Has anyone else lost all respect for this man after his cluster-fuck of a conversation with Sam Harris? as much as i liked him on JRE and his maps and meaning lectures i feel like he keeps hitting a wall when talking to anybody who isn't a leftist brainwashed millennial.
Who?
>>108723418Jordan Peterson, anyone who cares i want to see your views on that conversation, seems like Sam pretty much won that debate judging by the overall response
>>108723985it was boring as hell to be honest, just bogged down in minutia
>>108723203Too long . Whoever wins the debate isn't necessarily correct
>>108723985It was just 2 hours of nothing. No winner since they didn't even agree on what they were debating about until like the last 20 minutes.
>>108725482>>108725993it was pretty clear what they were talking about, they were arguing over the definition of truth in epistemology, a materialistic-scientific truth versus Petersons' pragmatic "Darwinian" truth which is easy to disagree with. obviously they weren't able to move on past that because if Jordan Peterson can admit he was wrong all along with his ideas about how he defines truth he will have to concede his views on religion
>>108723985Dabate? U Mean Sam Harris Not Accepting Peterson View On The Word Truth
Jordan can't debate for shitfully powered molymeme would assrape harris in a debate
>>108727362If U Actually Think A Debate is about getting some one to throw away all there world Views U need to get a grip
His self-admittedly gerrymandered definition of truth to exclude anything that people shouldn't know is disappointing.
>>108727507more like Peterson not being able to admit that pragmatism and truth are not intertwined. You can have scientific truths and you can have pragmatic truths, for Peterson, if the ends aren't justified and moral then the all thing isn't true. he is playing with language just like the sjws he is fighting.
>>108727738>>108727507you are fast at your shitposting ahmed from great islamic islandtime to flag you
>>108723203Havent listened to it because Sam Harris is a trashcanPeterson is obviously all over the fucking place in general but hes bumping up against something important...might take someone more down-to-earth than him to articulate it clearly
>>108727808How is that like a SJw That Clearly lays out What he Defines Unlike a SJw Who Cant Seem To Find a Reason Or Even Justify Most of there world Views after u make 1 argument about anything they belive
>>108723203It don't matter buddy. Just sort yourself out.
>>108727362Yea, that sounds totally clear
>>108727930Leaf Loses Argument, Attacks Person On Something Which Isn't True, Many such cases
>>108723203I think Jordan has something important to say but Sam doesn't want to hear it unless it fits into his predefined notions.
>>108727930I listened to part of it, and it was somewhat interesting. Epistemology is a cluster fuck, and pragmatism is the most sensible philosophy rather than twisting oneself into knots. > Pragmatic truth and scientific truth Eh, I can see why the two were butting heads. The whole Enlightenment project of seeking absolute truth and knowledge is a crap shoot, though it has spurred us on to innovation in science for sure. Is it a scientific truth that if you act like a beta bitch you'll get dumped by your girlfriend? Well, no, but if you want to keep her attracted to you, it would be in your best interests to not be a beta bitch.
>>108728333>what is epistemologyaruging over how to define shit is the basis of any philosophical argument, you can't have a discussion if you disagree on basic definitions, Sam Harris is referring to truth that everybody understands and accepts, while Peterson redefines it and adds a pragmatic edge to it which shouldn't be there>>108728195>sjws argue about clearly defines genders>Peterson argues about a clearly define idea of truthi dont see a difference, both arguing over well defined words that dont need redefining >>108728518go eat kebobs muhammad
>>108728668Something along these lines. What we find plausible is inextricably linked to what we already believe/find plausible. When you get down to foundation level ideas/axioms/definitions/metaphysics, it's a leap of faith.
>>108728845How are you leaf cucks so quick to respond like damn get a life bro.
>>108728845I Dont Think U Get it They Argue about The Fact That The Genders Everyone Excepts Dont Exist and There is Infinite Number Of Genders which Dont Even Come Close to Any Truth
>>108727599but why would he though? Jordan was the one making non-arguments. He would have made Peterson apologize more than he normally does.
>>108728195>How is that like a SJw That Clearly lays out What he Defines Unlike a SJw Who Cant Seem To Find a Reason Or Even Justify Most of there world Views after u make 1 argument about anything they beliveIs there something wrong with your shift button?
>>108728668>defending epistemology is now grounds for being close minded
>>108729352How Was He? Sam Wouldn't Let the Conversation Go Further Until They Agreed On The Same Thing
>>108727362It always confused me that someone like Peterson, who is clearly a great admirer of Nietzsche, was so quick to use rationalism to shout down the SJW left.Truth (political, social truths, let's not get into scientific 'truth') as a power projection is actually one of the few things the SJW left/Marxism gets right. Peterson seems acutely aware that myth making is crucial to building civilization. The question is, what myth making is constructive and what myth making is destructive? Sam Harris is a pseud but Peterson's own contradictions as a Classical Liberal doomed him here. Come home to the far right Jordan.
>>108729452nah I Just Type like This Cause Im Buzzed of some Meds
>>108729636And why should he let the argument go further if they can't nail down the axioms with which they wish center their arguments on?
>>108723203his patreon just got another 1k per month.you should try harder with whole anti-jordan campaign, even the subtle trys like this thread are failing.you filthy trans-subhuman
>>108728668Yeah, Sam is sliding into dogmatism. He broke from convention for his Ted talk years ago, then as the money came in, and his fame took off he just started playing it safe. I could tell them, that religious meme's are meta level software for organizing society, and some truths are convenient and wrong scientifically, but are necessary for the society to survive. It's funny, it feels so obvious now, what was drawing me back to religion wasn't spiritual salvation, but rather the need to save my society from destroying itself.Maybe I'm off base, but I don't think so. I actually started making a lecture about this, but I got road blocked, I didn't know the proper way to introduce all the component ideas.
I can't listen to Sam Harris talk.
>>108729628You can't hear the entire argument before criticising it?
>>108723203I think it was Harris' fault that the conversation went no where, he couldn't accept, on any level, Peterson's perspective of truth.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLddIjSp9k&t=0s
>>108729897I think you are pretty close to the truth, actually.
>>108729789Im Pretty Sure That The Conversation Wasn't ment to be around the Definition of truth, And if U really Believe That People Have 100% Proof Backing what they say then u may when Reconsider Life
Do people not understand what Peterson does? he has to work through thoughts before arguments can be built.Peterson already made a reply and they have been talking back and forth
>>108729693>It always confused me that someone like Peterson, who is clearly a great admirer of Nietzsche, was so quick to use rationalism to shout down the SJW left.>Come home to the far right Jordan.This so much this. His Darwinian pragmatism is better suited for the far right as it stands right now.>Truth (political, social truths, let's not get into scientific 'truth') as a power projection is actually one of the few things the SJW left/Marxism gets right. Can you explain what you mean by this?The question is, what myth making is constructive and what myth making is destructive?Anything that is able to reinforce the hierarchies without making too steep of a sacrifice constitutes constructive mythmaking. Where as destructive is anything that shows no regard for the myths entailed. (in my opinion)
Peterson does not disregard scientific truths, he sees them as in a scale too small to be relevant.Suppose your house is on fire, except the room you are in. You saying "this room is not on fire" is technically true, but it is an incomplete truth, and even useless.Another example is an exercise in which you try to define what a car is. It is true that it is a rubber, metal and glass machine that can move you around. But it is also true that the car shaped how cities are developed, shaped the world economy, and probably are bad for the environment.You keeping it to the simple scientific truth that the car is a machine made of metal, rubber and glass is indeed true, but it is not the entire truth.Furthermore, the reason as to why we seek the truth also matters. Under a Darwinian perspective, the search for truths serves to better mankind's adaptability to our environment. In that sense, truth seeking has a moral dimension where its primary purpose is the betterment of our condition.Now suppose you are a nuclear physicist. You discovering the properties of the atom, under a scientific conception of truth, would be simply a further elucidation and advancement of empirical knowledge. However, it is not all the truth. Nuclear knowledge allows us to build reactors which are (presumambly) good, but also bombs which are presumably bad. In that sense, the knowledge about the properties of the atom is also a gate allowing humans to make bigger projects, but also bigger mistakes.In a Darwinian sense, in which the well being of mankind is taken into consideration, is the Nuclear physicist doing something good, or something evil? It is impossible to currently know, as if we are extinct in a nuclear Armageddon, this knowledge becomes a negative, but if we never die in an Armageddon and instead solve our energy problems with this knowledge, then the nuclear physicist is doing good.
>>108730047why would he accepts Peterson definition of truth? if they can't agree on the basics why dig deeper? he has to provide evidence for his idea that any truth has to be not only pragmatic but also moral and not lead to catastrophes, this is how any debate should start. if you want to discuss the existence of a deity you define it first then you create arguments in support of it to prove your point, Peterson doesn't get a free pass, if he wants to ignore metaphysics all together to push his religious agenda then he needs to learn how to argue and defend his position.
>>108730500Why Argue With anyone if they Dont Already Agree With You - The Post
>>108723203How can you discount 99% of the mains ideas because they couldn't GET OFF THE GROUND in a 2 hour convo. Yes he performed poorly but are you really going to ignore the rest of the 99% becuase of 2 hours of a clusterfuck?
>>108730466well that was a lot of fucking nothing
>>108723203Sam Harris was a Clinton supporter. He is definitely a brainwashed leftist.
kike didn't want him to move onto racekike didn't want his inherent predisposition towards neurological defects to be exposed
>>108725993They were argui about what is "true". Basically harris said that true is something that is provably right, while peterson said that a truth is something that leads to our survival.Or somehig like that. Seemed like typical sophistry and re defining words.
This was a mix of Peterson giving a weaker than usual account of his ideas (maybe because of his recent illness - his most recent Youtube lectures are also a step down from last year's), and Sam being completely intransigent as he always is with anyone he disagrees with. Jordan then undermines himself by being overly conciliatory - saying things like "your position is logical, consistent etc" which was not necessary and not reciprocated because Sam has little in the way of intellectual humility. Therefore, Jordan comes off looking weaker than he is. IMO Peterson's position is closer to being correct but even Peterson does not have all the right tools in his arsenal to formulate it properly - and he's hamstringing himself by not taking a more "philosophy of language" approach to deconstructing materialism, which is the most obvious way of doing it.
