Has anyone else lost all respect for this man after his cluster-fuck of a conversation with Sam Harris...

Has anyone else lost all respect for this man after his cluster-fuck of a conversation with Sam Harris? as much as i liked him on JRE and his maps and meaning lectures i feel like he keeps hitting a wall when talking to anybody who isn't a leftist brainwashed millennial.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8nLddIjSp9k&t=0s
shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who?

Jordan Peterson, anyone who cares i want to see your views on that conversation, seems like Sam pretty much won that debate judging by the overall response

it was boring as hell to be honest, just bogged down in minutia

Too long . Whoever wins the debate isn't necessarily correct

It was just 2 hours of nothing. No winner since they didn't even agree on what they were debating about until like the last 20 minutes.

it was pretty clear what they were talking about, they were arguing over the definition of truth in epistemology, a materialistic-scientific truth versus Petersons' pragmatic "Darwinian" truth which is easy to disagree with. obviously they weren't able to move on past that because if Jordan Peterson can admit he was wrong all along with his ideas about how he defines truth he will have to concede his views on religion

Dabate? U Mean Sam Harris Not Accepting Peterson View On The Word Truth

Jordan can't debate for shit
fully powered molymeme would assrape harris in a debate

If U Actually Think A Debate is about getting some one to throw away all there world Views U need to get a grip

His self-admittedly gerrymandered definition of truth to exclude anything that people shouldn't know is disappointing.

more like Peterson not being able to admit that pragmatism and truth are not intertwined. You can have scientific truths and you can have pragmatic truths, for Peterson, if the ends aren't justified and moral then the all thing isn't true. he is playing with language just like the sjws he is fighting.

you are fast at your shitposting ahmed from great islamic island
time to flag you

Havent listened to it because Sam Harris is a trashcan

Peterson is obviously all over the fucking place in general but hes bumping up against something important...might take someone more down-to-earth than him to articulate it clearly

How is that like a SJw That Clearly lays out What he Defines Unlike a SJw Who Cant Seem To Find a Reason Or Even Justify Most of there world Views after u make 1 argument about anything they belive

It don't matter buddy. Just sort yourself out.

Yea, that sounds totally clear

Leaf Loses Argument, Attacks Person On Something Which Isn't True, Many such cases

I think Jordan has something important to say but Sam doesn't want to hear it unless it fits into his predefined notions.

I listened to part of it, and it was somewhat interesting. Epistemology is a cluster fuck, and pragmatism is the most sensible philosophy rather than twisting oneself into knots.

> Pragmatic truth and scientific truth

Eh, I can see why the two were butting heads. The whole Enlightenment project of seeking absolute truth and knowledge is a crap shoot, though it has spurred us on to innovation in science for sure. Is it a scientific truth that if you act like a beta bitch you'll get dumped by your girlfriend? Well, no, but if you want to keep her attracted to you, it would be in your best interests to not be a beta bitch.

>what is epistemology
aruging over how to define shit is the basis of any philosophical argument, you can't have a discussion if you disagree on basic definitions, Sam Harris is referring to truth that everybody understands and accepts, while Peterson redefines it and adds a pragmatic edge to it which shouldn't be there
>sjws argue about clearly defines genders
>Peterson argues about a clearly define idea of truth
i dont see a difference, both arguing over well defined words that dont need redefining
go eat kebobs muhammad

Something along these lines. What we find plausible is inextricably linked to what we already believe/find plausible. When you get down to foundation level ideas/axioms/definitions/metaphysics, it's a leap of faith.

How are you leaf cucks so quick to respond like damn get a life bro.

I Dont Think U Get it They Argue about The Fact That The Genders Everyone Excepts Dont Exist and There is Infinite Number Of Genders which Dont Even Come Close to Any Truth

but why would he though? Jordan was the one making non-arguments. He would have made Peterson apologize more than he normally does.

>How is that like a SJw That Clearly lays out What he Defines Unlike a SJw Who Cant Seem To Find a Reason Or Even Justify Most of there world Views after u make 1 argument about anything they belive
Is there something wrong with your shift button?

