Social U of T Professor Attcks PC Culture, Rejects Genderless Pronouns and the Black Liberation Collective

[dontsnitch]

Darwinian truth is where all forms of truth is nested in morality, newtonian truth is scientific truth where morality is nested in that kind of truth. Peterson believes in the former and Harris in the latter. How you come to understand truth is how Harris describes it, and it makes the most sense from all variables but is also a flawed conceptualization of truth if the survival of humanity is in question. This consequence of humanities limitations can be reduced or easily prevented from a darwinian truth, but it's a truth that is not logical upon first thought, but as the resolution of that truth unfolds it makes much more sense. It is also a truth that requires a more holistic minded approach and the person must have a solid grasp of abstract thinking to really understand it.

How do you know he wasn't asking about Bill C-16?

 

[dissolved]

Darwinian truth is where all forms of truth is nested in morality, newtonian truth is scientific truth where morality is nested in that kind of truth. Peterson believes in the former and Harris in the latter. How you come to understand truth is how Harris describes it, and it makes the most sense from all variables but is also a flawed conceptualization of truth if the survival of humanity is in question. This consequence of humanities limitations can be reduced or easily prevented from a darwinian truth, but it's a truth that is not logical upon first thought, but as the resolution of that truth unfolds it makes much more sense. It is also a truth that requires a more holistic minded approach and the person must have a solid grasp of abstract thinking to really understand it.

That's a pretty good summary. I'll add a small aspect that could be thought of as wisdom, and it's that Harris' paradigm seems to me more susceptible to arrogance which is paradoxical to his purported scientific method, ironically.

Also, though Peterson didn't explicitly state it, I am quite sure that his view of truth isn't bound to a traditional theory of Darwinism as both Charles and later scientists understood it. Rather, as you say, it is more "holistic," a "better truth" nesting and even inhabiting what we think of as true.

 

[senri]

How do you know he wasn't asking about Bill C-16?

he briefly talked about it in the beginning, but most of the theme of the podcast was about "truth"

 

[dontsnitch]

he briefly talked about it in the beginning, but most of the theme of the podcast was about "truth"

Haha, this is one misunderstanding after another. My fault here. I meant that how do you know the poster you responded to wasn't asking about the thread in general, and not the latest podcast?

 

[senri]

Haha, this is one misunderstanding after another. My fault here. I meant that how do you know the poster you responded to wasn't asking about the thread in general, and not the latest podcast?

i am of the belief that he may have read some of what has been posted up to now, he was curious enough to have posted so perhaps he might have been curious enough to read a post or two to know what was being said. If not, then we will find out when he responds lol.

 

[Metusalemi]

Professor Peterson had a discussion with this cute little Irish potato:


They are discussing about the future of western world.

He has messages for the regressive leftists and he has messages for the alt-right.

He also explains there will always be people leaning to the left and there will always be people leaning to the right AND we NEED both of those sides.

 

[touchedbyjab]

Bumping this because I just listened to the debate... twice. It's very tedious, but I found it interesting. I had not listened to Harris before, and he is very smart and articulate.

Peterson, from what I've come to understand, thinks that the scientific truth is "true enough" (not a whole truth, no matter how verifiable) and that these micro examples of truth are nested/anchored/connected to morality and the metaphysical implications are such that there is a greater, real truth on a macro level. His examples of this macro level, pure truths are harder to articulate than 1+1=2. He sees math and science as tools working within a system of greater truths that ultimately work towards humanity.

Harris, is trying to work from a micro level outwards; pure observable facts, truths, disconnected from morality and ethics, that when collected are used to explain reality. Peterson would say these scientific truths of imperial data never take into consideration context, and that context comes from somewhere in the Darwinian framework of survival. Harris disagrees and thinks that "truth" is scientifically verifiable and replicable, despite outcome.

I can see both sides to this, to be honest. I wish they could have gotten past this, and Jordan at various times attempted to bring other topics into play, but Harris seemed hung up on being right about absolute truth being scientific truth and could not concede that there might be a broader scope, framed within morality itself.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

Cool, I'll check it out. Hopefully I can find it on Youtube, because ever since I started listening to videos at 2x normal speed on there, It's ruined me for regular speed podcasts.

Whoa, is this a time-saving technique? Sounds gnarly

 

[touchedbyjab]

Whoa, is this a time-saving technique? Sounds gnarly

Damn... he can cram in twice the amount of information. It's genius...

 

[Harmonica]

Bumping this because I just listened to the debate... twice. It's very tedious, but I found it interesting. I had not listened to Harris before, and he is very smart and articulate.