>>108730466>but also bombs which are presumably badNot if we use "bad" technology to destroy our enemies though. Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisions. His principles are true when the only competing species is ourselves but what if extra-terrestrials wished to invade and we chose to not gone down technological roads which would have saved us otherwise. This is precisely where Sam and Jordan reached the road block that Sam wasn't willing to concede.
>>108730466addressing the nuclear physicist example, just because there is potential harm to human civilization in knowing the structure of the atom and the power within it wont make the scientific truths any less true. Just because people a thousand years ago had no idea what an atom is, doesn't mean atoms didn't exist and did not harbor powerful energy within it. you are implying that scientific truths care about pragmatism or moral outcomes, in fact you can have any number of outcomes from knowing any number of truths, the outcome does not change the fact. this is where Petersons' logic fall flat.
>>108730921How Does That Refine The Word "Truth" When What peterson Says Is True. say There are some Berries and u see some one eat Them and they Die There4 it is the truth that the berrys kill people
>>108731258Okay but if some other human eats the berries and doesn't die, do the berries then no longer kill people?
>>108730125I've thought about this for a long time. You have to look at societies as a large organism, and meme's are kind of like brain signals. They control the individual software on component pieces called people.Religion is a Operating System for society. It sets up the underlying conventions relatively uni-formally for the people inside of it. It doesn't have to be a religion, but for the society to work the assumptions need to be there, N. Korea has some built in assumptions, and divine truths. It exists as a meta organism.The ideas need to have several base assumptions for a society to survive, it has to grow, it has to defend itself, and in our modern age it has to subjugate lesser societies.Anyways, modern liberalism has become the equivalent to AIDS. It has undermined the societies ability to defend itself to hostile ideology by making truth and right and wrong subjective. Now, with this AIDS virus having crippled our ability to defend ourselve, these really weak fucks, which we could say are a parallel to a common cold (retarded migrant rapists, anarchists) are actually causing significant damage.Sam and Peterson have a whiff of the same problem, that universal morality is necessary for the society level organism to survive. Thats why they needed to talk. Thats why the conversation was so disappointing.
>>108728736If it works than there is a scientific reason for it. But just because we havent proven something through the scientific method, like in the beta male situation you posed, doesnt mean we should stop being alpha to keep a girl of being alpha works but is not epistomogically proven to work.
>>108731492Well Yes That Lead To The New Truth and Then If Some one eats them and they Die , There is clearly a bigger Truth
>>108730466>>108730712I think one point Peterson is trying to bring, is that narrowing the definition of truth to a purely scientific one separates it from its obvious moral dimension, and thus can lead to catastrophic end.What Peterson advocates narrows down to 'sort yourself out', and in a societal level, this means figure out what the fuck is going on so that mistakes allowed by the advancement of technology does not happen.>>108731074>Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisionsThis is true, and a good argument. Peterson basically wants to avoid the genocides of the 20th century, but we do not know if this is at all possible.>>108731179I don't think Peterson is claiming that scientific knowledge is any less true, I think he is saying that it is far less relevant than Darwinian truth, and thus our focus on it over Darwinian truth (basically philosophy), is deeply misguided as without a good Darwinian basis, scientific knowledge can become a source for great harm for humansSee the cold war for instance. If the US and URSS nuked each other due to political disagreements, all scientific knowledge becomes moot as the planet enter nuclear winter, while darwinian knowledge could've avoided that political crisis
>>108729897i think you are dead on the money. One of my professors who is a fairly liberal person even admitted that religion is a good thing for society because it allows people to deal with "existential angst".Religion influencing politics is bad because its not based in fact, but religion being a part of society as a whole is extremely important.
>>108723203Harris is a Zionist who shilled for Hillary all throughout the election. I won't listen to another word he says.
>>108723203These debates need a moderator.
>>108723203A FUCKING LEAFTrying to undermine our faith in Jordan Peterson.Of course it's a fucking leaf trying to do this.
>>108732201this is definitely one thing i disagree with him on but he is spot on on his idea against Islam and Religion.
BTW for those who aren't redpilled on Sam Harris, read this:https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/A yuuge part of his stature as a public intellectual is based on being a 'neuroscience PhD, but he has directly participated in almost no research - and in the little he did as a grad student, the actual experimental work was done by others - he's just listed as a "co-author" (who knows even how much of THAT he was involved with), and the research itself has been heavily criticized. TED and the fedora tippers' favourite neuroscientist isn't really a neuroscientist. It's rather like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and his (non)relation to physics.
>>108732278I volunteer to (((moderate)))
>>108731074>Jordan wishes to forget about the possibilities that we will never get along the way he envisions.No he doesn't, his goal is transcendent. The goal doesn't have to be possible, just inspirational and it's pursuit a benefit to our survival.
>>108732047Strange, perhaps the aristocrats and leaders of old knew this all along, but now that we have disposable time and perception we too get to see the man behind the curtain.
Truth is a spook.
>>108729897I agree. Humans have proven that they can fabricate ideologies in order to rationalize anything. Furthermore, all humans societies have an ideology, a lack of ideology often becomes nihilism or hedonism, which are gates to other ideologies as well.In that sense, we must find a good ideology for mankind. One that enhances the good traits of mankind, while suppressing the bad ones. Say what you want about Christianity, but it's pretty fucking good in doing that.
>>108730418>Can you explain what you mean by this?I tried to limit it to political and social truths. Ones that are 'accepted' by society. Values (equality, freedom) and truth (race as a social construct, democracy 'proven' as the best system, etc.). To me, the SJW left understands master morality to some extent though their ideology technically opposes it (Antifa demonstrates this with some of their actions). They know instinctively that values and truth are imposed through power and violence rather than through 'rational' discourse.>Anything that is able to reinforce the hierarchies without making too steep of a sacrifice constitutes constructive mythmaking. Where as destructive is anything that shows no regard for the myths entailed. (in my opinion)Yes, I am in total agreement with this viewpoint. Nothing more to add.
>>108723203Most I was cringing at Harris's sophomoric understanding of epistemology desu
>>108732600It's possible. A lot of the older civilizations seemed to understand human nature better than people do today.I think a lot of it has to do with the corruption of the arts.
>>108732645Not an argument.
>>108732874Want power, me horny, hungry, bored.
>>108732645Infinity is a spook, therefore eternity is a spook, therefore death as seen by athiests is a spook.
>>108733333Fucking Muslims Have over Run The Internet in germany
>>108732828Irrational truth doesn't necessarily have to be spread through power/violence though. There are plenty of other emotions you can play on to spread a message emotionally
>>108732843He has a sophomoric understanding of geopolitical matters and yet people still hail him as an expert in dealing with Islamism.Again, he's a pseud. His parents were in show business. He's just another mediocre kike who found his way to a megaphone because of nepotism. He has nothing original to say. Nothing new to add to the metaphysical or geopolitical debate.
>>108732414Interesting I didn't know that before hand. It should be a disclaimer to every podcast of his. I'm still not convinced of the validity of Jordan's perspective it sounds like he has set himself between a rock and a hard place with his opinions. I know he is a very nuanced person so that leads me to believe that he's not saying 100% what is actually on his mind.
>>108733490that part
>>108733198That's a spook.
>>108732793Christianity is ok, but I don't think it's exceptionally romantic. The Joan of Arc story is better, many stories are better, but yeah, as far as religions go it's one of the more poetic ones.I don't know how people can say the Religion of Islam, which is essentially a biography of a mediocre warlord, is divine. Blows me away. Then I remember people are idiots, and their religious software includes murder for apostates and then it begins to make more sense.
>>108732828Ah I see, so are you saying that Jordan leans towards the slave morality because if so I'm inclined to agree with you.
>>108733490What has he said about Islamism that's wrong specifically?
>>108723203He's a libtard and doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not surprising he had trouble with a lightweight like Sam Harris.
>>108733927t. a intellectual heavy weight that uses "libtard" and listens to AM talk radio
>>108723203Nobody's perfect. I like what Ben Shapiro has to say on a lot of things. Until he goes whole hog for Israel. Take what want and leave the rest. You can't get wrapped up so much with the people when you really need to be focusing on ideas.
>>108730880This.
>>108729693>Come home to the far right Jordan.It's his only chance desu.
Religion is more than just a social glue, or personality enhancer, or nihilism mitigator. Reality has a transcendental aspect, and there are 'truths' that are part of the code of reality you could say (the Matrix is a decent metaphor in this respect), which point towards the transcendent. Pieces of the code show up in almost any Religious traditions worth the name, some more than others. Throwing that accumulated knowledge in favour of "science" (really 'Scientism', Taleb has done good work ripping the new atheists on this - Taleb is worth reading as a corollary to this debate) is premature to say the least.
>>108732600>>108732874>>108733744It's clear even from ancient times most of the rulers were pragmatists who did not believe in outcomes from gods and oracles but used them in a social context. Perhaps rulers from all times understood that the opiates was necessary for the masses. Many of these ideals were engineered by brilliant social thinkers into viral like structures to spread their political influence and power. The average person's education and continence is not going to let them deal with the nihilistic crisis in a reasonable manner which is why these educated western societies are sliding into complete suicidal behavior they have no moral ground to stand on, and so cultural marxists have completely subverted their thoughts into madness. But I think this can be tracked to a lack of vigilance to activist academia rotting the ethos as Japan is still mostly fine being isolated from these ideals despite being non-religious.
>>108733490I'm surprised he graduated with a degree in philosophy from Stanford. Makes me think that the degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Did he forget everything he learned or what?
>>108734061There was some study recently that using more cursewords is a sign of being. A more honest person.Jordan peterson is very honest
>>108733791He's a Christian and often defers to moralism to bolster his arguments (particularly against Marxism and National Socialism). Still, he seems to have an admiration for personal excellence and believes in some form of naturally occurring hierarchy achieved at through Liberalism. I think he is suffering through these contradictions.>>108733823That the ideas of the third Abrahamic religion are the source of the violence and not the races that have adopted it. He also dismisses the idea that the West has had significant impact on Muslims lashing out in the way that they have in their home nations and in Europe. I think this viewpoint is absurd.
>>108734061He is a libtard. What else would you call him?