>defending epistemology is now grounds for being close minded

How Was He? Sam Wouldn't Let the Conversation Go Further Until They Agreed On The Same Thing

It always confused me that someone like Peterson, who is clearly a great admirer of Nietzsche, was so quick to use rationalism to shout down the SJW left.

Truth (political, social truths, let's not get into scientific 'truth') as a power projection is actually one of the few things the SJW left/Marxism gets right.

Peterson seems acutely aware that myth making is crucial to building civilization. The question is, what myth making is constructive and what myth making is destructive?

Sam Harris is a pseud but Peterson's own contradictions as a Classical Liberal doomed him here. Come home to the far right Jordan.

nah I Just Type like This Cause Im Buzzed of some Meds

And why should he let the argument go further if they can't nail down the axioms with which they wish center their arguments on?

his patreon just got another 1k per month.

you should try harder with whole anti-jordan campaign, even the subtle trys like this thread are failing.

you filthy trans-subhuman

Yeah, Sam is sliding into dogmatism. He broke from convention for his Ted talk years ago, then as the money came in, and his fame took off he just started playing it safe.

I could tell them, that religious meme's are meta level software for organizing society, and some truths are convenient and wrong scientifically, but are necessary for the society to survive.

It's funny, it feels so obvious now, what was drawing me back to religion wasn't spiritual salvation, but rather the need to save my society from destroying itself.

Maybe I'm off base, but I don't think so. I actually started making a lecture about this, but I got road blocked, I didn't know the proper way to introduce all the component ideas.

I can't listen to Sam Harris talk.

You can't hear the entire argument before criticising it?

I think it was Harris' fault that the conversation went no where, he couldn't accept, on any level, Peterson's perspective of truth.

>youtube.com/watch?v=8nLddIjSp9k&t=0s

I think you are pretty close to the truth, actually.

Im Pretty Sure That The Conversation Wasn't ment to be around the Definition of truth, And if U really Believe That People Have 100% Proof Backing what they say then u may when Reconsider Life

Do people not understand what Peterson does? he has to work through thoughts before arguments can be built.
Peterson already made a reply and they have been talking back and forth

>It always confused me that someone like Peterson, who is clearly a great admirer of Nietzsche, was so quick to use rationalism to shout down the SJW left.
>Come home to the far right Jordan.
This so much this. His Darwinian pragmatism is better suited for the far right as it stands right now.

>Truth (political, social truths, let's not get into scientific 'truth') as a power projection is actually one of the few things the SJW left/Marxism gets right.
Can you explain what you mean by this?

The question is, what myth making is constructive and what myth making is destructive?
Anything that is able to reinforce the hierarchies without making too steep of a sacrifice constitutes constructive mythmaking. Where as destructive is anything that shows no regard for the myths entailed. (in my opinion)

Peterson does not disregard scientific truths, he sees them as in a scale too small to be relevant.

Suppose your house is on fire, except the room you are in. You saying "this room is not on fire" is technically true, but it is an incomplete truth, and even useless.

Another example is an exercise in which you try to define what a car is. It is true that it is a rubber, metal and glass machine that can move you around. But it is also true that the car shaped how cities are developed, shaped the world economy, and probably are bad for the environment.
You keeping it to the simple scientific truth that the car is a machine made of metal, rubber and glass is indeed true, but it is not the entire truth.

Furthermore, the reason as to why we seek the truth also matters. Under a Darwinian perspective, the search for truths serves to better mankind's adaptability to our environment. In that sense, truth seeking has a moral dimension where its primary purpose is the betterment of our condition.

Now suppose you are a nuclear physicist. You discovering the properties of the atom, under a scientific conception of truth, would be simply a further elucidation and advancement of empirical knowledge. However, it is not all the truth. Nuclear knowledge allows us to build reactors which are (presumambly) good, but also bombs which are presumably bad. In that sense, the knowledge about the properties of the atom is also a gate allowing humans to make bigger projects, but also bigger mistakes.

