There are still people who believe in objectivity

>there are still people who believe in objectivity
>there are still people who believe in opposites
>there are still people who believe logical fallacies are critiques of the argument and not of the language used in its expression
Where the fuck did we go wrong?

>there are still people who believe logical fallacies are critiques of the argument and not of the language used in its expression
That's exactly what a logical fallacy is, you fucking retard

Sites like RYM and TSPDD prove objectivity exists. There is music and movies that people just enjoy more than others

Key words: "There are still people who believe..."

>there are pieces of music which are more pleasant to the ear than others for a majority of people
>therefore, objectivity exists outside human perception
doesn't check out to be honest family

I'm a believer but Peterson is incorrect. The first self-evident principles are such as "the principle of non-contradiction". God is known by demonstration from first principles. The axioms, or first principles, are not assumed "on faith", but known by the intuition of our mind.

Aristotle -

Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

did he actually tweet this? If so how is he allowed to work in education?

Lemme see the proof of that statement Jordan you fucking pedant!

If you closed off a room and made it so you couldn't hear outside opinions people would still generally like the same things.

Why do they let literal communists work in education?