Looks like /our guy/ Jordan Peterson, AKA spokesfrog, will be having a rond two if fedoramaster Sam harris

Looks like /our guy/ Jordan Peterson, AKA spokesfrog, will be having a rond two if fedoramaster Sam harris.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I think Sam has to be given a little credit for having him back on. Last time it seemed like Sam was having his own conversation while the Emissary of Kek was trying to open his mind to new memes.

Their conversation was horrible. It was autistic as fuck and full of hypotheticals.

>what if dey had duh small pox lab derp a derp

I think they learned from the last one and will try to be more productive this time around and get to the issues people wanna hear them talk about

The TL;DW version of their first encounter was basically Peterson saying that the context in which scientific truth is obtained matters a lot, hence it is not the ultimate truth.
And Sam was like wait, are you saying scientific truth is impossible?? What about absurd scenario where x, y and z are set in stone???
And Peterson goes like 'sure, that is truth in that specific context, but it is still not necessarily the quintessentially truth

I never finished listening to the first one because I had to stop it and go do other things.

Sum it up for me. Who came out better?

I'd say both came out as petty unwilling one small point to the other, thus killing the conversation

Sam DESTROYED Peterson, like he does with any fundie retard.

*unwilling to concede

Peterson said retarded things and Harris called him out. For two hours.

Nobody won, both of them were having conversations with themselves like the true autists they are.

But that's 95% of Harris' arguments, simple hypothetical examples and analogies. I won't bet the next conversation will be any different.

From what others are saying, those "retarded things" were simply ideas outside of what Sam Harris was willing to open his mind to.

can't wait until the Sup Forums translation of Solzhenitsyn's jew book is complete and we send a copy to Peterson.

This

why is peterson teaching an "intellectual" basic epistemology?

Sam:
>I don't think you realize the price your paying by...
Sam was in full-on debunk mode. he wasn't trying to have a conversation - he was trying to change Peterson's view on truth to get them on the same page before proceeding. Peterson tried to steer the conversation onto more productive ground a few times, but Sam wanted to first hammer out that point first. so the conversational equivalent of trench warfare took place, with neither conceding a square inch of ground.

hitch was best atheist. triggered lefties, triggered right wingers. triggered the planet.

the entire conversation got caught up in their disagreement about what "truth" is. but the thought experiments never allowed Peterson to describe with sufficient background what his position on "sufficient truth" is.

this video does the best job at clearly stating what he thinks, and the reason for it:
youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
start at 19:57 and listen until 31:02

First podcast couldn't get past Sam's autism

>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

Some atheistfags think Sam won because Jordan was somewhat conciliatory.

The reason Peterson was conciliatory runs much deeper than this. Jordan is obsessed with the rise of catastrophe in the early 20th century.

He traces this to the unmooring of society to religious tradition. People throughout human history have always believed in an afterlife. They strived to perfection in this life in order to be worthy of the next. Their truth, that they must do the best that they can today in order to secure tomorrow, governed all.

The rise of scientific materialism and skepticism about the next life reeked havoc on the psyches of mankind. If there is no afterlife, you have lost your reason to perfect this life. The motivation for action has come unhinged.

Now, even the atheistfags saw this as an obvious problem. So, they began to try to establish a new moral dogma based on rational materialism.

>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

What Nietzsche could perceive so far in advance, and a problem that Peterson also discerns but Sam cannot, is that in all the endeavor to create a new moral dogma one of two things would be true:

(1) we'd establish the old moral dogma but just wrap it in slightly different words

(2) our moral dogma would change significantly

Now, the folks like Sam cannot tolerate (1) because in their minds God is dead, never to return. The reestablishment of the moral dogma in society MUST be substantially different than the old in order to assuage themselves of their belief that God is not dead, that he has not been resurrected in another name.

The problem here is that because we already had a moral dogma we agreed on and any significantly different new moral dogma will by definition be morally repugnant to us today.

In other words, if the rationalist project to reorient the genesis of the moral code is to be of any consequence, that is to say, to differ in any noteworthy way from the inherited morality (religion) then it by necessity is going to differ in at least one substantial way: it will be repugnant to the morality we all already agree on. Nietzsche was able to predict the catastrophes of the early 20th century because it was an inevitability of Sam's worldview, not just a possible result.

>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

In other words, the endeavor that folks like Sam are engaged in must do one of two things: lead them back to God, or be morally repugnant.