In a Darwinian sense, in which the well being of mankind is taken into consideration, is the Nuclear physicist doing something good, or something evil? It is impossible to currently know, as if we are extinct in a nuclear Armageddon, this knowledge becomes a negative, but if we never die in an Armageddon and instead solve our energy problems with this knowledge, then the nuclear physicist is doing good.

why would he accepts Peterson definition of truth? if they can't agree on the basics why dig deeper? he has to provide evidence for his idea that any truth has to be not only pragmatic but also moral and not lead to catastrophes, this is how any debate should start. if you want to discuss the existence of a deity you define it first then you create arguments in support of it to prove your point, Peterson doesn't get a free pass, if he wants to ignore metaphysics all together to push his religious agenda then he needs to learn how to argue and defend his position.

Why Argue With anyone if they Dont Already Agree With You - The Post

How can you discount 99% of the mains ideas because they couldn't GET OFF THE GROUND in a 2 hour convo. Yes he performed poorly but are you really going to ignore the rest of the 99% becuase of 2 hours of a clusterfuck?

well that was a lot of fucking nothing

Sam Harris was a Clinton supporter. He is definitely a brainwashed leftist.

kike didn't want him to move onto race
kike didn't want his inherent predisposition towards neurological defects to be exposed

They were argui about what is "true". Basically harris said that true is something that is provably right, while peterson said that a truth is something that leads to our survival.

Or somehig like that. Seemed like typical sophistry and re defining words.

This was a mix of Peterson giving a weaker than usual account of his ideas (maybe because of his recent illness - his most recent Youtube lectures are also a step down from last year's), and Sam being completely intransigent as he always is with anyone he disagrees with. Jordan then undermines himself by being overly conciliatory - saying things like "your position is logical, consistent etc" which was not necessary and not reciprocated because Sam has little in the way of intellectual humility. Therefore, Jordan comes off looking weaker than he is.

IMO Peterson's position is closer to being correct but even Peterson does not have all the right tools in his arsenal to formulate it properly - and he's hamstringing himself by not taking a more "philosophy of language" approach to deconstructing materialism, which is the most obvious way of doing it.

>but also bombs which are presumably bad
Not if we use "bad" technology to destroy our enemies though. Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisions. His principles are true when the only competing species is ourselves but what if extra-terrestrials wished to invade and we chose to not gone down technological roads which would have saved us otherwise.

This is precisely where Sam and Jordan reached the road block that Sam wasn't willing to concede.

addressing the nuclear physicist example, just because there is potential harm to human civilization in knowing the structure of the atom and the power within it wont make the scientific truths any less true. Just because people a thousand years ago had no idea what an atom is, doesn't mean atoms didn't exist and did not harbor powerful energy within it. you are implying that scientific truths care about pragmatism or moral outcomes, in fact you can have any number of outcomes from knowing any number of truths, the outcome does not change the fact. this is where Petersons' logic fall flat.

How Does That Refine The Word "Truth" When What peterson Says Is True. say There are some Berries and u see some one eat Them and they Die There4 it is the truth that the berrys kill people

Okay but if some other human eats the berries and doesn't die, do the berries then no longer kill people?

I've thought about this for a long time. You have to look at societies as a large organism, and meme's are kind of like brain signals. They control the individual software on component pieces called people.

Religion is a Operating System for society. It sets up the underlying conventions relatively uni-formally for the people inside of it. It doesn't have to be a religion, but for the society to work the assumptions need to be there, N. Korea has some built in assumptions, and divine truths. It exists as a meta organism.

The ideas need to have several base assumptions for a society to survive, it has to grow, it has to defend itself, and in our modern age it has to subjugate lesser societies.

Anyways, modern liberalism has become the equivalent to AIDS. It has undermined the societies ability to defend itself to hostile ideology by making truth and right and wrong subjective. Now, with this AIDS virus having crippled our ability to defend ourselve, these really weak fucks, which we could say are a parallel to a common cold (retarded migrant rapists, anarchists) are actually causing significant damage.

Sam and Peterson have a whiff of the same problem, that universal morality is necessary for the society level organism to survive. Thats why they needed to talk. Thats why the conversation was so disappointing.

