What did Jordan Peterson go full retard on Sam Harris? Sam Harris completely BTFO him. No...

What did Jordan Peterson go full retard on Sam Harris? Sam Harris completely BTFO him. No, you can't make up your own bullshit definition of "truth". It's self-contradictory.

Jordan Peterson is good when it comes to politics, but philosophically he's as dumb as a goat, it was easy for Harris to destroy him.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZnLTkCfrU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You can't tell the difference between information and truth? That is so 20th century, just like harris.
You can see how this failure plays out in the msm and how it reacts to wiki leaks and other manifestations of modern data because they are stuck in the 20th century too.

Nobody BTFO anybody, it was just a clusterfuck where nothing was said.

Jordan wanted to have a "let's assume monkeys can fly" debate, and Sam wanted to define how we would know if they could fly and what constitutes flying.

Neither of them could undo their own autism enough to get to a ground where they could talk about something.

Literally nothing happened for two hours.

Disagreed. Harris was perfect. Jordan was being a gay post-modernist relativist.

So you agree with Jordan? I'm no Harris fan btw., but he was the better thinker in the convo.

t. Slovenian "intellectual"
You're even dumber than Zizek, you know that right?

Peterson is operating on a wavelength far beyond Harris' reach

Harris got absolutely humiliated, and now he's running scared as evident in his most recent AMA podcast

Thank you for contributing to the thread with that magnificent post, profound Hollandese thinker.

I can't believe you really think that. You're baiting me, right?

There are long articles and videos elaborating on what Jordan did and why he nested the definition of truth inside of morality.

In short, Jordan starts out with a Nietzschean/Darwinan perspective, which subjegates everything to the experience of the human animal, meaning not accounting for abstract realities where truth lies which are independant of human production using speech etc.

You can not say something is true if it destroys the only thing to whom truth would matter ie: humans.

Harris subscribes to an autismal kantian metaphysical perspective in which truth lies independant of human experience.

But do you not see that Jordan's meme position has to be "nested", to use this faggot expression you've taken up from him, inside of the normal definition of truth?

That is to say, when Jordan says in the interview: "I see truth in a Darwinian sense," his is at that moment STATING THAT AS A TRUTH, ie. "for me, truth is what is useful" - so Harris should have asked him, IS THAT TRUE OR NOT? He would say yes, for me, it is true that truth is what is useful, and then he would catch him using two definitions of truth simultaneously.

Nietzsche was a good writer, good sociologist, good psychologist, but awful philosopher. Darwin is completely useless and irrelevant for epistemological or ontological questions. Trying to apply Darwin to epistemology or ontology is outright ludicrous.

And the real shit is both. Hegel realizing absolute spirit

You literally have no clue what he was talking about.

Do you see what I mean? If you tell me "we are looking at truth from two different perspective" - I can then ask you FROM WHICH PERSPECTIVE DID YOU UTTER THAT SENTENCE?

Good post, thank you for contributing constructively to the thread!

I see what great minds Peterson has among his followers now :)

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

Ultimately Harris was ridiculously autistic. Harris demanded total agreement with his position, and was so completely unable to talk to another human, that at the end of the podcast he claimed Peterson was simply purposefully lying.

youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZnLTkCfrU

I bet you cant even explain Petersons definition of truth, the way he displayed it in the podcast.
You are just not smart enough to understand.

Nice meme :))))
It's easy to meme, it's a bit harder to think

le "X is autistic" fallacy
You're saying that DEMANDING LOGICAL CONSISTENCY AND TERMINOLOGICAL PRECISION IS AUTISTIC?

OK I'll watch this and then demolish whatever he has to say because I know in advance that it will be false. Jordan's position is untenable and self-contradictory.

OP needs to sort himself out

Yup, very good vid.

You can argue that truth is useful for continuing life. He does that because it would then follow that faith has value since it aids the discovery of that which is true ie: certain religious aspects and the concept of god, thus "proving" god is true and atheism is a load of balls.

And yes Nietzsche was not a philosopher, if anything he considered himself a "psychologist" more than anything, a rather good armchair psychologist.

Well I have a degree in philosophy, while Peterson has only a degree in psychology. I think I understand his position better than him, and I also know the works of Nietzsche better than him.

And I also can demonstrate Nietzsche's position is wrong. It can be proven wrong using pure deductive logic.

I can prove God is true without having to alter the definition of truth like he does.

Peterson is EXACTLY THE SAME as the SJWs, even worse.

They want to redefine pronouns but he wants to redefine basic words like "truth".

