What the fuck is this guy's problem and why was he unable to accept the basic definition of truth on Sam Harris'...

What the fuck is this guy's problem and why was he unable to accept the basic definition of truth on Sam Harris' podcast?

I've been waiting for ages to see someone take down that smug pseudo-intellectual, and I had hoped that Peterson would be the one to do it.

Instead, all he does is stumble all over himself whilst attempting to redefine "truth," which, is nonsensical, isn't conducive to discussion, and a cession of reality to the forces of the Left that Peterson himself is against.

I'm genuinely curious for the opinions of Peterson's fanbase here on the subject. Did he do well in his discussion with Sam Harris, or did he drop the ball?

Not at all, this was such a shitty talk. It's not really his fault, Sam Harris a fucming shit. He went on about definitions and shit while JB wanted to argue about the real shit

...

true
1.being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:
a true story.
2.real; genuine; authentic:
true gold; true feelings.
3.sincere; not deceitful:
a true interest in someone's welfare.
4.firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast:
a true friend.
5.being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something:
the true meaning of his statement.
6.conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like:
a true copy.
7.exact; precise; accurate; correct:
a true balance.
8.of the right kind; such as it should be; proper:
to arrange things in their true order.
9.properly so called; rightly answering to a description:
true statesmanship.
10.legitimate or rightful:
the true heir.
11.reliable, unfailing, or sure:
a true sign.
12.exactly or accurately shaped, formed, fitted, or placed, as a surface, instrument, or part of a mechanism.
13.honest; honorable; upright.
14.Biology. conforming to the type, norm, or standard of structure of a particular group; typical:
The lion is a true cat.
15.Animal Husbandry. purebred.
16.Navigation. (of a bearing, course, etc.) determined in relation to true north.
17.Archaic. truthful.
noun
18.exact or accurate formation, position, or adjustment:
to be out of true.
19.the true, something that is true; truth.
adverb
20.in a true manner; truly; truthfully.
21.exactly or accurately.
22.in conformity with the ancestral type:
to breed true.
verb (used with object), trued, truing or trueing.
23.to make true; shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately:
to true the wheels of a bicycle after striking a pothole.
24.(especially in carpentry) to make even, symmetrical, level, etc. (often followed by up):
to true up the sides of a door.
Idioms
25.come true, to have the expected or hoped-for result; become a reality:
She couldn't believe that her dream would ever come true.

Sam Harris is just not intelligent enough to understand Peterson.
Not even joking. Peterson is on a whole other level.

I don't know why they spurge over him. I actually attended U of T and took his second year course, and was friends with people who worked in his lab. It's drugs. He takes a lot of recreational drugs and babbles on. He's also pretty intelligent and a very good public speaker, which is why a lot of people listen to his psychobabble.

His first lecture in the second year psych course consisted of showing us the "Be Prepared" song from Lion King and then going on and on about what all the imagery used in the scene meant, and how Scar represented Hitler.

TL;DR: He trips out on drugs, but is also really good at speaking so dumbasses think they're actually shit behind it

Don't get me wrong, Sam's performance as a "moderator" was abysmal, and he failed to steer the discussion into any productive subject, but Peterson had no reason to get stuck up on something like the definition of truth.

at what timecode of the video does he make that expression?

Sam kept going back to it. It made the debating kind of boring because you could ask anyone about the definition of truth and it would turn into a debating and probably some disagreements. You could focus on other things and come back to why your definition is different

Scientific realists trying to ascertain metaphysical truths is just absolutely fucking hilarious. Science can tell you what's the world made of, but it can't tell you what's moral or how to live properly or how to 'live in the truth', as Peterson would say.

If you can't define the thing you're discussing, what's the point in discussing it?

He went mad

>Instead, all he does is stumble all over himself whilst attempting to redefine "truth," which, is nonsensical, isn't conducive to discussion

Harris sperged out in that talk and torpedoed the discussion, not Peterson. but Harris has that scientific rationalist fetish for BEING RIGHT.

Too much dick polising and not enough Nietzsche/psilocybin/Taoism/Niels Bohr

Nothing exists that cannot be described by the adjectives "true" and "false". "Truth" points to no discoverable object. It is a reification.

