New Peterson vid

New Peterson vid

youtube.com/watch?v=0p1UFiNiOek

Fuck this cult leader

Look here bucko

Go revivify your dead father

>Watching new Samurai Jack minutes ago
>Contained a homage to The Ecstacy of Gold
>Listening to The Ecstacy of Gold
>Find OP's post
>Peterson features a scene from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in his video

Crazy shit

Someone who talks about the dangers of political ideologies and talks about the truth is now a 'cult leader'. Fuck off piece of shit. Sort yourself out

Literally CTR.

He's under targeted character assassination. Do not let him fall Sup Forums.

This is excellent. Spooky

BASED

>that picture of PACBIC
>all those ugly fat bitches and numales
i am 100% not surprised in the fucking least

I hope he comes to my university, I have a bluepilled mtf trans sjw in my lab, should be interesting

the bald cunt in the bottom right corner had me crying with laughter

Lol: "If you're unwilling to defend your ideas, you should just shut up and go away."

How is Peterson still a thing after what Harris did to him?

How is he a thing after Sam Harris went on a tirade for 2 hours about semantics? Gee I dunno user.

he didn't do shit

he whole debate:
>fiction has value
>agreed, but it doens't inform us about the natural world
>agreed

>harrisbots: hahah btfo
wew

>How is Peterson still a thing after what Harris did to him?

What was that, exactly?

I wish this attention whore would go way

i'm confused. So is that ben stiller, or sam harris doing a Stiller impression, or is that ben stiller doing a sam harris impression? Is that Sam Harris?

can you faggots stop posting about this loser? nobody cares about him and their conversations werent a fight

Harris is the real simpleton here.

Peterson exposed the shit out of how lacking in understanding he is and would rather just argue semantics than have a discussion of substance.

but you posted it for the (You)'s so here's yours.

>University Professor actually doing something to fix the west
>attention whore who needs to go away
You're a mong

I like Peterson a lot, but the moment you start saying "he talks about the truth" you need to take a step back and analyze what the fuck you're doing.

>what harris did to him
they both looked like idiots after that conversation. that shit was Sup Forums semantics arguments tier

Sam had a debate with Peterson. Jordan was quite keen to get into his autistic rambling about slaying dragons but sam stopped him and forced him to clarify and get down to foundations. It turned out Peterson hadn't actually dealt with inherent flaws in his definitions.

Sam got him to admit he was saying contradictory things, Peterson had to take many breaks and you could hear he was on the verge of tears.

It was almost tragic. Sam destroyed his world view.
But Peterson took to youtube afterwards and attempted to backpedal. Sam had him back on the podcast because his fans wanted more, but he showed mercy the second time. Sam wanted nothing to do with it after the first debate, he saw what a useless hack Jordan was.

lol he's gonna fix the west now? Hahahahahahaha

Sam went full autist in that first debate.

Is anti-Peterson shilling a thing now?

he didn't "destroy his world view" you fucking nerd. keep listening to sam harris' hypnotism podcasts so you stay dreaming of sucking his cock

>implying he was wrong
Being autistic about the truth is a good thing.

Peterson is a meme thinker who is riding a wave of dissatisfaction with leftist academia. But he is wrong, archetypes are not real.

He's a cuck. Go post this shit on reddit

>Sam got him to admit he was saying contradictory things

Like?

Based

>looks at flag
sorry Australia, but this thread is not for you.

sam harris has the worst voice and i'm 99% he's hypnotising his listeners because they all act like absolute faggots who worship his brain. they would lick his ass if he suggested it

yeah that fuckin Hare Krishna cult looking motherfucker
what a tool

The guy can't even get himself together.
He is a mess. Has been battling depression for decades.

shill get out

>i'm 99% he's hypnotising his listeners
Hypnotism is just covert persuasion. I'm pretty sure he makes use of it. He may as well since he studies the mind all the damn time. Still a fucking cuck anyhow. He's afraid of cernovich for similar reasons.

Go back and listen to the first debate. I honestly cant remember what it was, but it was about the experimenters in the anthrax lab, sam got him to admit there was some truth that was invariant of utility to humans.

>muh semantics
it wasn't semantics. Harris was right to harp on it. How can they have any kind of discussion if they can't even agree on what being true means? peterson wanted to add something to it even if doing so made his whole idea incoherent. Peterson's a hack and ironically his theory is little better than "muh feelings".

Gee, I dunno, maybe wasting a 2 hour debate by getting hung up over personal definitons of "truth," or offering only criticism with no suggestion for Peterson's existentialistic views in another 2 hour debate

>Go back and listen to the first debate. I honestly cant remember what it was, but it was about the experimenters in the anthrax lab, sam got him to admit there was some truth that was invariant of utility to humans.