Well, there is a third option. We can trick them into going back to God by renaming it without them noticing. That is exactly what Nietzsche attempted to do in proposing the Ubermensch.

When Nietzsche declared that God was dead and described the problem

>God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

>”How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed

he says basically what I have just told you, that we must create a new name for God - the Ubermensch.

How can we tell that this sleight of hand invented by Nietzsche worked on Sam?

Well, Sam’s “great work” or claim to fame is his book “The Moral Landscape” in which he declares that the elevation of consciousness should be the new moral bedrock principle which happens to be exactly what Nietzsche was trying to program people like him into doing:

>What is the greatest experience you can have? It is the hour of the great contempt. The hour when your happiness, too, arouses your disgust, and even your reason and your virtue.

It isn’t disgust or happiness (or anything between) that is the greatest experience. It is the experience of experience: consciousness.

>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0Y

To sum up, the pseudo-intellectuals that we can typify with the example of Sam Harris (atheistfags in general) revel in their perception of glory that God has been slain in their minds. Yet, it is necessary that they return to God consciously (our societal moral dogma) or human catastrophe is inevitable (significant divergence from the inherited religious morality) - unless we can trick them into returning to God by another name. To do this, we encourage them to do exactly as Sam has done.

THIS is why Peterson is so reluctant to break down Sam’s worldview. He knows that it was crafted not by Sam, but as a sleight of hand, a trick played upon Sam, by Nietzsche in order to spare the world of the human catastrophe that results from the errors of the atheistfags or Sam Harris losers of the world.

Why do theists like to argue that without religion society will become a mad max movie when real life experience shows its actually the opposite?

Because when communism removed religion from ussr and China, millions died due to concious malice or inept governance

>Peterson saying that the context in which scientific truth is obtained matters a lot
Harris agreed with this.

>hence it is not the ultimate truth
No; It's not about ultimate truth. He could have said "ultimate truth", but he didn't. His position is that scientific truths are not truths at all. That truth is something else, to be measured via darwinian principles.
>why is peterson teaching an "intellectual" basic epistemology?

It was the opposite.

as an atheist I can 100% say without a doubt that Harris is a retard and I would happily debate him on any subject

Did you skip the part in history class where the surge in atheism led to multiple world wars and hundreds of millions of dead at the hands of nihilistic governments?

Do you not realize that the construction of the cathedrals is what produced the enlightenment? The skilled labor, artisans, mathematicians and so on necessary for such grandiose endeavors that only religion could move man to embark upon are all thanks to religion. The enlightenment, therefore, is thanks to religion.

But your professor told you the enlightenment was a conquering of it. And you believed it, because you've never thought for yourself in your life.

Pathetic, but so it goes with the irreligious.

Please no.

Sam Harris is a philosophical brainlet and refuses to argue a point unless it's falsifiable.

Peterson is unable to articulate himself unless he rambles on for long periods of time, and believes in many philosophical concepts that are not falsifiable.

The two have absolutely no chemistry.

Basically harris and peterson agree on every single issue except in the semantics.

Peterson insists that truth be defined, not as being factually accurate, but instead as being " a delusion that, if accepted, would be good for the survival of the species".

I.e. an absolute corruption of any semblance of logical thought and the end to clear coherent communication.

>X happened
>No it didn't, that would be bad to acknowledge

It's a literal appeal to consequence, logical fallacy being explicitly sledged into the definition of truth.

Peterson's definition seems pretty sound but fruitless since nothing follows from it. As you say, ultimately an appeal to consequence, which are always vacuous (or circular).

They didnt remove it they banned the people were still believers
Countries where the people are actually atheists are the best of the world

>Did you skip the part in history class where the surge in atheism led to multiple world wars and hundreds of millions of dead at the hands of nihilistic governments?
What do you mean? ww1 has nothing to do with atheism and ww2 is the continuation, anglos refusing to let go of their empire caused the world wars
Sunday school teachers are not very objective mate

>Argentinian history education

>To preserve a future for our species
Why is our species so important? What is the role of mankind in the universe?

>Coming from an American
Why are the most violent countries so religious?
Why are the most safe countries so irreligious?

>safe
>irreligious
for what, the twenty years it takes for women to gain power and flood the country with shitskins? wow so enlightened

because relative poverty causes crime
more egalitarian societies like Scandinavia have some of the highest taxes in the world, but also the most economically-equal societies ever created.