RISE AND SHINE MR FREEMAN
RISE AND SHINE

you can see all his lectures online, and he has not done the lion king before now year 2017. why are you lying on the internet?

also if that's all you got from it, then you didn't understand the course, he goes through the idea of all the modern thinkers, Karl Marx, Frederic Nietzsche , Carl Jung , Sigmund Freud. kirkegaard, and also Russian authors like Dostoevsky , and some Americans pragmatists

and he see it through the lens of clinical psychology, which is his field. its a really nice course and has nothing to do with drugs. its very rational and grounded in empirical science when possible compared to other social science classes

That's some copypasta, I've seen it several times before, it's certainly not true.

Agreed

>If you can't define the thing you're discussing, what's the point in discussing it?
It's not that the definitions aren't established, it's that one person is passive aggressively going in circles about them. I don't know if Harris does this deliberately to work up his opponent or not.

His problem is that Sam Harris is dumb

His analysis is actually based on psychoanalysts like Jung though. You can't really talk about unconscious symbols and archetypes and sound like you're not on drugs.

Sam Harris is either an autist or extremely intellectually dishonest.

Watch his response video on his channel. Basically harris is a a cuck

>"well excuse me right wait, let me unpack that for you, say, right, right, now let me finish this and I'll get to my point after I unpack this, what I mean to say is all muslims must be systematically obliterated in the name of the god of abraham"

jbp is fucking outstanding
that's that

>RISE AND SHINE MR FREEMAN
W-wait, the SJWs are really the combine controlled by aliens from the Zen dimension? And Peterson is the white coat warning about a resonance cascade? It suddenly this timeline has come into focus for me

Why are you lying? He showed the lion king, first lecture in PSY230H1 when I took it in the spring semester of 2013.

He doesn't discuss drugs in the course, but in the psych department he was buying adderall off the undergrads in his lab in Sid Smith. Everybody in the psych department at U of T was into some shit. Prof. Einstein cheated on her husband to steal research data, Prof. Dolderman tried to fuck one of his students.

>You can't really talk about unconscious symbols and archetypes and sound like you're not on drugs.
That really just goes for people who have a hard time differentiating symbolic meaning and connecting them to concrete phenomena.

He's a LEAF

All you need to know
Don't listen to him cause he has no idea what he's saying like 99% of leaf posters on /pol

Definition of truth is not established. Most people don't even believe there is such a thing as an objective truth. Then there's the question of can we even know the truth. Then there's a question if the man is basically guessing what truth is, why would someone's guess bound other people to live in that truth? If all human guesses at truth are thus equal, than why should anyone accept anybody else's truth but their own? But subjective truth is contradicting the very nature of truth, which is objective in nature. Can the truth even have a foundation in Man, or does it have to come from a Divine source? You see, it's a really complicated matter.

You know I haven't really noticed how much Harris stutters.

Wow, sounds like leafs are the epitomy of moralistic and honorable honest people.
Must be your heritage

>Prof. Einstein

what year are you from? and why was Einstein in canada

really makes you think

Nah, I usually mention it whenever I see a Peterson circlejerk post on Sup Forums and it always gets dismissed as lies. You want me to post a pic of my old student card from U of T?

You forgot to turn your proxy off, faggot

Gillian Einstein, retard. She's a professor at U of T.

It really isn't. Something being objectively true doesn't in itself tell anyone what choices to make. Meandering about and away from the definition of truth like you're doing is simply a crude way to paralyze a discussion.

can someone of you guys explain to me why exactly Sam Harris is shit/ a pseudointelectual?
I have watched a few viedeos of him and listened to some of his podcast, simply because of all that trash talk on Sup Forums and i have to say, other then being an atheist, i have literally no problem with this guy. He seems reasonable and indeed intelectual...
what am i missing?

p.s. he IS smug, yes. But that's it..

id rather see the grades from the course, the goal of the course is to sort yourself out with the self-authoring,

i dont think you sorted yourself out and god bad grade and are salty

Once again leafs show to be the worst posters on the board.

Well, I've also heard that the president of my country whores herself for money. I heard it, thus it must be true.

In any case, what are your the grounds on which you accuse him of psychobabble? The man has psychology in his little finger.

>doesn't in itself tell anyone what choices to make
Yeah well sure if you're a nihilistic moral relativist to whom all actions are devoid of any inherent meaning or value, expect for the 'selfish' value. And I'm not paralyzing anything, those are just basic epistemological questions that are as old as we are.

