Jordan Peterson Sam Harris podcast

Sam seems to be insisting that what is 'true' is the underlying principles that our observations are describing.
Jordan seems to be saying that our understanding of that fundamental principle is necessarily tied to one's moral framework.

The root of the communication problem seems to be that Sam attempts to reason within the confines of self defined 'thought experiments', while Jordan refuses to accept this as valid. His reasoning seems to be that attempting to evaluate what is and is not a fact without the context of the universe we occupy is useless.

wtf shut up you uneducated swine

Peterson subscribes to the pragmatist theory of truth and Harris to the correspondence theory

both are valid theories and you can't say that one doesn't understand what truth is

That's great and all, but can you explain how he's wrong?

It is possible for something that is bad for us to be true. Thus he is wrong.
Example: retards like you exist.

>its a "SJW clamor to crucify Peterson because of Sam Harris" episode

>It is possible for something that is bad for us to be true.

Not what he's arguing, try again.

Literally what he is arguing. If its not good for us, it can't be true, because Darwinism.
So for something to be true, it needs to increase your change to benis in bagina and raise the resulting freak.

>Literally what he is arguing. If its not good for us, it can't be true, because Darwinism.

Again, not exactly what he's saying. There are orders of truth, some things can be true on one level and not on another. One is nested in the other but the same cant be said in reverse.

Science and other modes of understanding reality are inherently nested in the organisms need to survive and multiply, they aren't detached, sterile, and unconnected as you might suggest.

Throw as many detached abstractions as you want at the problem, it's not going to get any more coherent. That seems to be the problem with Harris, these though experiments aren't helpful because they arbitrarily leave out context which is everything.

You don't make an argument, and neither did Peterson.
You make a claim, don't back it, and insult the opponent.

>You don't make an argument, and neither did Peterson.

But you can't say how i'm wrong? And I did make an argument, I said "Science and other modes of understanding reality are inherently nested in the organisms need to survive and multiply, they aren't detached, sterile, and unconnected as you might suggest.".

>You make a claim, don't back it, and insult the opponent.

I don't think i really insulted you, but take it as you will. And i don't think you've done your job at backing up anything you've said. You throw down these 5 word sentences like "something is bad" and think you've won the argument because i won't take that seriously.

Thread is a prime example of why philosophy is dead.

Why do you say that?

Nothing is detached, because to make observations you use your sensors, and to think you use your brain.
The limited man produces limited conclusions. Super simple stuff, lad.

And no, I can't say how you are wrong, when you don't fucking say anything.

What is that hat about? It took me five minutes to figure out the picture was of the Jordan Peterson guy your post also mentions, but I can't figure out why he was wearing that hat at some point or what that hat is meant to symbolize.

What?

I'm not supporting Harris here, but there can only be one version of the truth unless you believe truth is relative?

Then well, everything is true.

One of his friends gave handmade it and gave it to him. He wore it in a video a few months ago.

ok, but what does the hat mean? Is it supposed to be an animal, or a flag, or a symbol of some kind? What was his friend getting at with it?

It is le green Pepe frog, he even did a video on le Pepe frog

>The limited man produces limited conclusions. Super simple stuff, lad.

Can you not see that abstractions are extremely limited?

No I got this wrong, but he did do the video on Pepe the frog

/thread
No seriously this is one of the stupidest threads Ive seen

So how did you come to the erroneous conclusion that autism is equal to stupidity?

Can you tell us why, mr. genius?

...

I don't know.

Science and materialism trumps philosophies all day.

Really, we are on the internet so I don't know how else I could prove to you the benefits of materialism and modern science.

If you want, you can go live in a cave.

>Science and materialism trumps philosophies all day.

You are extremely confused, the two are not at odds with each other. Science is nested in philosophy

Neither trumps the other, in real life both exist at the same time in the same place

>NESTING

Science gives you how and what, philosophy gives you why bother.

At multiple times i found myself agreeing with Peterson's criticism at how narrow Sam's views were, then at others he completely lost me. I agree there are different levels of true but something is still either true or false, "not true enough" still implies true, I felt like they should have disagreed with that and continued on past it. I do think I would like to hear more though, but both allowing a little more concession to the other for the sake of delving into different topics would be better.

I should like to add, they both have a bit of a romantic notion of truth, but as both acknowledged multiple times, true doesn't mean good. Science generally does have this prevailing notion that scientific truths are great and noble. They certainly can be but it isn't a be-all end-all. A blind irresponsible indiscriminate pursuit of knowledge isn't good for anyone.

Peterson isn't a good debater. He also didn't go into that discussion thinking Sam was going to argue as if it was a debate.

I honestly wish they would've just concede they were operating on different axioms, and just continued having a discussion about ideas instead of a debate.

Science is but a method to produce a body of facts, philosophy is then the method of what to do with these facts. Certainly not incompatible, but both can pursue extremely different goals in different veins, which I fear is a pitfall of many theologians.

In no world would this have ever happened.

I do not like Peterson for the simple fact that he will never, ever fucking accept that other people could possibly have a different worldview and be right. The only time you see him having a fluid conversation is when someone is simply asking him non-invasion questions that don't step all over the garden of the mind he's cultivated for himself. I prefer Dennett for his bluntness. He would have called Peterson out for being self-indulgent and then left the conversation after realizing no discourse was to be had. This is the same Dennett, I might add, that humored Rupert Sheldrake when he said insane shit like the "Sun might be conscious bro, you don't know!"

>I do not like Peterson for the simple fact that he will never, ever fucking accept that other people could possibly have a different worldview and be right.

I don't get that feeling from him at all. I just think he has a very idiosyncratic worldview that isn't reducible to autistic thought experiments like Harris used for 2 hours straight.

Peterson repeatedly said Harris had made a very good argument, it was just fraught with as many paradoxes as his own, because >perfect ideas

>tfw knew about Jordan Peterson and watched his lectures years before the gender pronoun shit

I'm cooler than you fags

I don't care to watch 2 hours of debate. I know it is going nowhere.

But some one could maybe give me a tl;dr of the logic behind pragmatic truth. Did pragmatists really see it as a real truth, and if so, since the truth of science is very useful, wouldn't a pragmatic truth become a paradox when it in itself isn't useful enough?

So did I, I was amazed when he suddenly got in the news