Stop trying to redefine the nature of gender to push your agenda!

>stop trying to redefine the nature of gender to push your agenda!

>now watch me redefine the nature of truth to push mine.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2KWXdDYEz10
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

truth=/=gender

It is a truth that there are two genders, but under Peterson's notion if this information will lead us somewhere unpleasant it is false? He has not thought this shit through

Not gonna lie, used to be a huge fan of him but this redefinition of truth is really what made me stop listening to him. But seriously we can't let him have the nuclear codes

>says feminists are right
>says alt-right are bunch of whiny babies
How is he the hero of Sup Forums again?
youtube.com/watch?v=2KWXdDYEz10

>>now watch me redefine the nature of truth to push mine.

that's not what he is doing

...

His actual argument is that if truth doesn't serve life, it's not true enough.

> Proff Peterson

> He has not thought this shit through

Chose one.

If something is unthinkable to you, you can't reach that truth.

There is a subset of reachable truths.

the 20 second pause in that debate after Harris raped him was the most awkward thing I've ever heard. And I used to lurk beta cringe threads.

I've listened to it, there was a pause, but the pause is not a disproval of this theories.

>nature of truth

I am a blob of meat, all I can experience are illusions - some of which might be based on the truth.

And what makes that a worthwhile pursuit? Its essentially anm semantic argument that is centered around changing our concept of truth to ensure that we never bother with things that might be dangerous - if that isn't pernicious I don't know what is.

Not to mention that it is a intellectual dead end in that we would ultimately become bogged down with constant appraisals of whether something is worthwhile or not.

I don't think he's a bad guy I just can't understand the purpose of his reasoning.

Redherring

Thanks for the naval gazing. Would you care to try and discover something about the nature of the perceived universe now?

His version of truth is going beyond our basic understanding of truth as being with accord with reality. As I understand he means truth as life, goodness and whatever stimulates "goodness" in society.

Someone not so long ago came up with ethical dilemmas. For example: "Recently your dog died and insted of burying it you ate it in the privacy of your home." Or: "You bought cooking-ready broiler and had sex with it". I believe if you stick to basic understanding of truth you will see nothing wrong with these examples, but if you side with "Petersonian" you will see decadence, corruption and chaos. Everything what goes against life.

he does long pauses during his lectures as well. it's him working out how to best articulate his arguments

>boys have a penis, girls have a vagina
>redefining the nature of gender

...

I haven't read about his arguments but is he arguing that truth cannot be separated from value, and therefore reflects more than just reality, but morality as well? If so I agree with him. Truth is not the same as fact.

This guy gets it

What we consider as true guides our behavior. Dogmatic adherence to the scientific method and rationalism can lead to some very serious moral dead ends and dangers.

I see it a lot like neoliberalism. Capitalism has lead us to a very prosperous era, but as people rely on it dogmatically, it has also birthed offshoring, mass immigration, neofeudalism, military industrial complex, world bankers and many other ills.

He would argue that if we destroyed ourselves with atomic bombs then the science used to create the bombs would not be true because it lead to annihilation. I don't know why he feels the need to conflate what is true with what is just. We don't need to alter our perception of the universe to know whether something is moral.

He can make an argument for it (barely) but what is the point? We already have systems of morality without having to pull the rug out from the scientific method.

>hurr durr Harris raped him in that debate

Harris went full autist

>only scientific fact is true I accept no other vision on what truth is
>I'm going to bait you with scenarios where you have to admit X is true regardless of anything
>Peterson doesn't take the bait and keeps going on about sufficient truth rather than absolute truth
>reeeeeeee
>Harris tries other bait
> Peterson still doesn't take it
>Peterson starts getting frustrated and hyperbolic as he always tends to be
>Harris reeees some more
>Harris calls it quits

Oh yeah such a rape indeed. Harris is unable to do the thought experiment of leaving his own position of what "truth" is (actually Harris is talking about fact as this user points out )

If he ever studied under a pragmatist seems like Harris understood little or nothing about it. In the same way, the way he let the conversation strand on that is his fault. Lost some respect for Harris during that chat.