I listened to it, some sections more than once. Peterson didn't admit to any contractions and rejected Sam's context free examples outright. I don't think Peterson did a good job explaining his position at all, but there weren't any contractions in his thinking.

shariablue/ctr is out in force. one of them made like 300 posts on the same ip shilling against him in a couple threads but now they're on proxy or it's a team

Peterson meme thread? Peterson meme thread.

>brainlets don't understand the importance of clarifying definitions
Hardly a waste when it ended up demonstrating the incoherence of Jordan's theory.

>harrison literally getting completely stuck up on his deterministic meaning of truth and peterson literally allowing suppositions of his arguement to BE CHANGED so that the arguement can move forward
>peterson somehow lost to an ideologue who wouldn't budge at all for the purpose of the conversation
Classic.

Cernokike is an absolutely enormous faggot.

I wouldn't blame anyone for avoiding that fucking loser.

Fighting the SJWs in Canada that are terrorizing the schools.

I guess this always happens when someone gets popular, all the hipsters come and want to bring him back down.

Peterson puts forward a lot of great ideas in an articulate way, he is definitely a step in the right direction, which is why he's gotten a massive following in such a short period of time. He's arguing for western values like truth, and a revivification to the culture that we've perverted, disintigrated and discarded over the last century. That's why he reasonates on Sup Forums.
Practically noone else in academia is doing this, and the people that are are not as well read or as articulate as he is. Why would you shit on that?
Plus he's memeable.

Why would you want to move forward when you haven't established the rules of the game.
Don't put the cart before the horse.
I will have to go back but it seemed quite clear, Peterson didn't admit, but it was clear to anyone of sufficient intelligence he had been forced into a corner and had to give up an important line. I might be mistaken though.

fuck of shill

>How can they have any kind of discussion if they can't even agree on what being true means?

You can't really when Harris confounds truth with facts. most people have a murky definition of truth, but when called to task on it they get confused. This was pointed out in their last discussion, is there truth contained in Shakespeare? Obviously nothing in the story literally happened, there is no Hamlet, or Romeo, but there is "truth" contained in those stories and everyone knows this.

Thats molyneux

Sorry dude, I enjoy his theories and ideas and the reasons he bases them on.

Yeah I understand that I suppose, but sometimes in a conversation (probably bad form/bad idea to do it in a debate), you need to compromise to move onto a more important point. This happens a lot for me at least.

>Harris wakes up
>"how can I advance the causes I believe in today?"
>discovers free speech advocate under attack from the radical left
>"I have to talk with this guy"
>discovers he's a Christian
>"HAHAHA, FUCKING CHRISTFAG! HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW GOD IS REAL? HOW CAN GOD BE USEFUL IF HE'S NOT REAL?!"

Good job. Another victory for freedom of expression against the masses of indoctrinated serfs.

Oh yes, the half retarded, blue haired sjws are the problem. Once we get rid of Trigglypuff and her gender non binary girlfriend Rome will be restored.

...

He was being a bad host, he had someone on his show who he could've had an interesting conversation with but was hung up on bullshit, we can't agree on the meaning of truth. He should've just moved on, it's not even like they completely were on opposite sides of an argument, he was being arrogant because he had to be right.

That being said, I think their second conversation was great

They are (((SAM Harris))) followers.
Nu atheists, Destiny fan club, all the useful goyem.

Best innoculation against shrills is self sorting.

That's why sam was gracious enough to let him back on, he has important people to talk to instead he let Jordan rant about his memes for 1.5 hours.

Also talking about pseudo intellectual behaviour. Have you noticed how Jordan often attempts to subvert atheists by saying "I am the real Darwinist" or "young earth creationists are really more scientific than real scientists because they don't allow for non science".
These kind of statements remind me of the Marxist charlatan Zizek who is quite fond of pointing out how your ideology betrays itself.

>t-truth is bad goy we live in a post-truth world all that matters is the narrative

When you get down to it though regardless of those definitions and debates it doesn't discredit his messages. Even to say his world view is flawed is something that could be easily identified and he would agree with. Regardless of some flaws in his world view debasing him a platform is hardly justified.

I don't even listen to Harris that often, I prefer Dennett and Harris has been beaten by the likes of Chomsky.
But he blew Jordan out of the water.

