What does Sup Forums think of Jordan B Peterson?

...

only Sup Forums's bottom-of-the-barrel-tier posters care about this retard

Intelligent and based in reality

Further proof that Sup Forums is the most intellectually diverse forum.

White CIS racist.

Sort yourself out.

That's the Chinese food truck in the background fyi

Not giving in to Canada's fascist language police is bottom of the barrel now?

On what basis are you calling him a retard? Have you listened to any of his lectures?

he's a cool man. he's very passionate about being moral and finding truth. he doesn't really have radical political beliefs but that's okay, centrist-types are great for bringing the other sides to debate.

Sam Harris fags out

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

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.

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.

For pretty much all of human history, mankind has understood that "truth" was context dependent and related to the domain of choice.

For example, in primitive mythos about the rise and fall of the sun, you have stories about gods that decide to ride chariots across the sky each morning. This is an early articulation of ideas like actions have consequences and so on. A grandiose way of spreading a comprehension of how we act and how we should act.

Fast forward many tens of thousands of years and a deadly thought virus swept through society on the backs of the autistic. The fullautismo/9000 kids, unable to properly deal in social context, metaphor, and multi-layered meaning, started comprehending religion in a straw man form as something that was believed literally.

Their psyches were thus thrown into deep disarray and they embarked on a quest to reground themselves (to revivify their father) and find meaning in the world.

The folly of their ways eventually led them to misappropriate the word truth to scientific (generally "valid") claims. Intuitively knowing that truth was related to action, and needing some means of informing their own action, but unable to comprehend the ways in which all the mentally healthy adults talked about such things they invented stuff like rational materialism (Sam Harris styled ideologies).

The great philosopher that Nietzsche was, he could see where all this would go.

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.

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.

he is kek

To sum up, the pseudo-intellectuals that we can typify with the example of Sam Harris (fullautism/9000 folks) 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 and kept the kiddie gloves on during the podcast. Peterson knows that Sam's childish worldview 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 mental degenerate states that produce people like Sam Harris.

Peterson did the same thing we do to children who are violently abused and eventually lash out at their parents. He comprehended the context of Sam's mental deficiencies and failure and went light on the punishment (easy on Sam's worldview) out of compassion.

Only people with retarded mental development see it any other way.

philosophaster nonsense

Sam agreed that context matters though.

Peterson's argument is like saying:
> Math formulas can only be true if they look pretty.

Sam says that prettiness is important, but it's not what we mean by truth.

Peterson says that a math book is usless if nobody will read it. And nobody wants to read an ugly book; Therefore only pretty statements can be true.

Taught me how to sort myself out.

one of the few, if not only, educators who is actually calling out the distorted nonsense that is infesting the minds of our youth. Peterson breaks down the fundamentals of how accepted cuckery erodes the very foundations of a civil society.

redpillaging like a warlord.