The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[kpt018]

Agreed, and that's very odd considering how unflinchingly liberal he is on the right to free speech. His views on truth are illiberal as all hell.

Honestly I'm not sure wtf JP's position on the truth is. But that podcast was the first exposure I had to him.

 

[kpt018]

I only watched the second Harris podcast with Peterson and while entertaining I wouldn't suggest that as a good intro to Peterson because they were focused on a narrower band.

I found the Rogan podcast better by comparison in terms of getting where he's coming from in broader sense, including the underlying reasoning. Different type of discussion.

I think I get where he's coming from in regards to truth. That there are two types of truth (scientific truth, and meta-truth). The second one is not so simple, but I think there is validity to it. It gets a little philosophical I suppose, but it is an attempt to capture something that does exist.

Yeah my memory sucks so I don't have examples but he was playing word games several times and conflating their meaning to make a point. I thought SH's critique of his view of truth was spot on and exactly along the lines I was thinking. I couldn't recommend that podcast to everyone as you will only like it if you enjoy the debate of which about half the time was spent on that one point. I'll have to check out his talk with Rogan.

I do like the guy a lot but struggled with his idea of the truth.

 

[Bat Dad]

Im with her

she was arrested
she stole Lauren southerns phone and smashed it as well as lying to police during an active investigation
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2016/11...gal-system-screws-the-pooch-feat-smugglypuff/

it is also thought that she perpetrated a false flag at her HS
http://iotwreport.com/we-never-updated-the-story-about-smugglypuff/

 

[uncommon]

Greatest kermit impersonator of all time

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Yeah my memory sucks so I don't have examples but he was playing word games several times and conflating their meaning to make a point. I thought SH's critique of his view of truth was spot on and exactly along the lines I was thinking. I couldn't recommend that podcast to everyone as you will only like it if you enjoy the debate of which about half the time was spent on that one point. I'll have to check out his talk with Rogan.

I do like the guy a lot but struggled with his idea of the truth.

Probably the biggest obstacle to understanding Peterson's conception of "truth" is the word itself. If you ditch that and replace it with something like "wisdom" (which he does himself in the second part) you'll have a much easier time making sense of the first podcast, which is centered around a contradiction that neither speaker could properly elucidate until later on.

Peterson's wisdom is better understood as a commitment to a worldview, as opposed to the traditional notion of truth as a property of a proposition. Given these two distinct definitions you could imagine a situation where the truth value of a proposition was in conflict with the broader commitment to a worldview.

Now I'm open to other interpretations here because I'm pretty drunk and writing without reviewing the videos, but it was my impression that Peterson assumes the default commitment to wisdom for humans to be fundamentally Darwinian, that is, concerned with human survival. He compares this to the more sterile Newtonian worldview which operates under the assumption that things are essentially composed of matter and are able to be perceived and classified as such (note that the Newtonian endeavor itself probably has Darwinian origins). But the Darwinian worldview, moreso than the Newtonian one which is more or less indifferent, introduces a telos (end goal) for people that permits a moral realism - or the classification of moral claims as objectively true or false.

So under this system, if a person were to authorize the use of an atomic bomb or other weapon that was potentially hazardous to the whole human race, they would not only be doing something wrong but also enacting an ethical value that is untrue as a result of its incompatibility with human survival - even IF that action were justified through a system of otherwise true propositions.

Where Peterson and Harris disagree is that while Harris is also a moral realist, his moral realism is founded on a utilitarianism that he sort of grabs out of thin air, as opposed to one grounded in Darwinism.

I have some objections to Peterson's position here, but I think he's coming from an interesting place and aware that his position is a minority one by a large margin, which is why he seems to take the more "humble" position through the first podcast. He knows that Sam is arguing from the commonly accepted standpoint and is capable enough of pushing that argument to where it would be difficult to counter, despite the fact that he isn't a scholar or otherwise qualified philosopher.

 

[unimackpass]

It's hilarious that the sjw's are now trying to shutdown Peterson as a purveyor of hate speech. Jordan Peterson? Really?

 

[StandAndBang]

I still cant understand, is he religious or not??? Seriously asking.

From what I understand he's basically what you call "culturally Christian" in that he believes in evolution and the big bang, he doesn't believe that Christ was the son of god or divine in anyway and doesn't believe in a life after bodily death. Though he identifies as Christian and finds value in religious texts.

 

[unimackpass]

Jordan Peterson goes full beast mode on sjw's. Totally calls them cowards and a face to face confrontation.



Also the one thing that Sam Harris and Peterson totally agree on is the condition of the left.
Harris " the left is irredeemable "

 

[deadshot138]

The fat bitch in the Cartman hat has been coined "Smugglypuff"

 

[unimackpass]

From what I understand he's basically what you call "culturally Christian" in that he believes in evolution and the big bang, he doesn't believe that Christ was the son of god or divine in anyway and doesn't believe in a life after bodily death. Though he identifies as Christian and finds value in religious texts.

A lot of Christians believe in evolution and the Big Bang, no problem there. It's hard to tell if he totally denies the supernatural. Probably more affective if people think he doesn't because closed minded types wouldn't be as opened to what he has to say otherwise.

 

[unimackpass]

Probably the biggest obstacle to understanding Peterson's conception of "truth" is the word itself. If you ditch that and replace it with something like "wisdom" (which he does himself in the second part) you'll have a much easier time making sense of the first podcast, which is centered around a contradiction that neither speaker could properly elucidate until later on.