>listen to Peterson on Joe Rogan
>watch architecture of belief with Molyjew
>study more of his vids
>take his advice, get myself together
>projects are getting completed
>room is clean
>my life has failure states
>gulag archipelago has me reading books again
>everything is looking up, no longer have nightmares about the heat death of the universe
Anyone else experience something similar?
I have often seen myself and Sup Forums as broken people trying to reform society back to a more orderly state.
Peterson's teachings have the ability to fix people and live a more honest and just life.
Is this why he's being shilled against so hard? Are people worried that he could bring purpose and productivity to the broken?

No I haven't actually watched all of his videos, I take it rather slow and research things while listening to his point of view and seeing how it stands up to what he's saying.
Like in a lecture if he says "this was a jungian/whoever concept" ill go look it up and see if it actually was or if he's just straining the truth.

I really don't agree with a lot of Harris' ideas mainly because of his deterministic approach/view point whatever.

towards the end of the podcast Peterson admits his ideas aren't fully fleshed out yet but still refuses to flat out admit he's wrong. This is only after countless examples given by Harris showing how his definition of the truth didn't make sense. They were all basically of the same structure, though. Just present a situation where knowing the truth is bad, yet that doesn't change it. This seems like a pretty obvious fact, do you not agree it is? Yet peterson can't seem to accept it.
>rejected Sam's context free examples outright
no, he merely tried to point to some invisible saving grace that he claims would be there in whatever context. He never explained how a context would solve the contradiction.
Why would he budge? There is literally no point in moving the conversation on if you can't agree on the definition of truth. It isn't a minor point you can just table for progress' sake. It's like trying to argue whether immigration has been good or bad for the country when one side doesn't believe immigration happens at all.

>"young earth creationists are really more scientific than real scientists because they don't allow for non science"
What?

Did he really say that? And if so, does the context excuse him?

That is more in line with Jordan's position. Sam is a materialist, he believes in objective scientific truths.
Jordan wants to subjugate those truths to human will.

friendly reminder that miserable nihilist sam 'faggot' harris got absolutely butchered by peterson

Fuck off you dirty fucking kike. I can smell disgusting parasites like you from a mile away.

Jordan is great, and he's bringing back moral piety in whites. Something jews hate.

Yes he said it in the second debate. It is like shitposting for academics, you could hear in his voice he believed it was true but wanted to use it to prompt sam to anger, sam didn't take the bait.

>most people have a murky definition of truth
that doesn't mean you can just make your own up, specially when your idea is self-contradictory. Do you not agree that Peterson's "truth" definition leads to contradictions?

Sorting your life out shouldn't be something you discovered through peterson, but at least he was someone to convince you. I find him interesting on a psychological point, he's great at dissecting peoples behavior

Yes, analysis spot on.

grats on getting sorted m8

I'm at the (what I hope) is the beginning of what you've gone through.
There was something at the starting 10-15 minutes of something like "if something in evolution works, it's true enough". It might not be objectively true to the absolute nth decimal place, but in societal interactions, true enough is as close as you get.

Yeah fair enough on that point I suppose. But you could quite easily argue the subsets of either of those. Something can be true in a certain context and untrue in another. You're really only able to get what I consider objective truth from a scientific viewpoint.

For example in the immigration debate, you could easily believe that immigration doesn't happen if you think immigration is people crossing the border to become citizens at all, you can also believe at the same time that people entering the country illegaly is not actual immigration, which it in fact is but you categorize them differently but both are valid.

>Just present a situation where knowing the truth is bad, yet that doesn't change it

this statemet is completely deprived from any meaning. care to give an example

I fucking died....

lies

>Sorting your life out shouldn't be something you discovered through peterson
nihilism is powerful, i dont know anyone with better solutions to it than peterson

Some people just need to stick to what they know.

In terms of interpersonal relationships, and self-analysis, Peterson is definitely the man to consult.

But babyish assertions that young Earth creationists are scientists is beyond stupid.

MFW those protesters.
>so after this protest you wanna get hammered?
At party: Like we totattly showed that biggot haha lol
For what purpose?

Do you accept that just because he helped you doesn't mean he has found a correct theory of the mind?

What's with the anti-petermeme posters?
Like that autistic fucking canuck whose been going at it for three days now.

>towards the end of the podcast Peterson admits his ideas aren't fully fleshed out yet but still refuses to flat out admit he's wrong

Wrong

>This is only after countless examples given by Harris showing how his definition of the truth didn't make sense

Those stale, context free examples don't help you in the nuanced, complicated real world. You can't take micro examples and build macro ones with them, that was his whole point. The husband is caught in bed with another women. Is the husband cheating? Maybe he is, but that removes potentially 20 + years of a relationship in this context free example. maybe the wife had previously cheated on the husband, multiple times, and the whole relationship is a massive lie because they fucking hate each other. Maybe the wife doesn't give a shit about the husband banging other women. Maybe it's all of those things at once, and that's his point, that everything is nested in a series of connections, and you can't take all the variables out of a situation and present it as truth. What Harris is really interested in is facts, and Peterson is a man of facts as much as anyone else.