>>108733744>>108734316So what would be the characteristics of a good ideology for the west? Christianity is somewhat divorced from scientific truths and also allows a certain relativism that can be detrimental
>>108734294The problem is a lot of it is so old that divining it's true meaning is basically impossible.
>>108723203Still meaning to watch his lectures on youtube.
>>108723203Every philosopher defines truth. OP is getting mad at a doctor for washing his hands.
>>108734919That is a very good question. It's the sort of question a man has to sleep on a few nights. It may even be the wrong question.
I read this entire thread and who the fuck cares? Just let him shit on stupid trannies so we can focus on more important things
>>108735528I'm still inclined to believe that Atheism with a firm grasp oh memetry is the biggest redpill and will literally save our selves from becoming slaves to semitic thought patterns. What we should be doing is trying to rid ourselves of the spiritual jew and replacing it with redpills.
>>108735528>>108734919There's always better systems but Christianity has seemed to do better than the other modern ones. Except for the fact that it's more liable to subversion I guess.
>>108734919I don't really think a solution exists and we are inevitably in a morally dying society that will crumble and then reform.Ideally we'd like to get people secular, but infused with enough of the classical moral teachings like Locke, Aristotle, and Mills to be able to function in a libertarian society while being reasonable to their fellow man. But this will always be prevented by the elite who prefer divided and manipulable populaces, thus the massive funding to tribalistic identity politics in our current situation.One option is to double down, go full ethnocentric return on the basis most non-western societies are following ethnocentric behavior and exploiting the multicultural charity of the West. However doing this while maintaining personal freedoms and not becoming the very thought crime filled theocratic fascists we're fighting against is hard.Another option is to go full bore ancap on the global stage through some one world government, then it wouldn't be an issue as people would naturally form ethnostates with freedom of movement. Suffice to say it's going to get a lot worse before it gets a lot better.
>>108735712Spoken like a true pragmatist although no one here mentioned anything about stopping him. We're only discussing Jordan with respect to his debate with Sam Harris.
>>108734919>What would be the characteristics of a good ideology for the West?National Socialism or something similar (draw down on the Nordicism obviously). Christian/Judaic morality has to be expunged from our societies in order for us to reassert ourselves.
>>108734406He said he spent a lot of time with Rorty, which expains some things - Rorty was a bluepilled sophist idiot.
>>108735864Nihilism is a harsh mistress. Aside from that, what you should know is most people are too stupid to understand abstract concepts. They don't don't read existential material, they watch TV with shitty puns and laugh tracks in the background.The religious leaders are right. You can't fix stupid.
What the fuck is up with all the intelligent posts from leafs all of a sudden?
>>108736080>thus the massive funding to tribalistic identity politics in our current situationWhite people are the only people who even remotely consider libertarianism. I'm inclined to believe that it is more of a biological component rather than being pure ideology*sniff*.
Nowhere does he redefine truth, he reminds you truths can be beyond the objective
how can you guys keep defending ideologies and prehistoric tribalism? how about instead of relying on stories and mythologies to explain reality we use our fucking brains? People can be elevated to higher levels of intelligence, sure atheism may lead to nihilism and other unwanted paths but i'd take the most likely truth over some bullshit lie invented to keep the brain dead masses going apeshit. Religion is an archaic tool, if any of you care about the future of mankind you should be thinking about how to progress scientific advancement and trans-humanism, not staying in your little tribes with stories of made up lies.
>>108736364>kiwi intellectuals
>>108736568Do you have proofs, australia?
>>108735864"Atheism" often comes with its own compulsive thought-patterns.
>>108723203Name one person besides Donald Trump who you agree 100% with all the time with out exception.
>>108723203> i feel like he keeps hitting a wall when talking to anybody who isn't a leftist brainwashed millennial.what do you mean by this? Sam is an atheist, Jordan is not, and they're both having a deep philosophical debate about the nature of truth that helps them both define their spiritual beliefs.Jordan just believes in a philisophical principal that truth=greater good whereas Sam has a scientific view on truth where it is facts, no matter how evil.
>>108736396Its just that we evolved in places with winters so we developed forethought.I think other people are capable of it, but lack as much capacity or motive for it. Being able to see the long term consequences of different actions leads people down a path of, don't fuck with me and I wont fuck with you, type thinking.
>>108736578Rationality doesn't give answers to moral questions. Individualism is erosive for nations.
>>108736578Because induction fails on every level at explaining things like "is there a god?" Because whether people know it explicitly or implicitly it's an unanswerable question and this creates problems for the human psyche.
>>108736396No I think it's just a matter of western thinkers being the only ones smart enough to create such a basis of moral philosophy that a high trust high freedom society like libertarianism is possible. Unfortunately because the nature of liberterianism being easy to attack as it allows freedom of thoughts and people, neo-marxists, Islamists, and sophists have a field day dismantling social trust while hiding behind the very freedoms given to them by libertarian ideals. I think as long as these sort of tight knit authoritarian groups hold power it remains an impossibility. >>108736578The problem is, the second religion is gone some social manipulator fills the void with something equally occultish and dogmatic, see Social Justice Warriors and race shame culture.
>>108723203Did you see his metaphysics of Pepe?I have to wonder if he himself has not had a delusional break with reality. Between that and his insistence on Pinnochio as a prophetic story, he seems a little off the deep end.
>>108723203I have never watched or seen anything he's done tbqh. I know he's been parroted around /pol/ a lot since he did a video on frog symbolism or some Kek shit, but I have no idea what his specialty is or what his political opinion is. Not even sure it's worth investigating.Also Sam Harris is meme-tier intellectual. Probably an okay scientist but weak on philosophy. If he crushed Peterson, that kind of says it all.
The great irony here is that Harris' objection to Peterson "changing the definition of words" is literally what Harris does in his pseudo-philosophical book, wherein he redefines "science" to mean "any unbiased inquiry" which means his basic claim isn't "science can solve ethics" it's effectively "philosophy can solve ethics" which is a self-evident claim nobody needed to write a book about. He just uses word semantics and footnotes in a way to speed past the ought/is gap so he can say "science can solve ethics."This is why nobody "defeats" Harris - he means philosophy when he says science. Hilarious to see him critique someone else for that.For the record, Peterson's conceptualization/defense of pragmatism isn't super great, but it's a philosophy which has no more holes in it than Harris' (value problem, etc.), it just seems counter-intuitive to most non-philosophers so Harris gets to ride a wave of ignorance to perceived superiority. Pragmatism is a legitimate philosophy with a storied history. It doesn't make it right, but when people say "look how stupid Peterson is for not understanding truth" they're just displaying ignorance of the history of philosophy (another thing Harris is guilty of, he basically doesn't address metaethics at all).The important question is: how to determine correct moral values. Peterson has a good explanation based on mythology and human evolution I find useful. Harris basically says "good things are good" which is probably why he didn't want to let the debate get to the point where Peterson grills him on the value problem.
>>108736319>Aside from that, what you should know is most people are too stupid to understand abstract concepts. They don't don't read existential material, they watch TV with shitty puns and laugh tracks in the background.Yes but clinging to that average will weigh down the top. I think that society would sort itself out based on what ever paradigm takes hold. We're probably not getting another opportunity like this for a long time. Going back to what we had is a missed opportunity for something better to come along. A worldview centered around Western Domination with staunch redpilled secularists at the helm is way better than what we had before. We have a hold of memes all it would take is to apply them.
>>108736578I am going to assume this euphoric post is an attempt at irony.If not, do you really believe the needs of everyday people and their motivations can be propelled by the idea of scientific advancement alone? Do you know what small fraction of the human population actually contributes to these advances? Even when science and space exploration was 'celebrated' by the general populace (Space Race) it was built upon tribalism and ideology (Cold War, East vs West).
>>108728668This. K haven't listened to the whole debate. But just the beginning when he was like, "so we can just discuss it on Red-it". I thought, he's unsure and needs to take it back to his circle jerk who can reassure him he's right.
>>108737165>western thinkers being the only ones smart enoughThis sounds like you're agreeing with me>>108736933>developed forethought>I think other people are capable of it, but lack as much capacity or motive for itAgain I think you're agreeing with me too.
>>108736578
The problem with that debate was Jordan was debating with a Jew. It's impossible to actually debate anything with them because they act ignorant, descend into minutia(Which Sam clearly did over and over), or circle back and reargue points that have already been gone over. Hitler explained in more detail in Mein Kampf.
>>108723203>Sam HarrisThey never had a actual conversation as far as I can tell. Maybe you leaf fuck could post a link to the Audio?I know its hard for you liberal fucks to actually provide anything like evidence, but, it would help your credibility with anyone but brain damaged liberal losers.
>>108737310>wherein he redefines "science" to mean "any unbiased inquiry"So basically he thought karl popper was a pretty cool guy. Riveting stuff if that's all he's rehashing in a clumsy way.
Can someone explain what the whole pragmatic truth is about? Why would somethings usefulness decide how true it is? And haven't Science proven to be extremely useful?
>>108736578Seems to me that the only way to manipulate the masses reliably is through ideology, so we may as well make sure it's an ideology that strengthens society instead of weakens it. Sure you can try to educate everyone so that they only need science and not ideology but that seems like a pipe dream to me. A pipe dream because ideologies galvanise people together and make them form groups so there is some sort of built-in pull towards them especially for most people who reject individualism because it's easier/happier to live life as part of a collective (normies).If something leads to nihilism in any way then it is not the answer because nihilism is cancer to society. People need something to live for and societies need a shared myth to believe in (the myth doesn't have to be a false one necessarily).
>>108723203This looks like a screenshot from some game.
>>108732414Also he has published exactly ZERO papers since he got his PhD. And given recent controversies over fMRI, it's likely that "his" thesis contributed nothing to the human race. Sam Harris is a kike trust fund fraud.
>>108737768Science makes atom bombs but not the wisdom to unmake them, not research them in the first place or how to live with them.
>>108737768https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>>108736578Tribalism is still useful but I agree with you that most of our myths are well past their time. Having the knowledge we have of memes and the means to spread them as we do now puts us at a distinct opportunity to use these powers for good and to do away with unnecessary illusions.