Got a 80% in that class, which I was fine with.

I'm perfectly 'sorted', sorry I just didn't buy into the Peterson worshiping cult, man. I can tell you that every person I knew who took his course (who also did well) didn't buy into any of his stuff. They just learned it, regurgitated what he wanted on the tests and did the group assignment. It's a class size of 300 and people only care about their grade. To think that this course was really swaying the people who were taking it is just misguided

I couldn't make much of the whole argument.

To me it seems that to understand Peterson's argument takes a leap of faith. I don't really think either of them is wrong in their definition of truth, however contradicting that may sound.

>adderall
>drugs
Kek
If you had told me is was biffing lines and shooting up, I might disregard his opinion. He is a busy guy, for fuck sake.

His view of religion is one of a thirteen your old boy who's well-versed in biology.

>80%
>perfectly sorted

The major trend of psychology, and the field where you actually see improvement is in neuroscience. It's concrete, and the causes, results and effects are actually quantifiable. The real research is doing away with the philosophic slant of psychology's past.

Peterson is a philosopher more than anything

meant to quote

>sam harris
>truth
please, if there is a hack out there it's gotta be him

Considering that an 85% translates to a 4.0 with U of T's system, and that I was balancing it with a full course load, I'll take it.

Wait, if the course basically covered all relevant psychologists and you say ''no one bought into it'' then what the hell is left to buy into? I mean, if you all chose to absolutely ignore Jung, Freud and Piaget and Skinner, there's nothing left. And I'm sorry, to say that those people had nothing to say and that neuroscience can very well replace that is a very ignorant statement.

Oy veeey goyim shut it down

i have nothing against sam harris . ive watch a lot of what he is doing. his mistake his he is new-atheist which might be too dismissive of religious text and kinda assumes that people lived before was not as smart as we are today, therefor all their texts are lesser valuable or something. Also he is globalist which pol is strictly against i think. its typical for science and sci nerds to be globalist since its the Civ 2.0 utopia that will bring them intergalactic space traveling. its just not the case and all those fantasies about multiculturalism has since the 80's been portrait as dystopia in literature and movies (blade runner, children of men ...) rather than the utopia of the movies in the 60's (space odyssey 2001 , star trek , star wars) , these are the movies he grew up with. might mean something

>why was he unable to accept the basic definition of truth on Sam Harris' podcast?
He accepted that it's one kind of truth, it's a truth that tells you about the behaviour of matter. But it cannot tell you about moral truths.

In philosophy there are many notions of truth defined in subtly different ways. He acknowledged the difference between what he calls Darwinian and Newtonian truth.

He did pretty well in my opinion, I'm studied on his work enough now to know what he was essentially trying to argue. What he has to do is challenge Sam's world view and notion of truth, these ideas are called presuppositions, everyone needs to hold at least some presuppositions in order to ground the rest of your world view.

The problem in the debate was with Sam is that they hold different presuppositions and thus their idea of truth is somewhat different, and when Sam argues against Petersons idea of truth he does so maintaining his own presuppositions.

The reason that Petersons work is so hard to wrap your head around, especially from a very scientific point of view, is that it requires challenging your core beliefs, which people don't like to do.

What you find when you allow for a change in definition of truth like this, is that you find a truth system that can incorporate moral truths and not just scientific truths, which has utility to us in the same way science does, utility for social cohesion for example.

Eh, I'm not making any claims that I don't know for sure. He could be into other stuff, but I can tell you 100% he was copping adderall off of students. And another time one of his undergrads asked him for a reference letter, and Peterson agreed. Then he didn't do anything until the very last minute the student needed it, and just told the student to write it themselves and he'd sign it.

I KNEW I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE TO NOTICE THIS!

he has openly on television "agenda" show, talked about his depression, he gets adderall from doctor or whatever he needs. why would he get those from students lol

In psychology? It's all about the neurobiological causes and underpinnings to behaviours, thoughts and emotions. It's gone past learning the philosophy of a single person, and instead moved onto more objective things. Like understanding the neuromechanisms of the HPA axis and how stress changes the neuronal organization, which leads to changes in neurotransmitter levels and firing patterns, which ultimately affects your behaviour.