If it works than there is a scientific reason for it. But just because we havent proven something through the scientific method, like in the beta male situation you posed, doesnt mean we should stop being alpha to keep a girl of being alpha works but is not epistomogically proven to work.

Well Yes That Lead To The New Truth and Then If Some one eats them and they Die , There is clearly a bigger Truth

I think one point Peterson is trying to bring, is that narrowing the definition of truth to a purely scientific one separates it from its obvious moral dimension, and thus can lead to catastrophic end.

What Peterson advocates narrows down to 'sort yourself out', and in a societal level, this means figure out what the fuck is going on so that mistakes allowed by the advancement of technology does not happen.

>Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisions
This is true, and a good argument. Peterson basically wants to avoid the genocides of the 20th century, but we do not know if this is at all possible.

I don't think Peterson is claiming that scientific knowledge is any less true, I think he is saying that it is far less relevant than Darwinian truth, and thus our focus on it over Darwinian truth (basically philosophy), is deeply misguided as without a good Darwinian basis, scientific knowledge can become a source for great harm for humans
See the cold war for instance. If the US and URSS nuked each other due to political disagreements, all scientific knowledge becomes moot as the planet enter nuclear winter, while darwinian knowledge could've avoided that political crisis

i think you are dead on the money.

One of my professors who is a fairly liberal person even admitted that religion is a good thing for society because it allows people to deal with "existential angst".

Religion influencing politics is bad because its not based in fact, but religion being a part of society as a whole is extremely important.

Harris is a Zionist who shilled for Hillary all throughout the election. I won't listen to another word he says.

These debates need a moderator.

A FUCKING LEAF

Trying to undermine our faith in Jordan Peterson.

Of course it's a fucking leaf trying to do this.

this is definitely one thing i disagree with him on but he is spot on on his idea against Islam and Religion.

BTW for those who aren't redpilled on Sam Harris, read this:

shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

A yuuge part of his stature as a public intellectual is based on being a 'neuroscience PhD, but he has directly participated in almost no research - and in the little he did as a grad student, the actual experimental work was done by others - he's just listed as a "co-author" (who knows even how much of THAT he was involved with), and the research itself has been heavily criticized. TED and the fedora tippers' favourite neuroscientist isn't really a neuroscientist. It's rather like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and his (non)relation to physics.

I volunteer to (((moderate)))

>Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisions.
No he doesn't, his goal is transcendent. The goal doesn't have to be possible, just inspirational and it's pursuit a benefit to our survival.

Strange, perhaps the aristocrats and leaders of old knew this all along, but now that we have disposable time and perception we too get to see the man behind the curtain.

Truth is a spook.

I agree. Humans have proven that they can fabricate ideologies in order to rationalize anything. Furthermore, all humans societies have an ideology, a lack of ideology often becomes nihilism or hedonism, which are gates to other ideologies as well.

In that sense, we must find a good ideology for mankind. One that enhances the good traits of mankind, while suppressing the bad ones. Say what you want about Christianity, but it's pretty fucking good in doing that.

>Can you explain what you mean by this?
I tried to limit it to political and social truths. Ones that are 'accepted' by society. Values (equality, freedom) and truth (race as a social construct, democracy 'proven' as the best system, etc.). To me, the SJW left understands master morality to some extent though their ideology technically opposes it (Antifa demonstrates this with some of their actions). They know instinctively that values and truth are imposed through power and violence rather than through 'rational' discourse.

>Anything that is able to reinforce the hierarchies without making too steep of a sacrifice constitutes constructive mythmaking. Where as destructive is anything that shows no regard for the myths entailed. (in my opinion)

Yes, I am in total agreement with this viewpoint. Nothing more to add.

Most I was cringing at Harris's sophomoric understanding of epistemology desu

It's possible. A lot of the older civilizations seemed to understand human nature better than people do today.

I think a lot of it has to do with the corruption of the arts.

Not an argument.

Want power, me horny, hungry, bored.

Infinity is a spook, therefore eternity is a spook, therefore death as seen by athiests is a spook.