Sam Harris was splurglord, if you took his calm voice for anything more than thinly veiled autistic s reaching you don't deserve Peterson. You can continue past a literal a declaration of variables and return to it later. But nah Mr. Semantics had to debate the practicality of the English language for 2 hours. Completely waste of time this is why New Atheism is empty and shouldn't deserve to be called anything more than lunacy. I just wish Peterson had screamed David Hume the entire fucking time. Would have at least been entertaining.
>>108737272>Probably an okay scientist but weak on philosophyNo. See this:>>108732414
>>108723203Jordy Peterson is a charlatan outside of clinical psychology.The only reason I can give for his popularity is because he's against "sjws" and you glue sniffers will knob slob anyone against "political correctness".He constantly speaks gibberish. He likes to pretend he understands Nietzsche- but hasn't shown he does. And people not smart enough to understand it's gibberish are bamboozled into thinking he's got worthwhile things to say.Stay away from this creep. He isn't going to fill you with wisdom and understanding.
>>108723203Can't imagine having any less respect for him that I do Sam "I'm a Giant Pussy" Harris
>>108734919According to Peterson an ideology by default is always "missing" part of the bigger picture by selectively choosing philosophies and ways of thinking which it promotes and those which it condemns. This leads to partial understanding of the world so essentially you are not completely "aware", ie. you have blind spots with respect to reality. This is why ancient myths idealized the ones who can "see" or "observe". Since the world is ever changing and we cannot possibly know everything about it we have to be aware of it all the time in order to survive and have the best chance at having a good life. The mythical hero is the one who is aware and thus guides civilization on the thin line between order and chaos. Ideologies blind you so eventually you either descent to complete chaos or complete order, both of which are not good.
>>108737310I agree with that last part completely. So many people have no idea about the reality of truth. Especially a lot of young fedora tippers and "le science is the answer duh. Bill nye and Tyson owned those bible thumpers!!"even most religious people are basically scratching the surface unknowingly when they put their more or less unfounded claims against science. Oddly enough they seem to know more about it however. At least the intellectual ones do.
>>108737938maybe...
>>108737768Consider the question, is this banana nutritious? The pragmatist would ask whether it kept your going until your next meal, tasted okay, and pretty much did what you wanted to Non-realists would tell you that the banana doesn't exist, scientific investigations would get lost in endless quibbling about the precise nutritional content, and Platonists would tell you that the banana is just an imperfect copy of the true banana which exists in eternity.
>>108723203Go away Sam.
>>108736767Yeah I'm inclined to believe that any compulsive thought-patterns can be countered. In fact my qualm is solely centered around Semitic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Allahu Akbar).
>>108737768Because there's actually literally no way to definitely prove anything. But if something is useful you might as well use it. For al intents and purposes it might as well be the truth because it works.
>>108738031>>>/leftypol/
>>108738004He may be a faggot but that doesn't mean that we should consider Jordan the winner by default. Even with that in consideration I still found Jordan lacking in real substance.
>>108737919Atombombs are fucking useful. There is a whole middle east that need to get nuked.More seriously, bad stuff is also useful since it gets used. Next time the could argue about the definition of Useful. :)
>>108732414Not surprised actually. Most of the new atheist intellectual power was being carried by Hitchens, who was mostly relying on his experience as foreign correspondent/journalist to showcase pragmatic applications of faith that suited his argument, as well as being a bretty good orator. And Dawkins as well I suppose, since he was a genuine scientist to give some sort of scientific credence to the empiricist arguments.But even then, they were simply reformulating arguments that had been made much before them. No new ground was ever broken.
>>108737618THIS!!!As I was listening to the conversation I immediately thought of Hitler's explanation in Mein Kampf about debating Jews.Hitler was right (AGAIN!).
>>108738576I guess if science creates a pathogen that kills us all you are ok with it, because it was science.
>>108738031you give yourself away by putting political correctness in scarequotes, faggotback you go
>>108738308So the Banana is more true than say an orange if it is more useful?
>>108738732Yeah and it can also be used to make pathogens to only target mudshits and it would be the purest sense of Darwinian survival.
seems to me that most people who think Peterson is having a point, but ignoring the most accepted definition of truth are confusing metaphysic truths and ethical/moral truths. In metaphysics you don't need pragmatic components to truths, and lack of human awareness won't make them any less true, and even if humans go extinct, they will still remain true. For Peterson, the humans are at the center and we get to decide what should be truth because it's ought to be useful for us.
>>108738560Well, then I would say science is extremely useful and therefore mor true than religion.
Humans are tribal creatures.Forming in groups and out groups can be positive as it can enhance cooperation and competition in the quest for excellence, but it can also lead to conflicts and total disregard for other human lifeLate 19th century and first half of the 20th century in Europe was deeply tribal. Each nation tried to be the most technologically advanced in order to be superior to its neighbors. This resulted in extreme technological advancements, but it also led to the bloodiest wars in history.I believe sports are an excellent way to feed this need for tribal conflict we humans have. I think we should have outlets to the bad urges we have. Take video games for instance. You can murder people in countless ways, yet pretty much all studies shows that not only to they not increase violent behavior, it also reduces it. I am not sure about it, but it wouldn't surprise me that as porn becomes more available, the number of rapes would go down
>>108737732A very clumsy way - If I'm not mistaken, Popper did believe there was a divide between facts and decisions, and didn't just "dismiss" the is/ought gap like Harris does.>>108738232He honestly has interesting things to say regarding myth and religion. As someone who abandoned religion at an early age, I came to appreciate its role in an evolutionary context after watching his videos, and it reaffirmed my belief in its importance in a larger role of social cohesion, regardless of how true it is in a "factual" sense (which is, I suppose, Peterson's point - it's a "meta truth").Peterson seems to see the path of evolution and the history of our collective decisions that led us to this point, as retained through myth, in a very "holy" context which he essentially says is indistinguishable from a "god" - very interesting stuff.It all fits in very nicely with fashy politics, national narratives, and the story of a people, etc. Which, I presume, is why pol finds him interesting.
>>108728668This. The intro was pretty promising, but the conversation never progressed into those topics because Harris became belligerent and condescending once he began realizing that Peterson wouldn't accept he same flawed mirco example as negating the macro truth.At least agree to disagree and move on, ffs. I know it's a first principle but this dogmatic refusal to talk to anybody who doesn't unquestioningly agree with you is why people make fun of atheists.
General question has a neo-Platonist, or Thomist ever talked to Harris?
>>108738572>>108738792Only countries that have won the Stanlee Cup recently can post here.
>>108739166The whole idea of "lurk more" is that idea that lived experience is required to both understand AND participate in a board. It's not a scientific truth, in the sense that you can look up "how to post on 4chan" and then be accepted/thrive in the community. You can't, because the community is in constant flux but also has certain core tenets which, if they change at all, only change gradually and are difficult to express.So if scientific truth would be the ability to describe 4chan, then religious truth would be the ability to participate. Eventually, should everything become static, you might be able to accomplish the later given the former, but it's generally just going to be a shitty copy - and since it's a living thing, if it becomes static it dies, and there will be nothing to participate in anyway.Peterson isn't denying scientific truth, rather, he's postulating how we cross a sort of divide which we can't really explain with scientific truth. You can meet all the "requirements" to post on 4chan, but whether or not you're doing it in a "true" sense is only verifiable according to an inaccessible metanarrative which exists in BOTH a psychological and referential sense - beyond the written word, in some kind of hive mind shared between all anons. Except, for peterson, the hive mind is the evolutionary history of mankind, ostensibly as expressed in metanarratives.
>>108732645>muh anything is a spook if you aren't objectively selfishtruly the most overrated leftypol meme. And I actually like stirner. I wonder if commies even know that he actually thought and said in writings that communism was shite.
>>108739371So: life is like shitposting - there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. If you lurk long enough, study the past, and trust in the anons who came before you, you'll do it properly and in a manner which is both HONEST and FULFILLING. If you throw out the traditions and knowledge of the past, you'll never be accepted, nor know what it's like to truely be a part of a community. If the community is comprised of too many shitposters who haven't lurked long enough, the community stagnates and dies because it can't develope the level of what you might call "flavor" which has been refined over the years. The same goes for if it changes in composition too quickly, or corrupt narratives develop/are pushed by parties in an attempt to influence thought (forced memes/shills).With respect to life, the abandonment of hero narratives (death of religion) and the corruption of narratives (hollyjew) will lead to the collapse of the board (society) as people lose a connection to the evolutionary hive mind.
>>108739048Depends on what your definition for useful is. For building a cohesive and happy society religion might be far more useful than science.
>>108738792>>108738572He's right though, Jordan struggles with his inner conflicts all the time. It's not our fault that we can't hold him with all of his inconsistencies. Morals based on Darwinian survival is a hack at best considering it takes you on a never ending roller coaster which requires precognition for it to be applicable.
>>108723203Peterson's interesting, no doubt, but there are strongly rational reasons to think Christianity is actually true, and not just Pragmatically true. But his position of it as just Pragmatically true paints himself into a corner. Debates between atheists and true believers like Lennox or Turek are much more interesting.
>>108730466>but it is not the entire truth.This is exactly what these goddamned fedoras don't get. If you don't tell the ENTIRE truth, what you're saying ISN'T FUCKING TRUE.
>>108739048Ok, but science has no moral dimension. While it may be more true than a specific religion, it is much less relevant than religion, as religion dictates behavior, and can create good societies or genocidal ones.Say we nuked ourselves to death during the cold war. To what use was all the scientific knowledge if we killed ourselves in the end? An ideology that avoids nuclear Armageddons and genocides would be much more relevant and useful for the well being of mankind than the knowledge of how to build an hydrogen bomb.So while it is true that the pursuit of scientific true has value, I would argue that the pursuit of Darwinian truths is much more useful and valuable if mankind's well being is taken into account.
>>108738686Dawkins and Dennett were always the only ones with any texture, but the least popular because of their relative lack of polemical verve (contrast with Dawkins and Dennetts' laughably tone-deaf "brights movement" in early 00's).Sam Harris and Hitchens were/are are "writers" and babblers first and foremost. Peter was always the smarter Hitchens bro, he was just saying things that nobody wanted to hear. There's an old debate between them on youtube somewhere where Peter gives a very sharp, prophetic speech, then Christopher mumbles out a pile of discombobulated crap like the muddled jackass he was.