Peterson's wisdom is better understood as a commitment to a worldview, as opposed to the traditional notion of truth as a property of a proposition. Given these two distinct definitions you could imagine a situation where the truth value of a proposition was in conflict with the broader commitment to a worldview.

Now I'm open to other interpretations here because I'm pretty drunk and writing without reviewing the videos, but it was my impression that Peterson assumes the default commitment to wisdom for humans to be fundamentally Darwinian, that is, concerned with human survival. He compares this to the more sterile Newtonian worldview which operates under the assumption that things are essentially composed of matter and are able to be perceived and classified as such (note that the Newtonian endeavor itself probably has Darwinian origins). But the Darwinian worldview, moreso than the Newtonian one which is more or less indifferent, introduces a telos (end goal) for people that permits a moral realism - or the classification of moral claims as objectively true or false.

So under this system, if a person were to authorize the use of an atomic bomb or other weapon that was potentially hazardous to the whole human race, they would not only be doing something wrong but also enacting an ethical value that is untrue as a result of its incompatibility with human survival - even IF that action were justified through a system of otherwise true propositions.

Where Peterson and Harris disagree is that while Harris is also a moral realist, his moral realism is founded on a utilitarianism that he sort of grabs out of thin air, as opposed to one grounded in Darwinism.

I have some objections to Peterson's position here, but I think he's coming from an interesting place and aware that his position is a minority one by a large margin, which is why he seems to take the more "humble" position through the first podcast. He knows that Sam is arguing from the commonly accepted standpoint and is capable enough of pushing that argument to where it would be difficult to counter, despite the fact that he isn't a scholar or otherwise qualified philosopher.

The Harris approach is like someone studying the atomic structure of paint and then proclaiming there is no meaning to the Mona Lisa. No smile here. Or the nature of ink and claiming there are no words in the works of Shakespeare. Cool kids love it .

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

The Harris approach is like someone studying the atomic structure of paint and then proclaiming there is no meaning to the Mona Lisa. No smile here. Or the nature of ink and claiming there are no words in the works of Shakespeare. Cool kids love it .

I mean, there are some thinkers who could be charged with that for sure, but I don't think Harris is one of them. Nor do I think your point has much bearing on his position with regard to truth.

It's more like he studied the atomic structure of paint and proclaimed this painting is not actually the Mona Lisa, despite what the artist has been trying to tell you.

 

[unimackpass]

I mean, there are some thinkers who could be charged with that for sure, but I don't think Harris is one of them. Nor do I think your point has much bearing on his position with regard to truth.

It's more like he studied the atomic structure of paint and proclaimed this painting is not actually the Mona Lisa, despite what the artist has been trying to tell you.

Exactly, he is looking at the nature of paint and saying there is nothing to see.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Exactly, he is looking at the nature of paint and saying there is nothing to see.

My edited analogy was actually meant to imply that while there could be something to see, it's not what conventional wisdom would have you believe.

 

[IDL]

I think it is more along the lines of 'how to determine if wisdom is true', but the whole nitpicking around this 'what is true' business is a sidetrack sticking point IMO. I think it's more to do with what language to use. Peterson uses the term 'meta-truth' to differentiate, and has explained what he means by it with examples and methodology.

A debate about truth terminology and semantics is not what people are finding compelling when it comes to Peterson making some waves.

 

[unimackpass]

My edited analogy was actually meant to imply that while there could be something to see, it's not what conventional wisdom would have you believe.

Still, he using a narrow band of information to pronounce grand proclamations of truth on a level usually only found in fundamentalist circles.

 

[unimackpass]

My edited analogy was actually meant to imply that while there could be something to see, it's not what conventional wisdom would have you believe.

Still, he using a narrow band of information to pronounce grand proclamations of truth on a level usually only found in fundamentalist circles.

 

[touchedbyjab]

Exactly, he is looking at the nature of paint and saying there is nothing to see.

Peterson pointed this out in a sly way during their 2nd discussion; Jordan asked Sam whether there are truths in the works of Shakespear and some other authors. Sam said of course. Well, Shakespeare and the other authors wrote about things that didn't happen and were not real, yet still contained "truth" in a metaphysical sense. Harris doesn't seem to realize that he goes against his own definition of observable, scientifically verifiable objective truth when he agrees with Peterson here.

 

[KidBaize]

It's hilarious that the sjw's are now trying to shutdown Peterson as a purveyor of hate speech. Jordan Peterson? Really?

That was almost maddening to watch. Good on him for having to patience to confront those kinds of infantile disruptions everywhere he speaks.

The protesters seem completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy. Free speech is what allows them to voice opposition yet they somehow feel justified in shutting him down.

 

[unimackpass]

Peterson pointed this out in a sly way during their 2nd discussion; Jordan asked Sam whether there are truths in the works of Shakespear and some other authors. Sam said of course. Well, Shakespeare and the other authors wrote about things that didn't happen and were not real, yet still contained "truth" in a metaphysical sense. Harris doesn't seem to realize that he goes against his own definition of observable, scientifically verifiable objective truth when he agrees with Peterson here.

Good observation. Its one thing if Harris expresses opinions based on his observations but he makes absolute proclamations of infallibility without a thought of giving anyone before or after him the slightest thought. Iconoclastic fundamentalism based on a deity made in his own image. Those that desire to be knighted by the anointed parrot him incessantly , repeating word for word with the same self serving grandiose narcissism.
Actually quite amusing.