Harris was right to tell Peterson he's worse than the SJWs.

>Slovenian intellectuals

>I have this
>I can demonstrate that
>I understand this

You are all talk.

I feel like I can't insult him so much because he is basically an American Colony at this point because of Melania.

I have to go buy me some beer now because it's illegal to buy or sell alcohol in this gay country after 9PM. You can ask the other Slovenian if this is true or not... so I'll be back soon.

Peterson is worse than the SJWs because he's redifining the meaning of words, just like they're doing with pronouns.

It's impossible to have an alternate definition of truth, because if you tell me "Truth for me is what is useful" - I will ask you IS THAT SENTENCE TRUE OR NOT? what will you reply?

Suppose you reply "yes" - do you mean that in the "standard" definition of truth, or in the sense that it is useful?

We can go from here and I will show you how it leads to contradiction.

I have to go now, BBL.

Oh right guys, your countries have higher GDP/capita so you are stronger than me philosophically and I should shut up :)))

And Melania golony hnehehehe

WELL MEMEEDD DDD :)XXXX

THE DONALD!

i fucking hate this post-modernist relativist objective truth garbage I fucking HATE IT. It always fucking ends up with why do we exist or why bother or rather a nihilistic sense because the opposition can't form decent fucking arguments instead they just say HEY MAN NO ONE IS RIGHT.

Why even bother having science why even bother doing any god damn thing if you are like this. Who gives a fuck about what you call people it doesnt fucking matter any way because there is no truth only your own truth which doesn't fucking matter anyway.

Filofaks is a retarded leftist shithole mainly focusing on continental garbage. You have like what one logic course, no mathematics and no focus on analytic philosophy.

It's a complete waste of tax money and your degree is worthless.

Thank you for contributing to the thread with that magnificent post, profound Slovenian thinker.

I only want you to proof your points.
You are talking out your ass trying to sound smart.
I asked you to explain something and you choose to ignore it, what do you expect?

>I have to go buy me some beer now because it's illegal to buy or sell alcohol in this gay country after 9PM. You can ask the other Slovenian if this is true or not
So now truth is whatever the other slovak says is true? Why does he get to decide what is truth but professor peterson can't?

none of this retarded bullshit means shit if it's not useful, and peterson has established a great deal more of reality as true by his statements

Jordan is isn't taking a reletivist position. He is taking the position that you just do not know what is true and can not (aside from conciousness). This leads to the necessity of trying to get close enough to truth, which means you can actually judge people on how well you think they manage it.

I didn't even listen to the podcast and yet I know this is bait.

Who has the meme of Sam Harris "you're hot"?

This might be the moment to start cutting your losses, buddy.

The incentive for truth is inherently survival.

>you just do not know what is true and can not (aside from conciousness)
Is it true that you do not know what is true and can not know what is true?

So if something does not contribute to our survival is not true?
Is that your position?

>Filofaks is a retarded leftist shithole mainly focusing on continental garbage. You have like what one logic course, no mathematics and no focus on analytic philosophy.
I agree.
Still, Jordan Peterson is an idiot and if you think his position makes sense you're not good at thinking.
See:

The only good post in this thread.
Thank you Ameribro

You're not getting it

Then explain it.

Its pretty obvious what he was saying. A philosophy major should be able to entertain that, granted it was under developed there because of how abrupt the podcast was. But thats no excuse.

Yes, because it has not been truthfully described if it does not.

If you describe a cliff as 'a place to sleep', then this is not truthful because it is not a good place to sleep.

That is an inherent part of the definition.

The only reason for humans to even have cognitive reasoning abilities to determine truth is because it increased survivability over not being able to do so.

You keep saying "it was obvious", " you don't get it", but you refuse to explain it yourself.

Are you going to defend the Peterson "truth = useful" position? Otherwise GTFO.

Slovenian bro, what are your thoughts on ?

The only reason Harris didn't go with it, is because he knew where he was logically going. Which was obviously counter productive to his brand. Why do you think he was so defensive?

Besides that. If you studied philosophy you should know hes full of shit and selling rebranded plagurisms and total snake oil. Hes a total fraud.

>Yes,

Stop there.

When you said "yes", what did you mean?

Think about it for a moment.

Which definition of truth you had in mind when you replied "yes"?

what the hell is petterson babbling out? only question is are you objectivist or subjectivist

>Sam Harris
>ever btfoing anybody

Thanks for the laugh OP HAHAHAHAHAH

I'll listen now Leafbro. give me 15 min to reeply

The same one as you.