>>108738732But isn't the point about truth of science how good it is at explaining stuff. More useful in that regard than religion. Religion is more useful as opium for the people or to make one feel good in some way. I think there is a problem in that people who are religious believe that their religion is true in all aspects and objectively so. Petersons truth is just temporary till something better shows up. Jesus died for our sins till we find some thing better to make us feel good about death or what ever it is that idea helps people with.
>>108734919I'd like to say that politically we've always striven to stay somewhat true to the ideals of Mill, Payne and Milton. But we've clearly been going off-course since the "-isms" maymay wars of the 20th century.
>>108730809He also thinks Israel and Judaism deserve exceptions that other nations and religions/cultures aren't entitled to due to 'muh hollacoast'.
>>108739877>Peter was always the smarter Hitchens bro, he was just saying things that nobody wanted to hear.Damn fucking straight. That guy tells some harsh truths. Definitely agree more with Christopher when it comes to Iraq and WW2 though.
But how can we understand truth without our stale, detached, overly simplistic abstractions?It was Harris' game to win and i still think he lost. Sure Peterson was at a loss for words at times because it simply wasn't sinking in and Harris kept falling into the same trap over and over.Harris is a man who argues with Hume's "Cannot derive an ought from an is" which is really saying something.
>>108739371>>108739418That is actually an excellent metaphor, not being ironic.
>>108739547>there are strongly rational reasons to think Christianity is actually trueKYS christcuck
>>108739450Real "morals" are practical rules for achieving Nibbana in this lifetime - nothing else qualifies.Jordan might have realized if he studied Buddha instead of Christ.
>>108739418This has already happened. We have had our tradition stolen from us.
>>108739445I wouldn't say that religion been so good at that. It seem to be a source to lots of conflicts.
>>108739547Yeah I agree, I'm more Thomistic, Aristotelian and when I listen to Peterson I can only say I find it intriguing that he comes to Christendom through such a windy path. However, it's only intriguing not comprehensive. From what I understand about his "faith" it certainly isn't orthodox or wholesome. I would imagine due to a lack of exposure to the necessity of incarnation he has fallen into an early church heresy. I suppose heresy is better than ignorance.
>>108733333quints!
>>108740246He's totally blue pilled on politics as well on foreign policy.
>>108739166>>108739371>>108739418write a book anon.
>>108740000If it's just there to make you feel better, why not just take psychiatric drugs or kill yourself? Those will get rid of your pain too. As I say, there are good reasons to think it is objectively true - e.g. the origin of the universe, the inability of the universe to contain its own truth function, consciousness (not as an information processing phenomena you see other people do, but your own personal awareness), etc. Once you crack the wall of materialism, the existence of a God making a universe for a purpose fits very well.
>>108727738>now this is shitposting!
>>108739857It can have. Petersons argument of how evolution created our morals for example. That our morals are biologic + cultural (which is a result of biology).
>>108740246he's a kike, what do you expect?
>>108740519Well that's your opinion. How many wars were fought because of religion vs how many were simply scapegoated as religious is always an interesting question.However if on a personal level if a religion allows you to be a moral and happy person it doesn't really make sense to stop it just because "well it's probably not true" because you will literally never know if something is true or not so just do what works for you assuming it doesn't negatively affect others.
>>108723985>overall responseArgumentum ad populumFedoras are going to shill so hard for Harris.And to most people, Peterson is a literally who
This thread looked interesting but Peterson is just a pretentious windbag.
>>108741317>Fedoras are going to shill so hard for Harris.Fedoras do love their false gods.
>>108739166>>108739371>>108739418
>>108740755this, I think there are many people on 4chan that should write a book. There is a ingrained sense of romanticism in 4chan that the rest of the world needs.
>>108740418Thanks anon. I think it's close enough, at any rate. Spent a good bit of time thinking about why his concepts resonated with people here, it makes sense upon reflection.>>108740497Agreed. This is why Peterson seems so distraught, he's basically been watching it happen for years and, IMO, is correct in what the results will be if we don't change course.>>108740755Peterson already wrote it, once you get the concepts it's easy to extrapolate:http://jordanbpeterson com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf
>>108727599yeah fucking right.
>>108739877I agree completely, I do prefer Peter as well but they are both awfully similar in terms of intellect and expertise- both being mainly ex-foreign correspondents. I know very little of Dennett though. However I still do think people underestimate the value of a good speaker, even if he indulges in mild sophistry (who doesn't anyway) at times. And Hitchens basically acted as that "shiny shield" that deflected basic counter-arguments with style and that did a lot for the popularity of the movement. The guy obviously wasn't stupid but aside from being good at rhetoric, he could never contribute anything of philosophical or scientific substance to atheism either way.That's why I've always preferred reading his stuff when he focused on politics and foreign affairs. The Kissinger Trial is a bretty good read in my opinion.
>>108740863>the origin of the universe, the inability of the universe to contain its own truth function, consciousnessI've been thinking about exactly that stuff when I took LSD. I believe it to be correct. I trust LSD. Is there a philosophic alignment that promotes those ideas?I wouldn't call it an objective truth tho. since I don't think objective truth is possible to fully Know as a human.
The conversation could have easily progressed to more salient topics, with each man consciously interpreting the others arguments according to the definitions of truth laid out--in fact Harris's quibble was pointless as his theoretical truth that doesn;t serve life doesn't even figure into his moralism in any way.He simply didn't want someone to get away with not assigning "truth" exclusivity within a materialist paradigm.Harris sperged out for no good reason. He's a faggot.
>>108740372Agreed Anon.I felt frustrated just listening to Harris completely miss the point every time Peterson finished.You could tell Harris wasn't necessarily listening to him. Instead he was waiting for him to finish and instantly retorting with what he wanted to say before Peterson even spoke...Talking to people like that is god awful.
I think the origins of morality are crucial if we are to find what an ideal ideology would look like.My honest guess is that it comes from evolutionary psychology. Behaviors that bettered the survival odds of the tribe got to breed more. Take tribalism. The elimination and antagonism of foreign tribes allowed for greater safety, and the familiarity of people inside your tribe allowed for cooperation.And because of that, we evolved to feel good when doing moral things, and guilty when doing immoral things. For instance, group cohesion was very important, so you being blamed for something bad for the tribe invokes deep guilt on most people, even if what you did could be categorized ethically sound. Because it put the group in harms way, it becomes morally wrong.In that sense, in general terms, I think it is fair to derive that what is moral is whatever behavior brings the greater good for the tribe specifically. (Not yourself, not all of mankind, but your tribe specifically). This of course brings a big problem, as what may be good/moral for one tribe, becomes evil/immoral to others tribes. In short, while our evolved morality served us good during evolution, it is deeply flawed and by nature divorced from abstract concepts of ethics.So how can we find an ideology that works? That avoids genocide of rival tribes??
>>108742116Harris was not trying to have a discussion. He was trying to play the hero and slay the dragon. He didn't see it as a chance to learn and maybe change how he thinks, it was depressing.
>>108736928sauce on pic?
>>108723203Good to see some effort-posting from leafs, finally.
>>108742204>For instance, group cohesion was very important, so you being blamed for something bad for the tribe invokes deep guilt on most people, even if what you did could be categorized ethically sound.That is a good point, which makes me ask why do so many people now act in a way without shame. When society looks at what they do and criticize they don't feel that shame and try to moderate and negotiate with the group to achieve some kind of balance they demand the group change to fit them.
>>108741983You won't fully know objective truth as a human. But the word "know" basically just means that you believe that thing is true, and furthermore that it is in fact true. So of the things you believe to be true, some of them actually are true, and thus you know those things. (Even though you may not know which ones they are!)
>atheist movement 2009-2012>sam harris>make money off fedoras by regurgitating tired argumentsTrump comes along>sam is a closet cuck>normie shilling for normiesjust listen to his podcast to to see how he stretches a few interesting ideas into hours of semantic peacocking
>>108742204>My honest guess is that it comes from evolutionary psychologyThat's kinda my current guess as well. Basically historical utilitarianism coated in folklore and mythology, if that even makes sense? A way to reconcile past successes and failure through oral tradition, which was the best medium for education until very recently in human history.
>>108731537do you have a youtube account or something. I'd like to get into contact with you
>>108742204Fuck it's impossible isn't it? Until we are smart enough to self engineer and change our own nature into something purer (if this is at all possible) we are stuck with our primal and flawed morality.This entails on one hand, either societies that follow our flawed morality and allow for the death and genocide of opposite tribes, or on the other hand societies that try to eliminate our human nature at the ultimate cost of our happiness resulting from the alienation from our very nature.I think this thread is making me swallow a bitter black pill..
>>108742204>think it is fair to derive that what is moral is whatever behavior brings the greater good for the tribe specifically.>So how can we find an ideology that works? That avoids genocide of rival tribes??I think that you will hit a fundamental problem with that approach: Why should you desire the tribe's survival? Why should you desire no genocide? Without absolute morals, perhaps sourced from actual God, why elevate things like survival to being "good"? They are just more opinions on the heap of human desires.
>>108743150Tribal genocide is not really a problem for the species as a whole and it might be beneficial since it causes competition.
>>108734316>Religion is the opiate for the masses memeLiterally the greatest effect of Dunning Krueger even possible. Most of the greatest minds who ever existed believed in religion not in the Machievellian sense but simply because they believed in the afterlife and took intellectual humility in the fact they didn't know.Of course know with Jung (who has now become a meme which people are finally looking into thanks to Peterson) we can understand that on the secular level religion is an expression of the collective unconscious of a people, yet there is also the esixtence of the paranormal which people must understand to believe in religion.Worship is an impossible modality to escape for human behavior, even nihilists worship the concept of nothing as a god.
>>108743150>Why should you desire the tribe's survival?Because we evolved to desire so, it's part of out nature to want the betterment of our tribe, say. You family for instance, could be considered some sort of micro tribe. You want to the best for your family>Why should you desire no genocide?Exactly. There is no reason to not want genocide from an evolutionary perspective, and so it became part of our nature and evolved morals.There is no way around it I came to realize, humans are genocidal in nature, and that's an inevitable part of human societies.
