed journals that were randomly generated by computers

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

File: autism.gif (128KB, 728x426px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 728x426px

>>129503619
>not understanding this obvious sarcasm

>>129500240
>>129507411
Gödel's (second) incompleteness theorem says that any consistent theory that contains arithmetic cannot prove its consistency.
There are a few ways to formalize what "arithmetic" is. You can use Robinson or Peano arithmetic. You can also use a more abstract proof system that satisfies the Hilbert-Bernays conditions.

File: 348794.gif (681KB, 473x205px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 473x205px

Shills are so mad they wrote a wall of text without a single argument to be found. Sad!

>>129507411
>Still fails to highlight how Jordan's hypothesis reconciles all of the unknown factors in every single post made

The anti intellectual garbage you're spewing is astounding, you still just sound mad

>huurrrrrr that's not how it should be said
>hurrrrrrrrrr I can't think outside of the box so everyone else is wrong

I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't discredit at all the hypothesis that Gödel was just saying the same thing from another facet of understanding

>>129507411
Also fuck you for making the same argument over and over and over

>le wrong

Try using your fucking brain every once in a while, instead of just dick riding your own references as if it equates to formulating your own argument

>>129462672
He speaks in a kind of ranting manner on purpose. He deliberately does not speak scripted and spills out his unfiltered thoughts as if he is having a conversation with the students, for better or worse, because he doesn't want his talks to get stale and controlled, and it personally allows him to think clearer and shit, he went into a full explanation about it in another interview.

>>129512107
>>129512431
>Gödel was just saying the same thing from another facet of understanding
Wrong.

>>129513278
Explain it then, because I don't think you can

Shit like this may be interesting and sometimes useful, but you're not going to build a house or feed a family with it.

Intellectuals are same people you meet in the pub, but with fancy semantics and suit.

>>129513278
You also earlier said you didn't disagree with the idea Jordan presented about God, but his misapplication of the math he referenced to "prove" it .... So if its not that, then why exactly is the connection he's making wrong?

You're back peddling

File: 1496096590061.jpg (70KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 590x350px

>>129456628

he's making bank on pateron tho sempai

>>129467336
This

>>129456628
op is a faggot postmodernist with no principles

>>129456628

At least he's doing something. Enjoy making memes and getting called a faggot, faggot.

>>129456628
Also clean your room anon. Then you can tell people to do something.

Who are you trying to tell people what to believe anyway? What answers do you have?

Anyway, you're probably just mad because your room is a shit pit and reminds you daily of your failures as a basic human being.

I hope you figure out where all your hate comes from so you can stop being like this.

>>129456628
those are the saddest pair of memeball sunglasses bro

>>129513417
The first theorem states that any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system cannot be complete.
An axiomatic system is complete if we can prove all hypothesis that can be expressed in that system to be true or false.
An axiomatic system is consistent if no hypothesis that can be expressed in that system can be proven to be both true and false.
Thus in no sufficiently complex axiomatic system we can prove all hypothesis that can be expressed in that system to be either true or false.
The second theorem states that any sufficiently complex consistent axiomatic system cannot prove itself consistent.
Gödel effectively defines "sufficiently complex axiomatic system" as a system with sufficient arithmetic and a countable amount of axioms, e.g. Peano Arithmetic, though we can express other interesting axiomatic systems in the sense of a system that revolved around arithmetic.
The set of axioms is countable if there exists a bijection between the integers and the axioms of that system.
This does not imply that the set of axioms has to be finite.
The gist of it is that axiomatic systems that allow us to express interesting statements and do not cause contradictions will not allow us to prove all statements in that system.
By now you should realize how absurd applying these theorems to "moral axioms" is.
These theorems do not imply that proving the axioms of an axiomatic system is impossible, although that is true per definition.

>>129517593
You toques should keep to stick and puck talk.

File: 1488700646974.jpg (252KB, 768x1090px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 768x1090px

>>1294566
Fuck off, George Soros.

>>129517744
Its not wrong to suggest that believing in say, a lofty idea like potential is a "unified force" behind every attempt to change things outside of what we think is true. How do you begin to explain something like potential, its not tangible, it isn't something you can see or infer or prove through observation. That's not to confuse this idea with patterns that can be easily observed and "predicted".

While I understand everything you've laid out, I feel that it isn't inclusive (and it doesn't have to be OK --- isn't *necessary*, necessarily, to be redundant) to these moral axioms on the basis of a few things - That moral axioms don't have a basis in math, don't share the vernacular, etc... I don't think there is a formula for morality, so I agree with what you have there, but why is it necessary to exclude a hypothesis simply because there isn't sufficient language to bridge the gap? I'm not saying that's what HAS to be done, but by creativity I mean in the vein of cultivating that language... Its worth noting that even a language fabricated to help explain these things falls short, and I find that true given Gödels theorems. But why shouldn't someone try? I don't see the sense in that. this is where I'm coming from on your conflation with the connection he's making - like of course its loosely defined because you don't start at a point of recognizability when trying to construct a representation of this idea - how does one construct a representation of what potential is? Its absurd to apply logic to something like that, but people do anyway. Gödel is merely pointing out something inherent in human existence, not pointing to a wall from which there is no beyond.

>man talks about life and shit
>sad boys listen and feel uplifted
>his message is mainly about preserving traditional values and embracing responsibility
>he doesn't force anyone to pay him, 99% of his material is available on YouTube

And yet you autists manage to maintain a shitfest thread to blow each other off on how poorly his philosophical articulations are presented?

Go back to hating niggers and jews, this is just sad.

>>129466449
nonsense.
He blames a lot on communism and nazism as wel, but those are historic events...

But what is currently going on in US, canada and western Europe society (the limiting of free speech, and the deconstruction of society) is easily defined by post-modernism.

>>129466491
bullshit.
he's just a teacher.
he never ask for the attention. ever.