That has been a known quantity for a very long time. Its not like people don't take ethics seriously in science. It says a lot about him that he thinks altering our entire perception of reality is a worthwhile sacrifice to combat this one specific problem - one that is already known no less.

sort yourself out

Harris pushed Peterson to the point where Peterson actually says "well I think that facts are not true"

Its possible that there is some substance to what Peterson is saying but he hasn't thought it out enough to try and sell it to other people, he ended up coming across as absurd.

Dude is an asshole making up bullshit to try and justify him being a cunt who can't just respect other human beings.

Him, Her, They, Them? I don't care, just be a respectful person and you're fine in my book.

The problem is that most people aren't philosophers or scientists, who can consider ethics in a functional way. The so called "ordinary" people are subject to the most powerful memes and take their behavioral guidelines from those they admire and from those who hold power over them, their families, their friends, their social reality.

Science can be used to explain away all kinds of degenerate behavior, like cuckoldry and mass immigration.

Rationality and the scientific method in reality work as a buffer against real human concerns. In practice the subconcious female and happy merchant axis uses it to suppress valid and healthy male instict.

If we all were philosopher gods, sure there would be no big problem. That's just not what reality is or how nations, communities and civilizations are built.

Well that's because in his view facts don't constitute what is true or not, since you can never divorce a fact from the utility it has / the behaviour it produces.

It's not like he said "coffee isn't a liquid", it's more along the lines of "coffee isnt a necessity".

I agree with you that Peterson is bad at explaining his basic assumptions though, but he is a psychology professor, not a philosopher. That's like me being grilled in chemistry when I'm a physicist, sure, it's close but I probably won't come across well.

So the logical conclusion is a literal Ministry of Truth where things are deemed true or false based on their usefulness to mankind? Who then decides what is useful and what is not?

He is not against calling a trans person according to what they look like.
He's against new made up gender neutral pronouns and he's against how the law is sucking it up to SJWs

When did he try to enforce his into law?

No. That's the other extreme. The true way is proper balance determined through an evolutionary process.

>Ministry of Truth
We already have it, it's the MSM

The solution is not for someone to impose on all others, but for every one of us to wonder whether this or this will help you and our fellow humans flourish or not.

How is this any different than the Ministry of Government defining murder as Bad?

At least 98% of us have no problem with that.

Gender is a linguistics term. There's four of them (in natural gender languages). Sex is the term for mammals.

>It's not like he said "coffee isn't a liquid", it's more along the lines of "coffee isnt a necessity".

That is not how he puts it across at all.

It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If we observed a meteor coming towards Earth would it be considered not true because it spells our doom? The meteor is still coming regardless. Do we stand around questioning whether or not we can consider it true while it flies towards us? Thats also what I mean about getting bogged down, ironically the method is as unpragmatic as it gets.

How seriously does he take this stuff?

this

Murder has been a crime in every civilisation we have ever known about. Its as close to objective morality as you can get.

...

I fucking hate trannies

His problem is not truly that it is enforced into law, he disagrees with the fundamental idea and that it is being forced into the Zeitgeist. The law just happens to be the method used.

>he hasn't sorted himself out

>Dogmatic adherence to the scientific method and rationalism can lead to some very serious moral dead ends and dangers.
Oh no, how frightening.
Who cares? Do it anyways.

>murder = crime in every civilisation
How about death penalties? Even average people think killing someone can be good sometimes, so how is that anyway close to objective morality?

What do you think he is doing then?

How about no - pic related

Philosophy grad here and this depresses me

I wish philosophy was unionised...

words and actions are not the same, friendo. a ministry of truth is trying to control words and thus thoughts.

Many people don't see the death penalty as murder, thats why they don't oppose it. If you told them the guy was innocent any sane person would be against it.

he is trying do decipher how the materialist worldview is wrong.

he is putting the root axioms back back, 500 mln years ago.

his first principle is that we should concentrate on ACTING, on HOW we ACT.

don't ask what the truth is. ask first HOW you would arrive at the truth, how you would decide what the truth is.

just take one step back in the process and observe the human being doing it.

It's not like he is telling you that you have to adopt his views or you can't have your own though.

>your laptop is literally government
>if you can't see that, well, then you aren't think about it at all

sex = biological
truth = philosophical
genders : apply to nouns, not living beings
take a hike, kike

Needs a third panel showing a liberal setting the fire.