You just don't realise your incentive is survival.

I agree Harris is a fraud in a way. His moral philosophy is totally wrong etc. I'm anti-Harris most of the time

I'm not defending Harris. I'm only telling you that redefining "truth" leads to contradictions.

exactly, but being a subjectivist is contradictory, isn't it?

If you tell me "truth is subjective" I will ask you: is that true in itself, or only for you?

Harris' cult of followers is even more fraudulent.

wait, I'm not disagreeing with that. It could be that my incentive is survival. I don't know if that's true or not, but it could be true, I allow that

But we don't need to redefine the meaning of the word "truth" for that. There's no point in doing that.

We can say the incentive for truth is survival while still retaining the objective definition of truth

what's the point of redefining the very conceept of "truth"?

The one who should have explained it was Peterson. He wasn't allowed to.
Harris didn't let him flesh it out. So watch his youtube and figure it out or keep trolling. You obviously don't have a degree.

I agree, I'm against the Harris followers etc.
I'm just talking about this disgusting idea that truth is relative and only what is useful is true

NO. Science doesn't work that way. Truth is independent of usefulness.

He did flesh it out he said "truth=usefulness" and Harris showed him how that position leads to all kind of absurdities

Peterson even admitted it as some point that he's confused and doesn't know how to answer (after a long awkward silence)

Again I AM NOT a supporter of Harris. I dislike 90% of what Harris says

But in this case I have to be on Harris' side!!!

IF YOU REDEFINE THE MEANING OF THE WORD "TRUTH" YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THE SJW AND THEIR "PRONOUN" THING

OP trying so hard

that's the definition, and same question still applies to objectivism too.

I before is posted, I was once again thinking that what I'm then? Since I believe that there is underlying objective truth, but realize it's still subjective image I get... back to old existentialism again.

This.

Truth is a metaphysical concept. We can never know truth, but we can recognize it's properties.

Ultimately you have to sorta shut your brain off to understand it. Its a perfect paradox. It makes absolutely no sense and perfect sense at the same time. This notion is seen time and time again in all cultures, but most thinkers these days tend to ignore it. Greeks sure as hell knew it with their circles and squares.

It's a ton of fun when you kinda get it. It makes you a lot happier and able to appreciate more sides of arguments.

Remember, anyone who claims to know Truth is a liar.

This 10/10 post. Total waste of time podcast

you should really only take postmodernist ideas like relative morality and shit like that because postmodernist ideas about objectivity and truth are fucking retarded and hold no weight beyond "scientists are never going to fully understand everything" which is just gay and cliched AF

What's wrong with Harris' moral philosophy?

You pathetic little Newtonian.

Peterson is talking about greater truths and metaphysical truths. The day to day definition stays static. To then ask me if what i said is true is either disingenuous or just simply not willing to even entertain the idea.

I'm listening to the podcast now. When Peterson gives an example of a white lie. He says it's false on some level, but true on another level. That's just not true though... a white lie is a lie, it's not true on any level. The INTENT behind saying the lie is something truthful. For instance, if I say to my grilfriend "you look good today" to make her happy, even though she really doens't look good on that day, it's a white lie because in general, I do think she's attractive

But that doesn't make the sentence "I think you are attractive today" true. It's still false, it's still untrue.

What makes it a white lie is that even though it's untrue, the INTENT was good and it reveals another truth, the truth that IN GENERAL, I find her attractive ,and I want her to be happy.

Why conflate that and say the sentence is true on a level and false on another level?

I cannot believe you guys didn't post the fucking link. God damn you.

>"We can never know truth"
Is it true that we can never know the truth?

It's arbitrary and logically inconsistent. You can't be militantly atheistic while also arguing that objective morality exists and that you know what it is. That's just arrogant and, frankly, the kind of thinking that should be below his paygrade.

Scientists won't know everything.

Humans are imperfect beings. We have limitations, science has proven that to us time and time again.

Post modernism focuses on our relationship to truth and takes a negative spin that we can never truly know it so it must not exist or at least not be worth searching for. Fundamentally they're not wrong, but this is where faith (in a sorta non religious way) comes in. You have to have faith that there is Truth, that you can strive to find it, that IS worth searching for. Even if we can't perfectly define what society is, for example, we still know what we mean when we speak of it to one another.

Somehow through some metaphysical miracle that in underqualified to try to explain, we can have a conversation about society even if we might define our axioms differently.

WELL he says "the worst possible thing is that all of us suffer to the maximum degree" and that's a situation we don't want.

