It's a Sam is so autistic that he can't move on in the conversation knowing that someone disagrees with him episode

>It's a Sam is so autistic that he can't move on in the conversation knowing that someone disagrees with him episode
welp

Other urls found in this thread:

duncantrussell.com/episodes/2017/1/15/jordan-b-peterson-1
youtube.com/watch?v=vnQYiHPoZEg
youtube.com/watch?v=8pLQl3fG8MQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZK9W4V1Rc
youtu.be/1gdpyzwOOYY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>le cry about Pinocchio man

duncantrussell.com/episodes/2017/1/15/jordan-b-peterson-1

Haven't heard all of this one yet but you're right.
>Miriam Namazi
>Omer Aziz
and to a certain extent Hannibal Burress even though he was obviously belligerent.

This happens often enough that it's a problem.

Sam Harris isn't smart or insightful.

>link please

a simple youtube/google source will provide a link

>It's a Jordan Peterson gets BTFO and exposed as an intellectual fraud episode

I expected that, and I got what I expected. Would listen again.

meat for

What do I look like, Bill Gates?

A simple copy paste will provide me the link. Don't be so lazy.

youtube.com/watch?v=vnQYiHPoZEg

youtube.com/watch?v=8pLQl3fG8MQ

and post interview jordan says stuff
youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZK9W4V1Rc

why do people like sam harris? he's just as ideological and unobjective as the people he complains about

He's a neuroscientist who thinks being philosophical means he's right about politics

even though he's retarded when it came to brexit and trump

Listening to it now, about halfways though. Sam Harris seems like he is mostly arguing semantics, and is upset that he isnt the smartest guy in the room. Reminds me of me, when I younger. For a man who talks about "language games" all the time, he sure doesnt understand dick about them.

>neuroscientist
He took a masters in neuroscience or whatever and then he writes books and that makes him a neuroscientist? Peterson probably knows more about neuroscience then Harris does.. And most likely does way more actual research as well

>He received a Ph.D. degree in cognitive neuroscience in 2009 from the University of California, Los Angeles, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty

I don't discredit him for being a neuroscientist. But he tries to be on top of every other topic, even if Jordan is better at arguing his case.

For people too lazy to listen to the whole thing, here is the kurzgesagt.

Sam Harris:
>Consider the knowledge of how to synthesize the small pox virus. This knowledge is mostly bad for us, and from a Darwinian view point this knowledge is a dead end, we shouldn't go there.
Jordan Peterson:
>Yes, thus this is wrong and not truth.
Sam Harris:
>But it is objectively correct. The knowledge is true, can be tested, can be recreated, it works, it is observable fact and truth,
Jordan Peterson:
>But its bad for us, thus its not truth. Knowledge thats bad for us is not truth, its a lie.

Now observe this conversation as a neutral third party, not a partisan, and consider whos views are correct.

So they're just arguing semantics the whole time?

Having the knowledge of how to synthesize the small pox virus can be useful in other areas.

I think Sam is saying that just having knowledge to the small pox virus can only cause havoc and destruction.

I think it can lead to further medical research into manipulating and synthesising new viruses and viral vectors which can be very useful in medical fields such as gene therapy or cancer treatments.

But to say 'we shouldn't go there' is wrong.

Did I misinterpret this?

Sam Harris' argument seems valid to me in that, to most of us, the "truth" Peterson is talking about is foreign to us. It is not what we think of as "truth".

I do understand what Peterson is saying with the alternate definition of truth, but it's so alien to "truth" as we usually say it that I don't think it can be put forth so easily as Peterson tries to do.

It makes more sense to just use two separate terms, "scientific truth" vs "religious truth" or possibly something else, even "ideological truth" or "darwinian truth". As even if we accept the importance of Peterson's idea of truth, we still need to retain the other, scientific definition of truth as extremely important.

>This

Everyone in this thread arguing for Jordan Peterson's side is essentially saying "Sam Harris is a smug fedora and I don't like his attitude because I have some victim complex"

>its bad for us, thus its not truth. Knowledge thats bad for us is not truth, its a lie.

That is plain retarded.

this ep sealed the deal for me. sam is overrated and quite likely retarded.

Being more charismatic doesn't mean you are correct.

They were arguing the definition of truth, which Sam Harris holds to be self evident - the observable facts are truth, while Peterson tries to rationalize using natural selection.
It was Newton vs Darwin, in a world and time where 99.999% of people support the Newtonian view.

Sam Harris is saying that something can be true, and be bad for us, at the same time.
Jordan Peterson is saying that if something is bad for us, it is therefore not truth.