What the fuck is murder then? Give me a definition. It can't be the killing of innocent because very few, if anybody, are completely innocent in life (Childeren are an exception).

>There's four of them (in natural gender languages).
No, there isn't. It depends on the language.

he looks fkn depressed
seriously?
wtf it really passes

He's not really redefining truth, he just thinks that the word True should be limited to things at the top of the Truth Hierarchy.

For the atom bomb example, ask the question "what happens when you split the atom?".

1. An explosion happens, Truth achieved!

2. Oh wait, we also immediately use it as a weapon and kick of a Cold War that lasts decades.

3. Oh wait, we might all die when the US balkanizes before destroying it's nuclear stockpiles and Jihadis get their hands on a couple nukes during the confusion.

Given 1 and 2, it is obvious that if you limit your view to 1, you are missing a large amount of important information. Building the nuke might still have been the best option, but if you weren't considering 2 you were not interacting with the higher orders of Truth at the time.

If 3 turns out to be correct, then 1 is not True. In this case, saying that splitting the atom causes an explosion is so astronomically shortsighted that there is no reason even to discuss it. Any future civilization that stumbles upon our ashes would not be concerned with the mechanics of the weapon we used, but in the chain of events that followed from building the weapon.

it would be really great if people knew the most used in philosophy definitions of truth.

without some basis, discussion is difficult.

Sort Yourself Out™ ®

he should run against trudeau with that slogan.

Its a pointless semantic argument then. You could replace the word "True" with the word "Just" and thats where we are basically at now.

>hey there is a lot of energy in these atoms
>hang on mate that could be dangerous
>good thing that there isn't a lot of energy in these atoms then!

Orwellian as fuck senpai

Also what if our understanding of splitting the atom provides us with good and bad? Schrodingers Truth?

>leaping this hard

Thats Peterson's logic m80 not mine

Didn't watch the debate between him and Harris because I'm the thought of it sounded painful, but wasn't their big hangup that Peterson viewed "truth" in the philosophical sense, while Harris viewed "truth" as roughly synonymous with "fact"

probably misrepresenting

You're missing the role of the Truth Hierarchy.

>on the scale of a laboratory
>there's a lot of energy in these atoms

>on the scale of the entirety of human history and civilization
>nuclear weapons destroyed everything

At the larger scope, the first case is still factual, it's just not really worth considering. At the larger scope, the title of Truth is awarded to the most relevant result.

There may be a better word for it, but I don't see how using Truth in this way is wrong. I think Peterson uses Truth because it's easier to imagine a Truth Hierarchy than a Fact Hierarchy. Actually, this might be another good example.

>calling this concept Truth isn't wrong
>calling this concept Just/Most True/Xingxangafu communicates the concept better

Of course, it might also be the case that calling the concept Xingxangafu leads to people not internalizing it in the proper way, even if they understand the basic quicker.

The central idea is that you need to try to broaden your scope to view all relevant information. It's not always possible, but it's easier to do when you don't equivocate the relevant information at the small scope with the relevant information at the broad scope by describing them with the same word.

Also, Truth Hierarchy isn't something I've heard Peterson say. I'm describing the idea this way in an attempt to restate the concept. I might be getting some of his position wrong in the process.

I love Peterson and he has a good heart, but I don't get the idea that the arbiter of "truth" is the good or harm a truth does for the species. Something can be true and still be harmful.

Was his point that something should not be regarded as "true" if it's dangerous just as a bulwark against disaster? Like, does he know that something can be true AND dangerous, but he's saying it's best to just say fuck it entirely and disregard just to be safe?

>you gotta open you mind MYAAAN

these circlejerks are sound more and more like new age faggotry, which it is.Jordan is a semi retarded hack pushing for deprecated ideas.I'm just waiting for him to do a guide on how to decalcify your pineal gland and making a artificial merkaba so you can connect straight to Platos warp and soak all the memes.Except, unlike typical philosophy/new age faggots, he talk against SJW type so he is le based...

neo/pol/ is proving itself to be populated by braindead, bandwagoning kids that would eat dogshit if it had the shape of swastika.I was insane to think that pol hated dogshit cause its dogshit, not because libtards like dogshit.