Who won?

Who won?

Other urls found in this thread:

samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

peterson

the truth

Sam Harris is a retard.

Was a pretty shitty debate where neither one made any ground.

I wish they had moved on but I think Harris knew that if he conceded on tjis Dawinian Truth bollocks that Peterson would use it later to justify belief in God.

Everybody, including the listeners, lost.

It was an interesting but ultimately pointless discussion. Allthough I really like Peterson's humility. He knows how out there 'his' theory is and I don't think he completely understands it himself but he is sure that he is onto something big so he won't let up.

peterson,

he nailed him within the first 10 minutes.

Scientific thinking can't monitor scientific progress and harris agreed, hence the need for religion.

Then harris had a shit fit about truth definition.

Peterson didn't fully grasp how out there his views for Harris are, and Harris is a naive scientific realist and never has been to a philosophy lecture in his life.
Everyone lost.

Harris won because peterson got rustled and was sidelining the conversation

link?

>your wife cheats
>records the whole thing
>you walk in, watch the video, and catch her in the act in your bed
>you kill her, her lover and yourself
>it cannot be TRUE that she was cheating (according to Peterson)

>why
>because fuck logic

>inb4 making up your own definitions to basic words

Harris was technically correct but Peterson made the right statement in saying that truth has to be self-/humanity-serving.

Harris irrevocably destroyed Peterson when he equated his notion of truth to the SJW notion of gender.

Harris dominated the debate

No, it is true that your wife cheated on you. But how you reacted was super retarded. So your line ends, and your great theory that you should kill everyone including yourself after you got cheated on.

>an asteroid hits the Earth
>wipes all humans
>ayy lmaos arrive
>it cannot be TRUE that an asteroid wipes the Earth because it was not in the best interest of humans
>"truth is subjective, not objective"
>"truth, like gender, is a social construct"

What nonsense. Truth is not contingent on its usefulness to humans, something doesn't become "true" or "false" depending on whether it's useful to us or not. Peterson is a fucking halfwitted coon.

EXACTLY!!!!

That's not what Peterson said.

((( Samuel Harrisberg ))) won stupid goy.

Sam.

Peterson can't just make up new definitions for the word "truth".

why do pro immigrant cuck countries like Sam Harris?? We just need Captian Sweden to join in and the cuckoldry will be complete.

Harris's position is true epistemologically. Peterson's position is true ontologically.

If you deal with knowledge for knowledge's sake, Harris is correct.
If you deal with knowledge as embodied, Peterson is correct.

How many hours of Peterson saying- P and Harris saying "I don't like your P".

Two charlatans pandering for popularity and handouts.

hurr durr here's the limitations of your premise ad nauseam.

Proof that if you didn't go to grad school for philosophy, you shouldn't be paid for talking about philosophy.

Peterson had to spend the entire time trying to explain basic epistemology to that autistic Jew rat Harris.

Than he explained his theory of darwinian (or shopenauerian) truth wrong. I also think you GROSSLY misrepresent this view also in
It would be very much not useful to deny that a meteor hit the earth and not deal with it.

samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-true

nice strawman you fucking retard. Hilarious that the ONLY example you can think of is your wife cheating on you, cuck.

>ahmed education lmao

Have you read The Moral Landscape? Shit is cash

Harris without a doubt

>another fucking leaf
Did you fucking listen to the podcast? The cheating wife example was used in their discussion, you degenerate leaf.

Harris. But peterson was right.

Oh boy, I read a short synopsis and it sounds the philosophical basis is just ignoring the "is-ought" problem and then amounting to basically utilitarianism, with which I have a lot of issues with.
It might be on of those things where it is interesting in the ways it is wrong.

Actually look "truth" up in the dictionary

>But how you reacted was super retarded.
Implying I should act nice towards?
Kys cuck

Who cares about both of these fags. When I want to hear someone interesting and digestible I go to Milo or Gavin Mcinnes

As long as it has a dubbed laugh track, so I know when the funny parts are.

It's a fact that she was cheating yes, Peterson isn't trying to say that isn't factual

The book tells us that

>There are objectively good and bad experiences.

>Science can tell us how to find those experiences.

If you say we'll who says bei g eaten by a lion is bad, Harris answers with this:
If a person claimed coughing blood was health would we accept this?
If not then the mere act of "disagreement" is not enough to call something subjective.

Well, so Harris tells me eaten by a lion will cause me pain, and I'll answer "So what, I like pain, and it will be over soon". What would be his answer?

I told you his answer in my post.
He answer that:

>Disagreement is not a reason to call something subjective.

Like a patient who thinks being sick is health your opinion would not be considered valid.

Ok I realize you can play with any ethics the "So what" game, but I have a feeling he overstates the objectiveness of ethics in general. Like the comparison to medicine is not applicable, because we no coughing blood is a malfunction of the body, and we know how it is supposed to operate. But the discussion of ethics and morality is how we are supposed to operate in the first place.
I personally would call morality inter-subjective btw.

That's an absurd argument though, the only way you could sincerely answer like that is if you had some sort of brsin damage impairing your rationale

Sort Yourself Out

Harris exposed what a total Jew he is.

The debate was considered a joke in philosophical circles as neither of them understood the material well enough to do it justice

He makes this case.
Think of a world where every creature suffers for eternity and

A world where every creature experience pleasure..

He argues that reason tells us which world to tavır and which world to desire.
Science helps us find a way to those world's.

I was literally typing this out.