Fucking Muslims Have over Run The Internet in germany

Irrational truth doesn't necessarily have to be spread through power/violence though. There are plenty of other emotions you can play on to spread a message emotionally

He has a sophomoric understanding of geopolitical matters and yet people still hail him as an expert in dealing with Islamism.

Again, he's a pseud. His parents were in show business. He's just another mediocre kike who found his way to a megaphone because of nepotism. He has nothing original to say. Nothing new to add to the metaphysical or geopolitical debate.

Interesting I didn't know that before hand. It should be a disclaimer to every podcast of his. I'm still not convinced of the validity of Jordan's perspective it sounds like he has set himself between a rock and a hard place with his opinions. I know he is a very nuanced person so that leads me to believe that he's not saying 100% what is actually on his mind.

that part

That's a spook.

Christianity is ok, but I don't think it's exceptionally romantic. The Joan of Arc story is better, many stories are better, but yeah, as far as religions go it's one of the more poetic ones.

I don't know how people can say the Religion of Islam, which is essentially a biography of a mediocre warlord, is divine. Blows me away. Then I remember people are idiots, and their religious software includes murder for apostates and then it begins to make more sense.

Ah I see, so are you saying that Jordan leans towards the slave morality because if so I'm inclined to agree with you.

What has he said about Islamism that's wrong specifically?

He's a libtard and doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not surprising he had trouble with a lightweight like Sam Harris.

t. a intellectual heavy weight that uses "libtard" and listens to AM talk radio

Nobody's perfect. I like what Ben Shapiro has to say on a lot of things. Until he goes whole hog for Israel. Take what want and leave the rest. You can't get wrapped up so much with the people when you really need to be focusing on ideas.

This.

>Come home to the far right Jordan.
It's his only chance desu.

Religion is more than just a social glue, or personality enhancer, or nihilism mitigator. Reality has a transcendental aspect, and there are 'truths' that are part of the code of reality you could say (the Matrix is a decent metaphor in this respect), which point towards the transcendent.

Pieces of the code show up in almost any Religious traditions worth the name, some more than others. Throwing that accumulated knowledge in favour of "science" (really 'Scientism', Taleb has done good work ripping the new atheists on this - Taleb is worth reading as a corollary to this debate) is premature to say the least.

It's clear even from ancient times most of the rulers were pragmatists who did not believe in outcomes from gods and oracles but used them in a social context. Perhaps rulers from all times understood that the opiates was necessary for the masses. Many of these ideals were engineered by brilliant social thinkers into viral like structures to spread their political influence and power.

The average person's education and continence is not going to let them deal with the nihilistic crisis in a reasonable manner which is why these educated western societies are sliding into complete suicidal behavior they have no moral ground to stand on, and so cultural marxists have completely subverted their thoughts into madness.

But I think this can be tracked to a lack of vigilance to activist academia rotting the ethos as Japan is still mostly fine being isolated from these ideals despite being non-religious.

I'm surprised he graduated with a degree in philosophy from Stanford. Makes me think that the degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Did he forget everything he learned or what?

There was some study recently that using more cursewords is a sign of being. A more honest person.

Jordan peterson is very honest

He's a Christian and often defers to moralism to bolster his arguments (particularly against Marxism and National Socialism). Still, he seems to have an admiration for personal excellence and believes in some form of naturally occurring hierarchy achieved at through Liberalism. I think he is suffering through these contradictions.

That the ideas of the third Abrahamic religion are the source of the violence and not the races that have adopted it. He also dismisses the idea that the West has had significant impact on Muslims lashing out in the way that they have in their home nations and in Europe. I think this viewpoint is absurd.

He is a libtard. What else would you call him?

So what would be the characteristics of a good ideology for the west? Christianity is somewhat divorced from scientific truths and also allows a certain relativism that can be detrimental

The problem is a lot of it is so old that divining it's true meaning is basically impossible.

Still meaning to watch his lectures on youtube.

Every philosopher defines truth. OP is getting mad at a doctor for washing his hands.

That is a very good question.

It's the sort of question a man has to sleep on a few nights. It may even be the wrong question.

I read this entire thread and who the fuck cares? Just let him shit on stupid trannies so we can focus on more important things