It isn't plain retarded, it is very complicatedly retarded. If you think its plain, you haven't given it much thought.

A thing is evaluated as being true under one system of logic.

And its also evaluated as true under another one but this second system of logic is itself evaluated as being true in a meta system of logic so to speak that takes both the former systems.

what am i missing?

but being true in the "meta" negates the first

>Sam Harris is saying that something can be true, and be bad for us, at the same time.
>Jordan Peterson is saying that if something is bad for us, it is therefore not truth.

If that accurately sums up their interview, I think Peterson is wrong in this case. tbf I haven't watched the entire thing anyway.

>Jordan Peterson is saying that if something is bad for us, it is therefore not truth.

As I said, plain retarded.

If we were selected for our breeding capabilities, there is no reason to believe we are capable of knowing the truth.
Example: the truth is that life is painful and has no purpose and you die. If we knew that truth, we wouldn't live and breed and defend offspring, so we evolved to NOT know that truth.

Harris says it is a truth regardless, despite us now "knowing" it, the same way we can't know that there is no free will, we just can't grasp it outside of saying it. Even people who say they know there is no free will think and act as if there was.
Peterson says it is no longer truth, because it isn't beneficial, and we can't know it, and it isn't there for us. All evolutionary dead ends are false, and any "objective fact" that lies there is subjectively false and thus not true.

It is complicated, but I side with Harris, and so do most people on the planet, based on how we think and live.

>It's a not an argument thread

Watch the actual discussion, atheists straw manning those who disagree to look ridiculous is a chapter straight from Harris's book and you shouldn't fall for it

harris was soundly butchered on all fronts by the vastly superior peterson

harris floundered all over the place like a fish out of water

fair enough

Do you mean myself? Which part of what I wrote inaccurately describes Peterson's views?

Peterson wants to redefine the word "true" so he can say God is "true". It's cowardice and typical religious logic.

It's not retarded, in fact it's very important. Nobody engages with pure truth. For us humans, truth is always subservient to our interests and biases. To argue for a pure, rational idea of truth outside of any subjective human aims is noble, but unrealistic insofar is it relates to any human activity.

So when we're talking about politics and how humans should live, this "pure" idea of truth is irrelevant. We'll end up abusing this idea of truth in order to serve our ideology while denying that we're doing so. This is what communists did, with their pure materialism and Marxist social science. Marxists denied that what they were doing was ideological, see the entire Marxist theory of ideology. It says everything is ideology except Marxism which is not ideology, but instead is a science.

like i said u can evaluate a condition as being true under two logical systems

but if the second logical system's truth evaluation implies the first system as being false then what?

What about mathematics? 2+2 being 4 isn't subservient to our interests at all, it's simply true. How does that objective fact (the truth) serve us in any way?

I think its the other way around.
It is the hierarchy that he insist is the most truth, since it has been true (as in, helpful to us) for the longest.
God is one of these truths, one of the strategies that have served us well for a very long time, such as the idea of the hero, or of honor or morality or clans and so on. It is a tool in a large collection of tools.
He isn't a classical religions man at any rate. I think he will say that the hierarchy is more important than "god" as far as "truths" go.

But yes, his idea of truth is based on what is useful to men, and thing that aren't useful he describes as false.

>Even people who say they know there is no free will think and act as if there was.
they're not in control of their actions so that means nothing

>Doesn't understand the archetypal story that is truer than true
>Will go through life bereft of meaning and self actualization

So basically, Jordan is being a baby and can't just fucking grant, for the sake of argument, that truth is best and most often described as what is in fact correct and accurate? Really? This is what kept them from talking about anything interesting? Fucking semantics? Grow the fuck up.

>It is not what we think of as "truth".

That's the thing in a nutshell. I dont think Peterson doesnt get that, and he is being very careful about his wording, in that he doesnt, as far as I've heard, ever say that "scientific truth" is "wrong". He's essentially just pointing out that scientific thought, no matter how much we would like to think it transcendental, always is embedded in a moral framework, and wants to move on to that discussion. And Harris gets stuck on semantics. He doesnt even really seem to understand, or admit, that he himself works within a moral framework. Again, from a man who talks a lot about language games, he really doesnt understand what they are or how they work.

I think that usually Peterson seems to use seperate terms, as you say. I've heard him make the distinction many times. He never talks about "truth" without first making the distinction, as far as I've heard, which really makes the entire point of contention moot.

peterson made several attempts to move the conversation forward

harris was unable to entertain petersons concept of truth for the sake of discussion

did they post the conversation?