Anything that will move us away from that perfect hell is considered objectively just

*avoid not tavır

But still he assumes we value things which gets other phiolosophers angry but they can't dispute it either.

We all value things.
And almostall of us want the same things.

I don't care what either of them think about most things, but at least Petersen is likeable.

was i the only one who thought Sam Harris was being egotistic for pressing this argument for over an hour straight after it was clear they wouldn't agree?

Peterson kept trying to talk about other things because it was obviously going no where, but it felt to me like Harris was trying really hard to "win".

Hm, so he wants to minimize suffering? Still a form of utlitarianism it sounds like.
Have to read the book I guess. Thanks!

IMO the best summary of the discussion, capped from /lit/

Harris knew that Peterson would bring it up again later to justify his religious beliefs, and Harris wasn't going to give him that.

Peterson is a rambling hack. The entire conversation is a fruitless autistic freakout, but at least harris has some concept of brevity in his argument.

WHO WON
WHO'S NEXT

YOU DECIDE

Even if you end up thinking its all shit its still a new perspective. No matter what the cunts on Sup Forums say Sam Harris is worth your time to listen to, he's a smart guy.

>why yes sam these SJW's redefining the meaning of words is preposterous!!
>actually sam let's just discuss the entire meaning of the concept of truth based on my say so!
HMmmmmm

Peterson will only truly win if he wins a rap battle.

BTW UK, a man killed a potato with a potato in your land.

Who's next?
YOU DECIDE!

>pursuing a scientific result for "truth"

How so?

I'm listening to it right now and that absolutely cuts right to the core of it.

Harris didn't give Peterson the chance to explain his views and spent an entire giant podcast taking swipes at Peterson. He didn't even allow him to arrive at the place he was logically going because he was too busy arguing over if it was true or false if you had an even or odd amounts of hair on your head.

Given only Peterson really explained his views, and given Harris didn't present his own views and just attacked Peterson, it wasn't a real debate of any sort. A real debate would have Peterson present his views, Harris presents his, and both attacking eachother. It only was just Peterson explaining his viewpoint, and Harris pointing out the weakest parts of his argument.

Thus I have a hard time saying somebody won or lost because the way Harris structured the entire thing it was neither a decent debate, nor was it a decent exploration of what Peterson actually believed because he was too busy defending against the attacks of Harris to get to the place he was trying to go.

Harris needs to learn to be a better host. Rogan did a better job. Would have been way better if Harris tried to take a more constructive less antagonistic approach to help build a coherant picture of Petersons views, and THEN attacked the weakest part of his arguments. He is just so autistic as soon as he sees something he disagrees with, he has to start a fight.

According to the truth of Harris, he won, because he pointed out more logical flaws with Petersons argument than Peterson pointed out in the argument Harris had.

According to the truth of Peterson, Peterson won. Harris treated the debate like a boxing match, and while introductions were still being made, be tried to sucker punch Peterson, and then declared victory because he landed more blows on Peterson. Yeah, on one level he won, but the way he conducted the podcast he actually prevented both fans of Peterson and Harris from getting any meaningful insight.

Peterson may have taken more blows, but Harris showed much less wisdom in regards to restraining his aggression. Peterson could have dragged things into a critique of the views of Sam Harris to fight back, but he didn't, because he realised he needed to explain his own views before they started arguing.

Maybe, but a lot of what peterson was saying was meandering, and nonsensical. If he had been more concise maybe he would have reached where he was going.

>debate
it was just a discussion between two people. Harris prefaced this in the beginning. He wasn't there to listen to him ramble.

>He is just so autistic as soon as he sees something he disagrees with, he has to start a fight.

I don't think i've ever seen Sam Harris display an emotion ever, so i have a hard time believing this. But coming from a biased person, it just sounds like a discussion to me.

>a lot of what peterson was saying was meandering, and nonsensical.

Peterson is very meandering as a speaker. That I would accept as a flaw of him if you're going to listen to him. He is not concise and shapes his views by looking at various different axiomatic views, and trying to merge them all together into one unified but complex practical vision. He also bases his views off clinical experience, which I believe leads him to take a rather broad approach to philosophy, advocating applied but varying philosophy that works for people in a Darwinian sense.

It's hard to call what Peterson said nonsensical when

A: Harris didn't let him fully explain his views and

B: Peterson didn't attack the weaknesses in the arguments Harris had because he was busy trying to get the conversation back on track every time Harris derailed it

People keep having these threads talking about who won. That is because they are like Harris, and need every conversation to have a winner and a loser. This pisses off people more like Peterson, who wants a conversation to be helpful to people, more than for it to have a winner and a loser.

>it was just a discussion between two people. Harris prefaced this in the beginning. He wasn't there to listen to him ramble.

Harris treated it like a debate. Sam Harris can't adapt to changing situations, which is a terrible quality in a host. If his reason for butting in when it wasn't appropriate was that he said he would at the start of the interview, that's just stupid.

Rogan, in contrast, adjusted his usual hosting style to accommodate peterson, which led to a much better interview than if he held to his usual back and forth style. Harris is again, autistic, and thus has low social intelligence. I actually have to question if Joe Rogan or Sam Harris is smarter when the former has gotten his brain rattled around repeatedly and poisoned it with drugs.

Peterson continually misuses the term 'Darwinian'.

And he cannot concede that objective reality exists, how could any rational person continue a debate with this loon.

Again, all that happened was just a discussion. He didn't treat it like a debate, it was called a disagreement.

You seem to just not like Harris.