>Japan
>Czech republic
>Switzerland
>South Korea
>Hong Kong
>Flooded with shitskins

Good, the last one was garbage. It was entirely the fault of Harris and his autism that the conversation couldn't unfold. He couldn't bear to humble himself for two seconds to even entertain what Peterson was trying to explain, while Peterson was frequently conceding that he could be wrong and that he understood both viewpoints. It could have been a discussion, but Harris just had to pull the typical atheist/skeptic/materialist reductionist routine of trying to dispute everything no matter if they're hypothetical or rhetorical devices.

China and Vietnam are shitholes and the crime is low

Harris was not wrong to challenge peterson.

I still don't feel know exactly what peterson's idea was.

How could they have hoped to communicate if they don't agree on what the meaning of the word "is" is?

I respect Harris for having an immense depth of knowledge and the ability to back it up but as other anons said I feel Jordan and he were not talking to each other. That and I found some of the way Harris explained his points condescending for the sake of gaining ground in the debate. I respect both of them but I think Jordan has an edge in making his case rather than weaseling out of a disagreement at every point

It helps that they pump their citizen full of anti-depressants.

If you have to give the people of your country a shit ton of psych medicine just to cope with it, maybe it's not actually a good country.

From what I could gather, he was insisting that our conception of "truth" is inherently dependent on a subjective moral heuristic. Harris was insisting that there is objective truth that lies outside those constraints. Which is fine to say, it's just that he spent two fucking hours completely unable to give up this battle when he should have just let Peterson continue his thoughts, at least for the sake of letting the conversation go any other place.

give them time
>sweden

>rational materialism

I fucking hate these people so much

It's okay to say that, but when the nature of truth is the subject of the conversation, you need to actually engage with the idea and provide an argument, instead of repeating your thesis ad nauseum

What I hate most about it is how fucking irrational it is.

>If there is no afterlife, you have lost your reason to perfect this life

And this is so because...what, you say so? Grow up, only a child thinks that way.

Jordan Peterson is good on some subjects, but mostly he just makes up his own definitions and then requires other people to adhere to that.

I don't think they even planned to discuss the meaning of "truth" so heavily. The conversation just went that way and he gave it the title afterward.
The impasse they reached would have offered no solution. Peterson was at least trying to make a point with his, along the lines of how science is not so much an endeavor of "truth" as it is a pragmatic "true enough" paradigm. And when he tried delving into the repercussions of that, which would have yielded some interesting material, Harris kept cutting him off to basically say "But Jordan, you poor sweet child, something is true whether we identify it as such or not." Completely unproductive.

>simply ideas outside of what Sam Harris was willing to open his mind to

Oh, quite the contrary. he opened his mind to it, and found that redefining the meaning of words and concepts to fit your own personal whims is fucking retarded.

I greatly enjoy listening to what Peterson has to say, but that whole "truth" thing was just plain stupid.

Petersons philosophy is flawed, the issue is that Harris follows a philosophy no less flawed than Petersons and is just less self-aware of it.

With any sort of philosophical logic, you NEED a starting axiom assumed to be true. Logical systems based on axioms are either inconsistent, incomplete, or non-logical, because the axiom any logical system is based on has to be assumed to be true.

Harris argues that things proven through through repeatable empirical observation is what should be considered Truth. He believes in this, because he observes things like

“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.”

“Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.”

His problem is that Harris ALSO works off the appeal to consequence, when you drive through the philosophy of Harris. Ultimately he has arbitrary morals guiding his beliefs, that aren't proven to be philosophically valid, it's just assumed that you ought to reduce suffering and such. It's consistent, logical, but incomplete.

This is virtually the same position Peterson takes, except he gives less significance to empirical reasoning, and is far more self aware than Harris.

Harris is just a brainlet and is not aware he has the same flaw in his reasoning as the one he's trying to BTFO Peterson over.

He's also just such an autist he can't move on past the fact that Peterson thinks truth is something that has been proven good for the survival of the species, and Harris thinks truth is basically the same thing but it should also always be empirically falsifiable.

Harris considers a narrower range of viewpoints than Peterson, with arguable merit, but both fundamentally have the same logical flaw in their arguments.

>the context in which scientific truth is obtained matters a lot, hence it is not the ultimate truth

No, the context only matters when you look at meaning. Truth is universal. The context in which it is discovered matters not.

>Sweden
Meanwhile USA >60%