I think his view is that "scientific truth" and "memetic truth" are like saying that something is true in theory, but not true in practice.

The small pox example given, it is true in theory, as in we can in fact synthesis small pox, but it is "not true in practice", as in it is memetically false, because it would end us, and thus won't further evolve, spread and be accepted.
Ideas that end us are thus false ideas, regardless of their objective factual materialistic truth values.

Again, I disagree with him, but he isn't wrong in a simple way, he is wrong in a more complicated way. Don't dismiss him quickly, give him a chance, examine him, and dismiss him then.

Damn. Knew there was a 50/50 on this - it was either going to Peterson's best podcast yet, or Harris would get stuck up on some minor point and completely halt the flow of the discussion to argue it ad nauseam.

Looks like he went with door #2. What a waste.

...

>petersons concept of truth

Because it's fucking retarded.

You are being a partisan and a fanboy. Please be objective.

If the proposed definition of truth was accepted, there'd be no further discussion, everything else follows from there.
The idea is that the definition is not acceptable, thus nothing follows. It is a false premise.

youtu.be/1gdpyzwOOYY

And there is the official version of the podcast, since it is the only one not posted in some form of protest, kek.

Say if we hypothetically synthesised a smallpox virus, wouldn't some of us be resistant and eventually become immune to further evolve and spread? Or are we assuming 100% destruction? Bit of a nitpick I know.

Maryam Namazi was genuinely retarded and was incapable of discussing the refugee without labelling Sam a bigot. She was in the wrong there.

I just picked two from the suggested video panel. Probably should have added Sam's too, lel

It's the opposite. Peterson spent the entire time trying to move the conversation forward to the next stage and Harris refused and would not move past their disagreement

We are assuming:

>zero use for the knowledge, so ignoring that it will make us better understand viruses, make vaccines, and so on
>zero survivors, not just humans, but life in general

This is just a thought experiment, it is hard to think of any piece of knowledge that is absolutely useless. Most knowledge has so much utility that in the end it is almost always, if not always, better to know it than not to know it.

Jordan doesn't make sense
If its wrong its a lie ?
>?????

As usual, Harris comes off looking like the retarded Jew that he is. Typical neocon faggot. It must be terribly embaressing for him to watch the world slip away from his kike ideology towards proper Right Wing Aryan nationalism.

t. faggot

.................oh...............

This is the kind of post that reminds me Sup Forums is satire and I am a retard for trying to have actual discussions here.

>actually bothering to listen to "public intellectuals" have a long boring clash of egos

when has a debate like this ever been valuable in any way whatsoever? debates are terrible, shitty ways of discussing anything because the points just become obscured by the personality of the debaters and the debating tactics they employ. scoring points off of one another is just boring and stupid

>Aryans
but what have Indo Iranians got to do with anything?

>philosophical discussion
>be objective

You may not realize it but this shows how blatantly partisan you are on the issue yourself

Do you think they were trying to argue to 'utility of truth'? Like having the knowledge of something potentially dangerous but at least knowing it we can understand it better. i.e. knowing that nuclear weapons can kill everyone but can lead to further medical research. Both stem from nuclear science (which I would call truth), what you do with that 'truth' can vary.
I'm too tired to even think properly right now...

(((Sam Harris)))

(((Atheist)))

Faggot

Sophist

Pseudo

Faggotte

Phagoette

I got about halfway through your post before I dismissed your point as being obscured by your personality. Thanks for posting, I didn't find it very valuable though.

can someone that understands Peterson point tell me if he believes that the world would exist if all humans would be extinct ?, since if something still exist, how can that exist without any moral judgment then?, it has to be objective

>Ok, I define truth as being that you're a faggot and anything you disagree with me on is further proof that I'm right. Now lets move forward and debate what is true.

You forgot to mention he's a Fag.

Peterson has used the nuclear example in his other lectures. He will insist that small particle and nuclear physic is wrong, because it will lead to the destruction of civilization and potentially life on the planet.
Thus nuclear research is false, and not true, since its not useful overall.
I think he also hinted at this in his direct response to this discussion, that he made after the discussion, a sort of a cheap shot when there is nobody to respond to him.

>on an anonymous forum
you really are retarded

>debate me on the premise that truth is subjective

Peterson got exposed as a religious nut.

Genau!

He [(((Sam Harris)))] is a fag.

A fucking fag.

Phag.

I clearly mean "objective", as in neutral. This is the conversational meaning of the word.
And we are talking not about the philosophical discussion itself, rather the response this retard is having towards it.