>>108737861Pragmatism is the philosphy that basically says "something is true if and only if it is useful." Whereas in other philosophies it is more common to just say "If something is true, then it may be useful" and "if something is useful, then it may be true". Pragmatists take the leap of basically saying usefulness equals truth. (Many Pragmatists become relativists because "if it works for you, then it's true for you.")
>>108729693>Sam Harris is a pseud but Peterson's own contradictions as a Classical Liberal doomed him here. Come home to the far right Jordan.Nigger literally what? He got into this shit precisely because the myth-making of the far right was so destructive.
>(another) top thread
>>108743910>>Why should you desire the tribe's survival?>Because we evolved to desire so, it's part of out nature to want the betterment of our tribe, say. You family for instance, could be considered some sort of micro tribe. You want to the best for your familyYou're telling me why you *do* desire it, but I'm asking why you *ought* to desire it. Because that's what morality is all about. Of course, if God exists, then you get absolute morality, by simply listing what God wants to happen. But it's a problem for atheists, because they don't have a source for morality. (They don't have a rational source, but they can of course still behave in any matter they choose, good or bad.)
>>108742614from an article on ayahuasca
>>108729907>I can't listen to Sam Harris talk.I only listen to Sam Harris talk about meditation. His voice is just perfect for talking about meditation. Someone being that emotionless and calm just must be enlightened! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE8AcmMHWjM
>>108730809Yup!
>>108742943The underlying problem is in order to progress more people and tribes must become empathetic and build social trust to have a free and innovative society. In order to do this restrictions must be relaxed to not avoid violent hypocrisy in societies makeup. In our want to maintain this civil structure of human rights we lose the ability to maintain cohesive groups and thus lose happy, enlightened and productive people.>>108743825I agree there is a innate instinct towards spirituality somewhere in our biology but to think that truly every actor at the top of the priesthood and kingship for millennia believed even a fraction is juvenile. Spirituality was just a vague social habit that most rulers understood to be the method of control. Xeres did not order his soldiers to attack the waves at the crossing into Europe because he thinks it would get his army across. He did it because he understood showing the men and locals that he a holy figure would not be outdone by a river maintains their social authority.I just think the hypothesis most religion is the method of real politik of the ancients is more plausible.
>>108743825>Of course know with Jung (who has now become a meme which people are finally looking into thanks to Peterson)My exposure to Jung, Peterson, and Flip Flappers all happened in a very synchronistic way. It was been very strange to experience and read about the concept all at the same time
>>108723203Who cares OP. We all know Scott Adams is the best.
>>108731046This
>>108744447This is precisely what I am struggling with right now. By means of philosophy, we are able to find nuggets of what ought to be desired, what ought to be moral for humans. The problem is, even if we find such 'oughts', adopting them distance ourselves from our nature, and we evolved to feel good when doing something that goes with the tides of our nature, and bad when against it. So even if we find the right 'oughts' and try to adopt it, we will become miserable as a society.>>108744606Indeed, but as the social contract evolves and distance ourselves from our nature, we become gradually more alienated from it, and saddened by it.
>>108729897>I could tell them, that religious meme's are meta level software for organizing society, and some truths are convenient and wrong scientifically, but are necessary for the society to survive.I agree with this a lot, and I think it doesn't simply applies to religion itself. I can be any encompassing ideology/belief system that can attribute truths and untruths by appealing to their own version of the absolute/divine/sublime.I'd recall the words from Bastiat who said in his essay on 'Perversion of the Law' that (I'm paraphrasing here) "it wasn't because men decreed laws that identity, liberty and property exist. It's because identity, liberty and property exist that men decreed laws".He was a deist, which was common at the time of the enlightenment, and without appealing to an absolute creator/dispenser of morality of some sort, it becomes extremely hard to justify any of the values we parrot around. The entire cultural mythos of muh freedumbz rests on agnostic assumptions at best. The memes precede actual reality.
>>108743910we have developed with genocide for millenia. We cannot change this over a few decades, it will take centuries. We are not living in a generation that can create an ideology of your desire and bring it into effect. But maybe we can raise the next generation to understand such an ideology. It will take centuries or another millennia for humans to evolve into these sort of ideologies I feel.
>>108723985Sam didn't even understand Peterson's point. They were never on the same level. It was, frankly, embarrassing for Sam. Peterson is arguing for a well established philosophical philosophical doctrine. Sam openly admits to not reading philosophy because 'it would increase the amount of boringness in the universe.' Sam got completely BTFO. He made the same stupid argument over and over and Jordan slapped it down every time. He just couldn't accept it because he's too entrenched in his meme fedora atheist worldview.Look up his exchange with Noam Chomsky. He gets BTFO too. Sam is smart, he isn't THAT smart. People like Peterson and Chomsky are on another level that makes Sam look like a child. 'This is ridiculous' is not an argument. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/Read that and come up with some legitimate disagreements. I'm not even saying Jordan is right. He's just clearly more learned on the issue than Sam. No one is impressed that Sam met Derrida one time. Derrida is a cuck.
>>108745054That's what I meant you can't have a society that simultaneously can be technological masters to address global problems, and socially cohesive enough to be stable and happy. I think if we are going to go the alienation route, we might as well go full bore to reap the benefits of complete free trade and free movement. Or begin moving back to ethnocentric behavior. Waddling around in the middle will cause irreparable damage.
>>108745344>philosophical philosophical doctrinewow, really makes you think
>>108745313Precisely, it will take a long time for our genocidal nature to mutate into something with better morals. >>108745508But going all the way the alienation route will make us miserable.. yet reverting to ethnocentrism will lead to genocide. Why is the middle undesirable?
...
>>108744529>Someone being that emotionless and calm just must be enlightened! Wrong.The Buddha gave repeated and forceful injunctions against wasting your time in philosophical disputation, which is precisely what Sam has made a career out of. The probability that Sam is anything more than a mediumocre meditator is 0.
>>108745788In the middle we have more violence as tensions between classes, races, and the elite are in forever flux. If we move to a completely capitalist free trade no oligarch system with One world order as they say, at the very least the wealth of free trade and free movement will lead people to naturally form tribes of their own free will instead of needing a state to protect a border containing one. For example although the clay may not be native English speaking whites would congregate in one place as economic freedom increase.
>>108744606>to think that truly every actor at the top of the priesthood and kingship for millennia believed even a fraction is juvenile. Spirituality was just a vague social habit that most rulers understood to be the method of controlIt's true that many ancient leaders were not true believers, but the view of them using it as a tool for controlling the masses isn't accurate either. I've read a lot of ancient stuff, and it becomes evident that some are true believers, some are wishy washy(they mostly ignore religion but are somewhat afraid to anger the gods), some are mostly outside but try to tie their lineage to the gods for popularity, and a few are actual atheists. (Incidentally, a king who is an actual atheist is mentioned in the Bible, mocking people for trusting in a God whom, he tells them, won't come to rescue them from him; just as his enemies in other countries weren't rescued by their gods.)Consider the possibility that you're just telling yourself that to give yourself artificial "social proof" that religion is B.S., and thus comfort.
>>108723203I felt Sam's ego kind of got in the way.He couldn't convince Peterson to accept his truth as the only truth and that flustered him.They could have and should have agreed to disagree and move on to other subjects but no... Harris had to bring it back.I hope they do debate again though.
>>108745344Sam isn't a complete idiot but the fact he couldn't see through lots of the obvious media garbage tells me that he isn't as smart as people say he is. I listen to NPR every now and then to see how hard they shill things and he was shilling away.
>>108745054>we evolved to feel good when doing something that goes with the tides of our nature, and bad when against it.For some things that's true, e.g. it is in our nature to eat, and if we don't, we feel bad. But for most things, there seems to be a large part played by what your peers think of you. If they like what you're doing, you're happy, and if they don't, you're miserable. So, by finding good friends, it is much easier to become a good person and also to feel good at the same time. At least, that's been my experience: I took moral stances against things, and was hated for it. I found better friends at church, and now I feel pretty good in life.
>>108746209Well consider that these leaders are smart at the top, and simply lacked all the astronomical evidence we have now that disprove nearly every iota of these creation myths which were written by men. If you gave leaders all the empirical physics and biology we know today I think they would realize religious models are just grossly over simplistic explanations and metaphysics is a much vauger less moralistic realm.Consider as the enlightenment progressed and science disproved all the mythical stories within religion most philosophers moved to athiesm, deism, and agnosticism as they developed their theories, formerly from Christianity. I'm sure the ancients believed in spirituality in varying degrees on individual but religion itself was purposefully structured to generate social control and hierarchy favorable to the ruling elite, and they knew this and made calculated actions to maintain the veneer of spirituality.
>>108723203I'm not even interested in watching the debate, desu. I'm imagining a boring hour of 2 autists arguing semantics and getting nowhere.Peterson intrigues me, but I'm about to read Man and His Symbols to try and get the intellectual foundation to truly understand what the hell he's actually talking about since it sounds like he od'd on the red pill after activating his almonds over the metaphysical implications of JungSam Harris is a fag but he talks shit on Islam so he's alright.
>>108746863>I'm sure the ancients believed in spirituality in varying degrees on individual but religion itself was purposefully structured to generate social control and hierarchy favorable to the ruling elite, and they knew this and made calculated actions to maintain the veneer of spirituality.Religion is social control but it is a byproduct of our evolution. I wouldn't describe it in such a machiavellian way. Did people abuse it to get what they want, sure, but that does not make it any less true. we organized our self into a hierarchy and religion is a reflection of that hierarchy as much as it is the hierarchy itself.I keep going back to fractals, it is what this type of thinking reminds me of, which I guess makes sense
>>108746863People in the hard sciences are more religious than most people seem to think. (My personal experience is from physics, but I've noticed the same is true of Chemistry, eg.) Historically, atheism grew out of the French Revolution, not science, and that is why scientists are not much more atheistic than the general population. Moreover, the scientific evidence of the 1800s was quite in favor of atheism (determinism, darwinian evolution, etc), whereas the scientific evidence of the 1900s was quite in favor of theism (non-determinism, biochemistry, big bang cosmology, etc). Despite this, the 1800s was religious and the 1900s was areligious. So I really do think the growth in atheism is a culturally driven thing, not a rational or scientifically driven thing.