>that doesn't mean you can just make your own up, specially when your idea is self-contradictory. Do you not agree that Peterson's "truth" definition leads to contradictions?

The pragmatic conception of truth has been around for more than 100 years. Your ignorance on the subject isn't his fault.

Well being in opposition to nihilism isn't a rare belief. When people say to think positively you think of it as some, hugbox, love everyone meaning When thinking positively is completely unique, we all have things we enjoy doing and you should explore those things and feed off the happiness it is giving you.

What sam is saying is, once you nail down a definition of cheating, it is either true or false, that doesn't change if you change the definition, relative to the old one there was a clear Boolean value.

i've felt nihilistic for a long time, and still do pretty much, and i'd never heard anything compelling to make me change my mind. that might mean i'm not very well read, but peterson has been the first guy i've heard who was able to cut through that. if i dont end up killing myself it'll be in large part thanks to him.

"I might suggest that if you are unwilling to defend your ideas in public then shut up and go away"

Fucking legend

Have you listened to any philosophers? Like alan watts or eckhart tolle, like peterson they're great at understanding consciousness and the importance of living in the moment

Peterson gives me hope that theres a Canada still worth fighting for

It is usually irrational to kill yourself. Unless you are in pain you are better off living as there is still a small chance your fortunes change or you live to see the singularity or something you desire.

a tiny bit of Watts and no Tolle. I was meaning to get round to reading Notes From the Underground.

I don't think he has a correct view of the mind but he's got a good enough view for you to improve yourself.

Just to chime in on the Harris vs Peterson
Peterson wants religion as an anti-apocalypse mechanism, religious centers of the brain exist and are filled in regardless of your belief in God, so it's a great idea to have those religious ideas be useful.

Harris is an intelligent scientist that has spent literally decades trying to find the balance of spirituality, cult and a 'secular religion'. The average man simply doesn't have the time or resolve to achieve what Harris wants everyone to have.

One day, decades from now we will have a better understanding of the mind and that understanding will replace both Harris and Peterson.

Until then we're arguing about chucking away the teachings of either person because they have a 2% disagreement in substantive actions to take.

>He should've just moved on
Again, the meaning of truth isn't a minor point you can just table in order to move the conversation along. It's called the universe of discourse, and it almost useless to have an argument if you can't agree on one.
I never mentioned debasing him or said his other arguments are therefore wrong. It just makes me see him as someone who I agree with on a few points instead of an actual intellectual though.
>But you could quite easily argue the subsets of either of those.
yes, in certain cases. Harris didn't know what points he was going to try to make if they moved on though and something like the meaning of truth seems so fundamental that I didn't see how they could put it aside and have a meaningful discussion until I listened to the second podcast.I think harris was trying to get it settled so they wouldn't just have to bring it up again when the differences in meaning mattered in another issue which with something that fundamental would undoubtedly happen. I'm not saying Harris was blame free, and obviously given their second podcast he could have moved along the conversation and not wasted a whole podcast. I just don't think the people here are putting Patterson's share of the blame on him, and I think he has the larger portion of it.

it's irrational if life is tolerable and may get better. if it's terrible and you dont believe it will improve suicide starts to look pretty logical.

>What sam is saying is, once you nail down a definition of cheating, it is either true or false, that doesn't change if you change the definition, relative to the old one there was a clear Boolean value.

His definition of cheating is incredibly useless because it lacks any sort of context. Yes the husband was caught in bed with another women, but because of (insert all the things i said in the previous post) it's clearly not as simple as Sam wants it to be, and more importantly NOBODY ACTS THIS WAY. Nobody goes into a room with their cheating spouse and doesn't drag the whole relationship with all its baggage into the ensuing argument. We aren't robots going around confirming true and false statements, we live complicated lives with complicated relationships and "truth" isn't so easy to define in many situations.

Peterson's theory or framework doesn't constitute science. He sets it up so it is impossible to dispute, because no evidence can constitute a counter example even in theory.
There is a word for that, pseudoscience.

>Harris is an intelligent scientist that has spent literally decades

he was first published in 2004

I take stock from both, but Harris always struck me as the very same double-standard talking tribal he accuses religious nutters of being.

His prosyltyzing of the Red State argument, which is just plain intellectual dishonesty, shows he is willing to spout nonsense without putting any clear thought in before speaking from authority. Or he knows but does not disclose, in which case he is giving clear thought in deceiving from authority.