OK, we don't want, but why is that "bad"? It's not bad. Suffering cannot be bad in an atheistic worldview. Why is making someone suffer bad? In an atheist worldview, there cannot be absolute right and absolute wrong.

This.
I agree with this user 100%
He said ti better than I could with my broken English and drunken head

I know with 100% certainty that we can never know truth. It's absolutely true my man.

You clearly don't get it if you don't understand it's supposed to be a paradox.

It's not redefining, it's just acknowledging the purpose of truthfulness.

It is a moral endeavour.

When you say you ABSOLUTELY know that we cannot know the truth, you are saying a contradiction. You are saying we both know and not know the truth simultaneously. How do you account for this?

This is the problem with Peterson's position too, and Nietzsche's

And btw. thank you for being honest and admitting it leads to a contradiction. I respect your intellectual integrity. Most fucktards in this thread don't admit it.

>No, you can't make up your own bullshit definition of "truth"

Use a conception of truth that's been around for 100+ years

>Y-Y-YOU CANT JUST MAKE SOMETHING UP JUST LIKE THAT

Atheists believe absolutely there is no god. That use to be all it meant to be athiest.

OK. OK. I have no problem with that.
BUT that is not Peterson's position!
Listen to the podcast again.
He's not just saying "our pursuit of truth is motivated by Darwinian will to survival" or whatever
I would have no problem with that
Instead, he is REDEFINING the meaning of what it means for something to be true. He says "X is not true if it's not good for us and our survival". Listen to the podcast.

Autism/9000

We have different words for what you are trying to mislabel truth.

In math, for example, we might consider the claim:

>If a+b=0 then a^2+b^2=0

This is what we call a "valid" statement.

Now, consider the claim:

For all A, there exists a B such that A + B = 0

If your domain under consideration is the natural numbers, the claim is false. If your domain is the integers, it is true.

In short, even in very dry, formal logic the word "true" is context dependent. Where context does not matter (the first example) we use a different word to label it: "valid."

Sam's point of view is not tenable to anyone with even a competent high school education. Sam is the one muddying the meaning of words.

You're fucking with me now on purpose, aren't you?

Do you not see how "truth is context/domain dependent" is different from "truth is what is useful for our survival"?

You must be meming me on purpose.

It's a paradox, and that's GOOD.

Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks because he knew he knew nothing. The bowl is most useful when it's empty.

BUT HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR CONTRADICTION?

If I say to you: "The teacup is and is not on the table" that makes me unintelligible, right?

So how is that paradox you're referring to you intelligible?

>Instead, he is REDEFINING the meaning of what it means for something to be true. He says "X is not true if it's not good for us and our survival". Listen to the podcast.

He's not redefining anything, the category that you and many other people used for truth was woefully unsophisticated. The colloquial use of truth broke down because they were "going there" in a sense with going back to first assumptions. You can take this point and meditate on it, or you can continue to stick your head in the sand, as you've been doing with this thread.

Wait but 1 + -1 = 0 and 1^2 + (-1)^2 = 2

Why does it matter that we use Peterson's definition (the only acceptable one) rather than the fullautism/9000 of Sam Harris?

The truth of something has always had contextual evaluation, for example, a Darwinian one (although not the only possibility). Because it is context dependent, truth can inform our actions.

When we see a kid with Down's syndrome (or some equivalent retardation like whatever Sam Harris suffers from), we evaluate that individual as not as responsible for their own actions as a normal person. The downie or Sam will lash out in outlandish and even comical ways, flailing their arms or going full retard in a debate. We give them sympathy and compassion because we perceive their mental deficiencies. Alternatively, you could think about how we sometimes consider the circumstances of a crime in evaluating the punishment. If someone is abused as a child and grows up to shoot their parent as a teenager, we're never going to give them the death penalty. We can see where they were coming from. The truth of how horrible their action was depends on and is shaped by context.

A paradox is self contradicting. That's good for me, but seems bad for you.

Why do you think that is?

Sorry, I meant to write

>if a + b = 0, then a^2 = b^2

Nvm, didn't read your whole post.

>people think truth = facts

HAHAHAHAHA

you are right but good luck trying to make a normie idiot understand that. They only understand extremely basic shit they see on TV. Post-modernist ideas are fucking built right into everything they watch and read its fucked.

>people still think they can define Truth

It's like they didn't start with the Greeks... huh...

>Harris can't into abstract thought
>chimps out the whole time
>this means peterson was btfo

The idea that there is no Truth is as old as the idea of Truth but most seem to think it's some grand new intellectual pursuit.