>>108746921>I'm imagining a boring hour of 2 autists arguing semantics and getting nowhereIsn't that philosophy in a nutshell tho?No but honestly I feel the same. I don't think Harris is pleasant enough to listen, and I hardly know Peterson, so the idea of wasting two hours listening to potentially the most dawn-out conversation is putting me off.Wouldn't invest in someone's book just over hear-say, but I wouldn't mind finding a video somewhere of Peterson laying out clearly his narrative. I've tried looking but all I've found are kek-related clips and snippets of him refuting x or y topic.
>>108746733You raise a good point, through ideology/religion we are able to emulate a human morality closer to ethics despite our deeply flawed nature.But I think there is a limit as to how far you can push humans away from their nature before hitting deep sadness and misery. Emulating a better morality though ideology/religion implies self-retrain in relation to our natural and primal urges, and self-restraint seems to me to be an endless war against yourself. While some may succeed, others will fail, giving in to hedonism and moral relativism. The key is finding an ideology/religion persuasive enough to be followed by the masses while providing the highest amount possible of ethics in a societal level.
>>108747602Well I would agree there is probably an innate underlying evolutionary hierarchy that religion exposes and reflects but I think it could ultimately be modeled in a empirical way based off of physiology. >>108747734But notice as the immense social pressure against atheistic thought decreases and it becomes more accepted it is more tended to by the intellectual class. Given all this information, and that the leaders of these places wouldn't really be subject to social pressure with absolute power I think they simply lacked the information to assure their doubts.
Perhaps this was the failure of Christianity in the west, perhaps it became not persuasive enough in the face of rising scientific truth, and as dissent rose, it allowed more flexibility in order to survive, opening the doors to hedonism
>>108731046>>108731046>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0YThe reason Peterson was conciliatory runs much deeper than this. Jordan is obsessed with the rise of catastrophe in the early 20th century.He traces this to the unmooring of society to religious tradition. People throughout human history have always believed in an afterlife. They strived to perfection in this life in order to be worthy of the next. Their truth, that they must do the best that they can today in order to secure tomorrow, governed all.The rise of scientific materialism and skepticism about the next life reeked havoc on the psyches of mankind. If there is no afterlife, you have lost your reason to perfect this life. The motivation for action has come unhinged.Now, even the atheistfags saw this as an obvious problem. So, they began to try to establish a new moral dogma based on rational materialism.
>>108731046What 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 significantlyNow, 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.
>>108731046>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0YIn 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 deedhe 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.
>>108731046>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0YTo sum up, the pseudo-intellectuals that we can typify with the example of Sam Harris (atheistfags in general) 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. He knows that it 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 atheistfags or Sam Harris losers of the world.
>>108748671What a second...are you THE Space Elevator?
>>108747774The reason I wanted to look into him further is because of that video about kek. He loses me when he starts rambling about metaphysical stuff, but he makes so many good points that into really like to get a better grasp on the bigger picture of his ideas.
>>108748285>Perhaps this was the failure of Christianity in the west, perhaps it became not persuasive enough in the face of rising scientific truthI would argue it is a failure of the church to fulfill one of its important roles, caring for the soul of its parishioner. The catholic church does this still and is probably doing the best. The whole process of confession could probably be seen in many ways like a session with a therapist. Protestant churches in the west on the other hand have become little more then social clubs. It also does not help they have adapted such a literal interpretation of the bible and they don't discuss the metaphorical truths.Instead of trying to be relevant by providing a template on how to be a well balanced and fulfilled person many have doubled down on trying to replace science with biblical "truth" and not the deeper metaphorical truth.
>>108748285Another reason there is more flexibility might be because people derive their morality from the acceptance of the group and the internet has spawned infinite communities. In these communities people find social acceptance or validation for behaviours that would otherwise be condemned by the norm. i.e trans people who are so rare that they previously would never have even found each other much less organised into communities suddenly find online communities where this is accepted and then they never leave this communities
I don't know why but Sam seemed very agitated from the very beginning.
>>108749264The beginning of the postcast or the interview?
>>108732414Who cares? He spends all his time on social and religious commentary. I've rarely even heard him talk about neuroscience.
>>108732047Shit that's actually real deep f4m
>>108749378The interview. He seemed very aggressive towards Peterson from the word go.
What's the context for all this? I wasn't paying attention.
>>108748671>>108748735>>108748815>>108748868This was very enlightening. Because 'god is dead', morality comes from our nature, and our nature is tribal and genocidal. In this light we can embrace human nature and be morally repugnant. Alternatively we can pick one ideology, and the more 'ideal' it is, the more we alienate ourselves from human nature and the more we become miserable as a society, and risk rejecting such ideology into nihilism and hedonism...
>>108748868>THIS is why Peterson is so reluctant to break down Sam’s worldview. He knows that it 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 atheistfags or Sam Harris losers of the world.That is kind of beautiful albeit depressing. Sacrificing your own argument to spare Harris and preserve the illusion and allow for a return of god. Harris would have never been so kind, he always goes for the win.
>>108748868Good analysis!Paraphrasing Peterson from one of his videos: "Say we take the most true things about your life, and then we take the most true things about 10 other peoples lives, and we amalgamate them into one figure. We produce a literary hero. Now, we take a thousand literary heroes, and extract from each of them what makes the most heroic, and amalgamate these qualities into one single figure. This figure is a religious deity - the Christ, a metahero, and the foundation of western civilization." (end paraphrase, begin naval gazing)Peterson doesn't seem like he's putting forward God as man in the sky, rather, as the sum of the greatest attributes of all the men and women have ever lived. Their triumphs and failures, their journeys and feats of will - we are all part of it. We all posses that same heroic "spark." When we draw from it, when we look at the acts of those who came before us and repeat them, we're propagating one of our greatest and most sacred memes.It's not like it's hard to draw parallels either: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."The kingdom of god is not of this earth, nor is it otherworldly - it is temporal. The deeds you do in life echo on in eternity - through the society you are part of. Those who do evil deeds are remembered for them, and their descendants must reform or become pariahs. Those who do good are celebrated, and remembered. God is the historical sum of human action, the purity of it - in it's most idealized form. We can never be greater than it, but we are also part of it, we are its current incarnation. And when we die, we remain part of it, for all of man's time in this world. As long as mankind lives on, no man truly ever dies.
>>108747925>self-restraint seems to me to be an endless war against yourself. While some may succeed, others will fail, giving in to hedonism and moral relativism.What you say is accurate, I think. For what it's worth, Jesus agrees that few will make it. But primal urges really only seem strong if you a) don't do anything to rectify them, and b) dwell on them. E.g. if you are really angry at someone, but you talk to them early, your anger won't have grown too large, typically. But if you let it build up and stay quiet, you'll either wind up miserable or bash the guy's skull in. (I know it's know always that easy, but it makes a huge difference.) I know people with self-restraint and self-control. I've learned not to trust anyone without self-restraint, now that I've tasted the goodness of it.
>>108749987The metahero is perhaps the thing that can salvage western society from hedonism.But how can you ensure that in the quest to be more like the metahero, one does not become alienated and resentful, and rejects the meta-hero for nihilism??
>>108748278>But notice as the immense social pressure against atheistic thought decreases and it becomes more accepted it is more tended to by the intellectual class. Given all this information, and that the leaders of these places wouldn't really be subject to social pressure with absolute power I think they simply lacked the information to assure their doubts.That's a good point. Though the social pressure was really just against *saying* you don't believe it. There have always been lots of people who couldn't care less. It turns out that those people don't really receive hate over it.
>>108749980>To preserve a future for our species, it is now time to build the space elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qezLhypA0YAt the same time, Peterson is still going for the win - he just conceptualizes winning differently.You see, Peterson is a moral being. He embraces the moral dogma. He is religious.Sam is irreligious and therefore fundamentally immoral. He is thus prone to be the progenitor of human catastrophe, which, if realized, is a loss by Peterson's score keeping.
Someone should send this thread to Peterson and/or Harris. I'm sure Harris won't like some of the anti-jew stuff but then they did ask for feedback on what went wrong so...
>>108750884Well I don't know if they can honestly get over their own starting positions. Both have done decaded worth of work related to their position. Another one is arguing for the importance of moral heritage through religious practice. Another one is arguing for the exact opposite.To admit any kind of a defeat in an argument would mean self invalidating their entire lifes worth of effort.
>>108749987This is the correct way of seeing things and in fact exactly how Nietzsche put it:>All beings so far have created something beyond themselves ...>Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss... What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...It thus becomes pretty clear that a characterization of Nietzsche as an esoteric Christian is quite obvious and sound. The irony is rich indeed how opposite the general perception is.
previous if anyone wants:http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/108403080/
>>108749456>Who cares?How many TED talks do you think they'd ask Sam to do if he was just "Sam Harris, Atheist" instead of "Sam Harris, Neuroscientist"?
>>108750884great ideaHey Sam if you're reading this: you're a cuck
>>108725482It was Harris' fault, as the podcast host. He took it as an affront to his own ideology and got into a 2 hour pissing match. Instead he should've acknowledged his different point of view and allowed the conversation to continue with that caveat. Harris is a fart-sniffer who thinks his podcast is the work of a God. Peterson doesn't seem to care about inflating his ego so much as pursuing what he sees as a very important topic.I think I gained more respect for Peterson after listening to this because it separated someone who has sacrificed a lot in pursuit of his cause from a masturbatory fart-sniffer.
>>108742925polmemestudies@gmail.com
>>108731046>"your position is logical, consistent eThat is a persuasion technique. Oldest one in the book. It's a shame Sam Harris is such an SJW cunt to not give a little ground for his opponents to walk on.
Good thread
How much of Harris' patreon dollars are going towards this Leaf-based SHIDF?
>>108729897same here bro. Sam Harris is a Jew, remember that. Look at the Zealots in Rome, the Bolsheviks in Germany, and all the Jewish Revolutions/Subversion in between. The Jewish race despises society.Since Pilate all the way to Hitler and to this very day.
>>108748735Sam is the one who hates God, and then takes his notion of truth as apriori. He's taking something on faith, and then spergs out when someone doesn't agree with his faith. The irony is palpable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRisThis interview contains Peterson's views about religion in the best way I could find. If you haven't watched it yet
>>108753188Funny that Joe Rogan got triggered when Hunter Maats made a similar criticism of Harris. Why are they so defensive about atheism? It's plebbit tier.