Adderall is not a medication for depression, it's for ADD/ADHD or narcolepsy. And I can't honestly tell you why he was buying it off students, you'd have to ask him. I learned of this in the fall of 2013 when I was working in the psych department at U of T. And I can tell you he was buying 5 bucks a pill for the 25 mg dose. Anything past that, you'd have to ask Peterson himself

All I know is that Peterson made me open my eyes in such a way I didn't think was possible. He made so much sense to me on topics I have tried to understand for years now, and he put the nail in the coffin. Bless this man.

Most people believe in science and rely on it every day, when you pull out your smart phone and expect it to work, you prove that you're a proponent of objective truth, because these devices couldn't operate without us finding out objective truths about the world. Objective truth is truth that is independent of subjective experience, so just because someone somewhere doesn't believe in science, doesn't mean our smartphones stop working, the processes which they rely on to work, continue to operate no matter what we believe about them.

The problem is incorporating ideas of how we should act into this scientific world view, that is essentially what morality is, and because this has subjective components it's a harder truth to arrive at, but there is something akin to truth there, it's just you have to open your mind a bit and be willing to challenge your ideas about what true means.

but its just a rumor ?, you didn't see it

aren't moral truths based on what we know about the wellbeing of ourselves and others, which is in turn derived through scientific inquiry and therefore a subset of scientific truth ?

Okay, great, we know how stress affects neurons, what now? Does neurobiology tell you how to help someone cope with stress? Does it replace cognitive behavioral therapy? It sounds to me like you're just measuring things and claiming that saying that 'stress affects neurons in this way' answers the question 'well how do I live normally in a stressful environment?'

I have actual work to do, so I'm probably going to stop responding. I respect Peterson for him coming out against the SJWs and fighting for free speech, all I've done is exercised that right to state the facts to the best of my knowledge. I bear no ill will to people that love him, but I promise you what I've said is true. Peace.

You have to separate engineering from science. I can make models of something to have it viable for market, but it doesn't mean I have an objective truth on my hands. To make a smartphone requires a lot of science, but a whole lot more engineering.

UofT is overrun by SJWs now, so even if he is a hack he is a welcome addition for free speech.

Why should the definition that moral behavior=wellbeing of others be accepted at all? Like, what's your basis for saying that? You've basically defined law, not morality. I mean, you're not doing anything positive for a guy you shoot in self defense, yet you're committing a morally allowable act.

you didn't give any proper arguments tho, other than some rumors that he was buying drugs from students. which does't make much sense

If we know what neurological changes cause the negative behaviour, and we know what signals the neurons to make that change, then we can prevent the changes or prevent the negative signalling for the behaviours through whatever mechanisms it uses. But, if you like Peterson's lectures, power to you. But if you want to get into the psych research field, neuroscience is completely replacing everything. If you want to do Peterson stuff you'd honestly be better off in Philosophy.

So the truth is, most of Sup Forums wouldn't care or know who this clown is if it wasn't for his chimping out over muh tranny pronouns. A first year philosophy class at any community college could give a better understanding of the human mind than Peterson's 2deep4u ramblings. The sad fact is that most of this board is either underaged or so woefully uneducated that this guy seems like the second coming of Kierkegaard. I mean, think about, if your philosophical diet consists of Trump speeches and Molymeme, Peterson starts to sound pretty good.

So your answer to someone who is stressed out would be 'don't get stressed out and the mechanisms that make you feel bad won't get triggered'. I mean, sure, neuroscience is very important, I'm just arguing it can't replace psychotherapy.

>Why should the definition that moral behavior=wellbeing of others be accepted at all
that's the definition peterson uses, truth being what benefits humanity

He made me consider religiosity again, really. The idea of Hell as human suffering by rejecting truth and Jesus as a "meta-hero" as he called him in Joe Rogan's podcast made me understand so well why so many scientists/engineers are Christians as well. I always understood the idea of religion as a metaphor or a tool, which is what made me quit believing after delving into norse paganism (the whole nordic belief system was orchestrated to keep the populace fighting and conquering), but Peterson explained anti-dogma so well that he basically forced me to start studying theology.

oh you're a rationalist
that explains a lot

Dude science lmao

Sure but you have to consider the word benefit. I mean, material wealth nominally benefits humanity, but in practice it's causing problems. The same goes for sexual freedom. Yet you can't claim that scientific inquiry supports the notion that these are actually bad. I think Peterson's view of benefit is more metaphysical. And what you consider scientific inquiry is just basic epistemology.