Peterson, from what I've come to understand, thinks that the scientific truth is "true enough" (not a whole truth, no matter how verifiable) and that these micro examples of truth are nested/anchored/connected to morality and the metaphysical implications are such that there is a greater, real truth on a macro level. His examples of this macro level, pure truths are harder to articulate than 1+1=2. He sees math and science as tools working within a system of greater truths that ultimately work towards humanity.

Harris, is trying to work from a micro level outwards; pure observable facts, truths, disconnected from morality and ethics, that when collected are used to explain reality. Peterson would say these scientific truths of imperial data never take into consideration context, and that context comes from somewhere in the Darwinian framework of survival. Harris disagrees and thinks that "truth" is scientifically verifiable and replicable, despite outcome.

I can see both sides to this, to be honest. I wish they could have gotten past this, and Jordan at various times attempted to bring other topics into play, but Harris seemed hung up on being right about absolute truth being scientific truth and could not concede that there might be a broader scope, framed within morality itself.

So called micro example which Harris provided (the one with the guy randomly killing people unless they can name US presidents in correct order, when he is actually factually wrong) was so stupid that it unambiguously went on to show he didn't understand anything Peterson was trying to convey.

He used it to prove a point that you can survive thanks to a scientific falsehood and he set it in a tight framework of an isolated, highly improbable incident. Jordan's point was that it's nigh impossible to survive without knowing and following the moral truth in a much broader framework that is life.

So, as I previously stated, parallel discussion par excellence.

 

[touchedbyjab]

So called micro example which Harris provided (the one with the guy randomly killing people unless they can name US presidents in correct order, when he is actually factually wrong) was so stupid that it unambiguously went on to show he didn't understand anything Peterson was trying to convey.

He used it to prove a point that you can survive thanks to a scientific falsehood and he set it in a tight framework of an isolated, highly improbable incident. Jordan's point was that it's nigh impossible to survive without knowing and following the moral truth in a much broader framework that is life.

So, as I previously stated, parallel discussion par excellence.

I agree. Have you read the e-mail exchanges between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky? I feel like Sam Harris did the same thing in this exchange that he did in the Peterson interview, which is to steer the discussion in a tiny pinhole of the greater story and inevitably get no-where in terms of real exchange of ideas.

 

[dontsnitch]

Whoa, is this a time-saving technique? Sounds gnarly

You can get through a lot of lectures with this feature. Highly, highly recommend the 2x normal speed feature, or 1.5x if the speaker is too quick.

 

[Harmonica]

I agree. Have you read the e-mail exchanges between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky? I feel like Sam Harris did the same thing in this exchange that he did in the Peterson interview, which is to steer the discussion in a tiny pinhole of the greater story and inevitably get no-where in terms of real exchange of ideas.

I haven't but I will check it out now.

Sam Harris is massively overrated, it's no wonder he lacks real ideas. Not only that he is intellectually infertile, he is also determined never to be wrong. He comes across as a spokesperson for his atheistic flock, a shepherd who cannot allow others to expand his horizons simply because his sheep will look upon it as some sort of concession. Throughout his discussion with Peterson, he acted as if even a mere consideration of opposing side's points would automatically make him a believer in the traditional, narrow sense of the word. That's why he hanged on to his "points" as if his life depended on it. Ridiculous.

 

[dontsnitch]

 

[dissolved]

That was powerful!

Man, I WISH he came out with something sooner. I was looking for it. We need the Petersons of the world right now!

I loved the quote, "Because if we can't, it's not Islamophobia."

 

[Bald1]

Is this the first time Peterson broached the subject of Islam?

 

[dontsnitch]

That was powerful!

Man, I WISH he came out with something sooner. I was looking for it. We need the Petersons of the world right now!

I loved the quote, "Because if we can't, it's not Islamophobia."

Agreed, he has a gift for moving people with his words.

It's also an interesting point he makes with hate speech and the drawing of Muhammad. I'll be watching this one closely.

 

[dissolved]

Is this the first time Peterson broached the subject of Islam?

I haven't seen it before.

 

[dontsnitch]

Is this the first time Peterson broached the subject of Islam?

I have never heard him explicitly speak of Islam before, though he alludes to it when he speaks of the superiority of Western culture.

 

[dissolved]

Agreed, he has a gift for moving people with his words.

It's also an interesting point he makes with hate speech and the drawing of Muhammad. I'll be watching this one closely.

I've been praying for ones like him who can articulate arguments well to stand up and be bold. God help us.