>>108750449I suppose the answer is to trust in the past. Look for amalgamated values, live them. A virtue ethics, in a way. Peterson has some longer discussions about how you intuitively know what's right, you're built to ride the fence between order and chaos, and you know when things are off. It's intuitive. Not a great answer, to be sure, but this isn't an easy question.I'd postulate that some people, based on their upbringing or psychological state (e.g. psychopaths) can't be saved. Broken humans do corrupt society, whether or not they intend to do so. Religion and the church was a bulwark against this, as societies past have had to deal with them too, but it's being outplayed. Or something like that. >>108751302Particularly when people outright refer to Nietzsche as nihilist. At one point, Peterson postulates his descent into madness as a result of attempting and failing to create new values. It's not really an idea I've encountered before, but I'm not a historian of philosophy.Also, thanks for your contributions to the community, Space Elevator.
>>108753402Because they haven't studied philosophy enough.
>>108738723Here you go. After much experience and observation, i've come to the conclusion that debating a Jew is not worthwhile. Lurk more to understand these truths. It was not a hard pill to swallow after the fact of all my experience with them.
>>108739166>>108739371>>108739418Best post I've seen in long time
>>108751401lmao
>>108727599Because molymeme actually makes arguments you can understand what the hell he is talking about he had a clear mind generally bounded in practical reality.
>>108749987So basically, "be a good person" wow, deep, atheists btfo
>>108723203Didn't watch the debate but I watched one video of Jordans and was instantly repelled by his lack of clear scientific and biologically based thinking. He is an intellectual mess. Not clear. Not organized. Not OCD enough to be taken seriously. If it's not real and practical toss it out. These old school intellectual types are obsessed with exploded systems.
>>108753744I agree, most of the stuff discussed in this thread is tough to answer.Psychopaths will always be a problem, but I worry for people who are easily persuaded, without psychological maturity or discipline to follow a virtuous path. I care for them, but I can't force them to take a virtuous path, it must be something they choose. I guess what I am coming at is that the way the metahero concept is framed is of extreme importance if it is to adopted by a dominating majority of society
>>108735864Is that why all the Jews are atheists?
If nothing else came from their debate, this thread was worth it. You guys really do give me a small amount of faith in humanity.
>>108753270bump, this
>>108739418Sounds like you are confusing evolutionary hivemind with cultural hivemind. Biology defines culture. But our culture is what is at stake here. It is what contains our communities and it is what forced memes etc have the ability to degrade. Evolution or biological makeup in regards to 4chan would be more akin to the layout of the board, the anonymity. The structure of the board has created the culture.
>>108755960When Peterson mentions religious truth he's conflating both, since both are important and matter, so that anon isn't too far off. Our culture isn't 100% defined by our biology.
>>108731537bump
So to be "virtuous" is the goal of every man? What should i do about those who practice hedonism, just ignore them? It's hard to try to live a virtuous life but at the same time feel jealous that other people are living a "feel good" lifestyle. I've come to terms witht the fact that God may not be real in the historically conventional sense, but rather he is simply the ideal man, a different iteration in every different culture. If that's the case should I really care? I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about everything and i guess i never did. This is probably why /pol/tards are so against degenerancy but at the same time feel like their battle is hopeless.What will it take for the west to return to virtuous values. im lost and i guess what i'm asking is, is my contribution to the western culture as a whole even remotely important? Does me living a virtuous life even matter in the grand scheme of things or even make a dent in the future of our culture?
>>108748936No. Think Higher.
>>108756323>Does me living a virtuous life even matter in the grand scheme of things or even make a dent in the future of our culture?To quote someone earlier in the thread>The kingdom of god is not of this earth, nor is it otherworldly - it is temporal. The deeds you do in life echo on in eternity - through the society you are part of. Those who do evil deeds are remembered for them, and their descendants must reform or become pariahs. Those who do good are celebrated, and remembered. God is the historical sum of human action, the purity of it - in it's most idealized form. We can never be greater than it, but we are also part of it, we are its current incarnation. And when we die, we remain part of it, for all of man's time in this world. As long as mankind lives on, no man truly ever dies.I would say so, Peterson is proof. He is living as one should and is changing the world
>>108723985I wouldn't even call it a debate, more like a failure to communicate, since Sam wasn't even arguing in favor of what Jordan was seemingly arguing against (some survival of the fittest philosophy or something only edgemasters would ascribe to).>>108723985Honestly Sam was to blame too because of his turbo autism forcing him to get triggered over the incorrect usage of the word "true", while a non-autist would have simply moved the conversation on without 2 fucking hours of pedantry and asked Jordon why he thinks it's important to use it that way and what he hopes to accomplish by augmenting the term. Which granted is also autistic and a huge waste of time but Jordan wasn't the host of the podcast.If they didn't get distracted by terminology they'd probably actually agree on everything, since Sam has done a lot of work on secular spirituality and Jordan doesn't think religions are literally factual but have beneficial effects and knowledge for societies. Maybe the only difference is that Sam is more hopeful that the average person can spend all day meditating and pondering meaning like him when it's a bit more realistic for normies without much free time or conviction to just keep following positive religious teachings.
>>108756323We're dealt a shitty hand, that's for sure. The way I see it, live a virtuous life, and try to instill these values into your family amd friends.After that, you can only hope, you can only hope that your family will spread these virtues around and that enough people will do like you do amount to a significant impact.But above all, enjoy your relationships with your family and friends, as these are the most reliable source of happiness you'll find.
>>108754088Checkerino. Thanks, anon. Peterson's videos are pretty great if you haven't seen them already:https://www.youtube com/watch?v=2c3m0tt5KcE>>108754458Well, the point isn't being a good person - it's knowing what constitutes a good person. In Peterson's case, to find the answer you need to look at the history of human storytelling from a darwinian perspective. It's not a simple question or answer, but is easy to write off if you're an "athiest" who just adopts a culturally christian ethos and calls it something else. It's more complex than I can really get at here, I'd invite you to read some of his work (previous link). He's retreading old ground, mostly.>>108754576I believe Peterson would say the metahero concept is already "adopted" - It's the foundation of our civilization, it's just slowly being eroded by people who don't know what they're killing. It's like we're out at sea, and large portions of the crew are deciding we don't need the raft anymore and are punching holes in it as fast as they can.>>108755960>>108756157Peterson talks about the myths being shaped by the environment as well (they're basically field tests on good ways to survive and thrive in the world), so you're correct on the conflation. The metaphor isn't perfect, obviously, I'm not writing a dissertation here, just a useful observation.
>>108756323https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwUJHNPMUyUDo it for yourself, first and foremost. Start small, but start now. Don't worry about the grand scheme of things. Worry about the grand scheme of you.
>>108756696I guess that's an internal battle I have. I'm shitposting on pol and i feel like im not doing enough. i want to change the world like pederson but im neither smart or charismatic enough. But its weird, even as degenerate as we're getting, the general populace still respects the dignified family man. We respect good parents and people who care about the future of a community, no matter how small. Maybe i;m subconscously stuck on materialistic things and how they make me feel, so i feel like i shouldn't care about living a virtuous life, but deep down that's what we all want, in our own way. thanks for the responses>>108757035>>108756848
>>108723203He stood up for common sense and I appreciate that.He is kind of a crazy leaf though.
>>108742204The truth you need to accept is that abstract morality is just words. Morality is entirely a concept of the developed brain. And however the brain develops, determines the morality. Any abstract moralities can only mean anything to anyone if they also come from the brain because the brain is the foundation of morality. Because pain and pleasure. Good and bad come from the mind and they are the foundational elements of morality. There is no reason not to genocide the other tribe, just as there is no reason not to kill the cow for meat. The only reason lies within modern man our technology has expanded our compassion to the point where genocide hurts the majority of our feelings, so we don't do it. I believe that joy also will line up with a sort of objective morality just as many other parts of our thinking have lined up with objective ideals. Eventually when we reach that perfect system of being. The techno-nirvana, we will find ourselves right in step with truth and enlightenment. Or perhaps we'll just find a drug that makes us all happy and then rot to death.
>>108756323It sounds like you're feeling lost due to the conflict in your mind where you think a) you wish Christianity is true, but b) you believe it isn't true.The good news is that it actually *is* true in the normal sense, not just the pragmatic sense. (I don't mean every single think you hear in church; obviously a lot is speculation and sometimes deceit and manipulation.)Some great and readable books on the subject are "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" and "Cold Case Christianity" on the existence of God and the reliability of the gospels respectively. Both of these books are enlightening rather than just trickery to get you to believe something false.You'll feel much better, I guarantee it.
>>108757712>Eventually when we reach that perfect system of being. The techno-nirvana, we will find ourselves right in step with truth and enlightenment.At that point we would stop being human, should that really be the goal?
>>108746863Oh come on this is just stupid. Religion is more than astronomy and creation myths. And most of the old rulers were not necessarily of above average intelligence or scientific interest. They just inherited daddies throne. You sound like a communist, delegating spiritualities role to a system of control by elites. Yes the elites did manipulate religion to their advantage but they didn't create it. Nobody created kek. But Even if there were no elites people would still be religious.
>>108758402Absolutely as it's in their nature, and additionally religion was a long organic combination of traditions and myths and practices that organically grew and changed. But I think given some of the documented actions of these god kings with absolute power, and monarchs through the ages as well as priesthoods, many could not have believed wholeheartedly in the religion to have made the very calculated political actions they took within it for a ulterior goal. Like the founders of the US i would posit that many world leaders ended up being deist, purely because of their position at the top of a religious hierarchy disillusioning them from it.
This was an excellent and elucidating thread, many thanks to everyone involved and good nighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElkwXZhFKAw
>>108757658> i want to change the world like pederson but im neither smart or charismatic enoughI'm in the same boat. Huge aspirations, difficulty in maintaining the motivation to do the hard work to Sort Myself Out. I think people like us could use some kind of community / accountability. Something I've been considering trying to kick start the past few months actually. I think there's lots of people right now discovering Peterson and his ideas, and that represents an opportunity for us all to start connecting to each other and helping one another along. We should keep an eye out and not let those opportunities pass us by.