It's not 2deep4u if you have the basic understanding of metaphysics and abstract reasoning. A lot of his concepts are Aristotelian in nature actually. I don't know what exactly you're implying but it seems to me people have problems with anything metaphysical.

dude microexample lmao

Pseudo intellectual is an intellectual you disagree with.

That said Harris is not trustworthy. He once lied about a parable in the New Testament to make it sound like Jesus wanted to execute people. He had no reason to do that other than some pathology.

Peterson changed my life.

Peterson is loved here because he sells religion for atheists. These people are emotionally invested. Forget that his ideas are extreme forms of literary interpretation that psychoanalyze books from thousands of years ago.

Keep in mind that people have co-existed in one form or another for hundreds of thousands of years on some tribal level, where as science has only been around for about 500 years in any serious way.

Not only that but you need moral values to even do science, because most modern science is a cooperative effort, we live in a society which functions fairly well and people can specialize into fields they wouldn't otherwise be able to if we lived in a purely individualistic way.

Science helps us gain knowledge which increases our agency in the world and allows us to do more potential good and understand the broader impact of our actions and so allow us to make better moral decisions, but morality isn't reliant on that to begin with.

how?

JBP memes are just too great

No it means we can directly manipulate the mechanisms using cutting age stuff like radiogenetics, not to mention directly tailor medications to treat the root causes.

Why take your moral truths from any particular religion then? Peterson's ideas don't make for objective truths.

oh pic related

Sam Harris is the furthest thing from a "pseudo-intellectual."

Yeah but that rapes the biblical idea of it. It's supposed to be where the unjust await judgment not where innocent people are put by the unjust. His ideas are contrary to the actual bible. It is a new religion he is creating.

You're right. arguing with underage b& on Sup Forums was dumb to even try.

>Peterson had no reason to get stuck up on something like the definition of truth
that is his entire point. There are things that aren't measurable, that are still true. That was what the talk was about and Sam instantly shut that down, killing the discussion.

Sam assumed he was right, that is not the way to enter a discussion.

how do you arrive at a moral judgement without first determining the facts?

Facts change. Watch Peterson's lecture on Piaget.

>arrive at a moral judgement without first determining the facts?
>current year
>having to even ask the question

Why does Sam Harris hate Nassim Taleb?

The root cause is humanity and nature itself. If you wanted to eliminate bad influences on human mind, you'd have to put a person in a stasis chamber. I somehow doubt that some day we'll be able to have a pill for every single negative emotion or behavior, something like soma in Brave new world.

peterson was on cbc radio dropping massive red pills yesterday,im surprised they let him on

>Yeah well sure if you're a nihilistic moral relativist to whom all actions are devoid of any inherent meaning or value
yes yes that's a very cute meme but moral relativism only exists because people on your side of the fence have completely failed to establish the existence of absolute moral values and duties in any meaningful sense. even if god, heaven, and hell exist, the moral absolutist still needs to provide a reason why we ought to be his followers other than "it's my preference".

"If there is no God (there are no moral values), everything is permitted. Well maybe that is what they want."

This made so much clear for me. They cling to science because it allows them to rationalise their flaws so much they no longer seem to be flaws. And you don't need to work to better yourself if your are without flaws.

>Let's abort my kid because I don't want one yet: Kids are just atoms, who cares
>Let's extort my elderly neighbour so I can get a new car: There is no good/evil, who cares
>Let's live in my parents basement until I'm 40. There is no "right" way to live your life anyway, who cares.

HE'S SORTED MORE THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY UNARRANGE!!!

Petersons ideas are fascinating to me. Ever since I watched that interview with Molyneux I thought he has such a clear, lucid view of the world

I personally do not, I'm an atheist and don't believe that religion is a source of morality.

Peterson would argue I think, that the morality is in the actions of people over the years distilled down through stories to be the very best archetypes we can possibly imagine. Some of those appear as religious texts in christianity.

They're interesting ideas, I mean you can listen to his lectures free on his YouTube channel and he'll walk you through the ideas of archetypes and meta naratives. One thing for sure, it appeals quite a lot to the kind of nu-atheists and science driven individuals who reject traditional notions of religion but are seeking some kind of moral understanding, because it's the one thing that science cannot explain neatly.