Is Jordan Peterson overrated?

I loved his "Maps of Meaning" lectures but his conversation with Sam Harris kinda let me down a bit. He seemed too stubborn for the sake of being contrarian, unwilling to find any common ground with Sam...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's a shame the convo couldn't move past harris' autism.

there were a few times when Peterson tried to guide the conversation out of the thicket they got stuck in, but Sam wanted to keep talking about what the definition of truth ought to be. there'll be a part 2

also, I don't think Peterson got a chance to describe the background on why he thinks about truth the way he described it in his discussion with Harris. this video does the best job at clearly stating what his view is, and the reasons for it:
youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
start at 19:57 and listen until 31:02

Concern shill has been posting this for to past few days. I am guessing there is a concerted effort to destroy figure heads of the alt right. Notice all the anti-Spencer posting recently?

Fuck off shill

>figure heads of the alt right

Man, you're a special kind of retard.... Jesus fucking Christ, assuming Peterson is on your side. Get fucked.

Yea then how come ive seen this thread in the exact ducking format 3 days in a row shill?

I like peterson; i never heard of him before 2 weeks ago, tho.

Anyway, his argument with harris was not that good. He didn't make a good case at all.

Peterson's entire point is "don't be an idealogue".

Interesting you chose to call it "my side"

Strange that you wouldn't say our side. Leftist infiltrater :^ )

yes hes literally only a thing because he argued with a bunch of stupid protestors a year ago

there is nothing notable about him

>Strange that you wouldn't say our side
Wouldn't he be making the same mistake as you if he had done that?

He does good work on values and meaning. It may not always fit well into the atheism hyper rational worldview.

You can't prove morality.

His style is one which requires an insane amount of nuance to be laid out unless you've heard him before and can get to where he is going before he actually gets there, which basically requires a lecture based talk for the most benefit.

If you post a link from the archive to a thread with the exact same format I won't post anymore.

Oh you can't do it? Might it be that you're a lying piece of shit who can't argue his positions like a proper man?

Look, another retard... Peterson spends his fucking career warning about people picking sides and delegitimizing others' perspectives and now we have morons like you who didn't get the memo.

Go ahead... Go tell Peterson about keeping the white race pure and expelling jews and niggers...

You fucking imbecile.

Good premises should be able to be expressed in a simple manner.

This is like saying "You need to read books X and Y before we have a conversation".

Full proof to Fermat's Last Theorem should be expressed in three words.

All purity spirals eventually wind up in a similar complex. Tolerance is eventually asked to tolerate intolerance.

Undermining ideology becomes and ideology.

"Only a sith speaks in absolutes" etc etc.

That's one of the yields of a well executed critical assault.

When your opponent has adopted this strategy it's imperative you identify it early and avoid accepting the challenge to your values it aims to undermine. Usually, you will be asked to disavow, condemn or identify a line in the sand. If you accept the challenge and wind up spiraling out you lose spectacularly and come off like a nut case.

I think a large part of the problem is that rationalists expect falsifiability to continue any argument. Especially rationalists that have done extensive work against religion.

How can you falsify morals, though?

>Harris is so autistic he can't understand how the truth and fact can be two completely different things.

Peterson is my guy but he put in a poor show on this one, Harris' autism notwithstanding. It happens.

He is a psycho-babble "spiritual" preacher. Someone shoop the hand of god on him.

The problem was that peterson's idea of truth as he was explaining it was unstable and unpredictable, and would cause more confusion than clairty.

He never really got to completely explain his position so how can you make that judgement?

His is the perspective of the whole scientific endeavor and community.

Peterson seemed to be playing a game of semantics.

I love listening to him but the lengths he went to refuse giving Harris' perspective any credence made him look a bit silly.

Did you listen to the podcast? He thinks like an autist, unable to conceptualize the hypothetical scenarios Harris described.

The whole "you either have an odd or an even number of hairs on your body and that's a truth" or "if you flip a coin it's either heads or tails and that's a truth" perspective is quite elemental but something he could have agreed on without losing any of his intellectual ground. On the contrary, it would make his later developments more approachable.

>He never really got to completely explain his position so how can you make that judgement?

He seemed to think he was done explaining it. Obviously I can only go on what he actually said, and not on what he didn't say.

mobile poster detected

I honestly believe mobile posters should be identified with a David star. They're the cancer that ruined Sup Forums.

>He seemed too stubborn for the sake of being contrarian, unwilling to find any common ground
Oh you mean like everyone on Sup Forums and in America?

>Peterson and Spencer
>figureheads of the alt-right

This is why 'alt-right' is a meaningless term

>spencer
>not controlled opposition
El oh el
Also
>alt right
Found the shill