For further example, see the critical lack of argument in posts like or

truth is just objective reality. it is immutable regardless of human perception. putting another word in front of it is retarded.

if religion comes to recognize a truth in human behavior it doesn't matter that it wasn't reached scientifically, and vice versa.

Honestly, the way I see it, Harris is wrong for entirely different reasons. I think believing in scientific truths is simply to easy. All this talk about truth could be avoided, with a short discussion on knowing. What good are truths, if you cant be sure you can know them? Philosophy havent even gotten close to closing the book on knowledge, and until we have that, talking about "truth" is pointless. From a strict, semantic, point of view of course.

The closest thing we have in the philosophy of science, gets us nowhere closer to "truth". Only utility. Which is what Peterson is describing, albeit in different, more mythical terms. "Truth", to my eyes, is a wittgensteinian misconception, a misuse of language. At best, truth is nietzchean, truth-towards-something. But before it is anything, it is a game. And people like Harris strike me as the one kid, in the playground, who gets mad that the other kids are having fun, and tells them they are playing wrong.

>critical lack of argument
See the critical lack of Jews in ten years when Iran nukes Tehran and every one of Harris's kike friends dies screaming in atomic hellfire.

>if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
>according to Jordan Peterson, no, it does not make a sound

>dude just utilitarianism, don't you know it's CURRENT YEAR?

Omer Aziz was a fucking sperg who refused to admit anything bad about Islam or that Muslims were uniquely prone to committing acts of terrorism as opposed to any other group of people. The dude literally didn't get mildly intellectual in his word games and distractions to avoid discussion of the topic, he just avoided it by stuttering or being verbose or labelling Sam a bigot, etc.

I don't really love Sam personally, but I don't hate him either, but to think that he was in the wrong in dealing with that guy when that other guy was such an obvious intellectually dishonest prick who just wanted to defend Muslims and smear Sam is just absurd.

The small pox synthesis example has relatively low utility, yet it is truth according to common scientific view.
It isn't true because its useful, it is true because it is observably and testably factual and materialistically provable to exist and function and be.

How can you say that when our understanding of reality is limited, ultimately, to trusting ourselves being able to comprehend it.

it doesnt make a sound. sound is an experience.

>would smell exist if there were no noses

This argument also works against everything Peterson says, since he relies on memes and stories and myths, which are man made.

Toronto Lead identified, soooo butt hurt over Peterson hahahahaha

They both pretty much classify as utilitarians though. Jordan saying that X is true because it's good or useful to humanity is fundamentally utilitarian, and Sam is pretty much a utilitarian too going by his personal past statements.

Smell is particles. They exist even if there are no receptors for them to fall on.
Alternatively, smell is the signals receptors send to the corresponding parts of the brain. Thus no receptors would mean no smell, but the particles that cause the reactions would still exist, just not react with any receptors.

> Marxism is bad for us, there for it isn't true.

it's not that hard to understand...retard

>would smell exist if there were no noses

uhhhh... yes?

The debate:

>Peterson: "I'm not gonna say Truth is just objective truth because that means I'm wrong"
>Harris: "Well I'm not gonna say Truth includes existential truth because that means I can't say you're wrong"

Kind of stupid and I blame Harris for not being able to humor him so the conversation could go somewhere. Jordan is basically arguing for the merits of listening to subjective experience given that being purely objective like the soviets or nazis leads to great atrocities, and Harris goes REEEEEE when people bring up ideas that aren't falsifiable.

HOW CAN MIRRORS BE REAL IF OUR EYES AREN'T REAL???

>muh archipelago island, thus i am right

Hi, Jordan.

particles are just particles. smell is the experience created within our brains when particles get in our nose and a signal is sent to the brain.

the same is true for sound, vibrations in the air are not sound, the experience created within the brain in response to those vibrations is.

>He doesnt even really seem to understand, or admit, that he himself works within a moral framework

I have feeling that Sam is a highly developed sociopath and he needs a rigid system to define truth.

Without it, he would be lost.

Holy shit I was about to make this thread saying that EXACT SAME thing haha. This podcast was an autism explosion

Okay, then so is the whole world. It isn't particles, it is how we see and experience them. So the world doesn't exist.

At last I see truly.

No, smell wouldn't exist if there weren't organs designed to detect smell, the physical properties of the things that we perceive to smell would still exist but 'smell' wouldn't.

>This is the kind of post that reminds me Sup Forums is satire and I am a retard for trying to have actual discussions here.

Duh doy?

>vibrations in the air are not sound