Be honest Veeky Forums, how is he going to fare against Sam Harris tomorrow?

Be honest Veeky Forums, how is he going to fare against Sam Harris tomorrow?

Other urls found in this thread:

thestar.com/news/insight/2017/01/15/he-says-freedom-they-say-hate-the-pronoun-fight-is-back.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He seems more prone to getting emotional than Harris but his argument is superior.

tell me more

Yeah I heard from his own mouth in an interview that he suffers greatly with depression, especially in the winter, and that one of the first signs that he gathered he was prone to depression was that he is very easily moved to tears. I hope he holds it together for this debate, especially because he mentioned in his latest video that his health is not so strong, currently.

his new year video made me v embarrassed for him

This.

Peterson has a far more rigorously constructed argument and is a lot more widely educated than Harris, but his argument relies on a lot of humane elements meaning Harris can quite easily just lock down into full positivism in order to reject his claims.

Which is why everyone hates stemfags.

Peterson's work entails a sense of the aesthetic, which opens him up to those who cannot comprehend the relevance of aesthetics to a comprehensive theory. But for us here it should be an endearing fact rather than an alienating one.

It's these elements of his thought that makes him appear emotional. I get the sense he isn't a naturally scientific or rational person but someone who has trained himself through hard work and toil to work within that framework. But he definitely lapses under stress (and he did in the debate too unfortunately, but Harris will probably be a more accepting and less hostile audience)

New article released by the Toronto Star today about him:

thestar.com/news/insight/2017/01/15/he-says-freedom-they-say-hate-the-pronoun-fight-is-back.html

That's the fundamental divide, something that's difficult to bridge by argument, because I'm not sure logic can be used, except to say: humans aren't and shouldn't have to be completely logical in all things.

Harris will completely outskill him, but racist alt-right babbys would claim that Peterson won

What are they debating?

Obvious false flag is obvious

I don't see him debating with Harris so much as having a beneficial dialectic with him. If Harris were to take to heart what Peterson has to say I'll have so much more respect for both of them.

It's not really a debate, it's just that Peterson is going on Sam Harris's "Waking Up with Sam Harris" podcast tomorrow 1/16, and considering Sam Harris is a staunch atheist and Peterson is a conservative Christian, they are bound to debate at least upon some points.

I don't know what the topic is, but Harris thinks religion is mostly negative, Peterson thinks it is mostly positive.

Is it supposed to be a debate? I thought it was just an interview.

If they have a civil discussion, it would be nice to hear them hash out their differences abut the role of 'rationalism' in scientific inquiry and theory building.

>Peterson is a conservative Christian
Citation needed

Where can I watch a Livestream or whatever it is of this?

would like to know as well

Not sure if you could describe him as conservative or liberal, but he's definitely Christian, at least in some Jungian sense. He avoids going into specifics.

He's basically a libertarian, as far as I can tell.

>and he did in the debate too unfortunately,
What debate?

why do people waste time with sam harris? he is stirner tier stupid.

You answered you own question. Most people think on that level.


Don't get memed though user, there is a lot of nuance to Stirner that goes over the head of most people. It seems that most people haven't even read him, and just repeat the spooks meme.

Peterson's an interesting guy because I think his appeal is exactly what he was protesting against in his "Metaphysics of Pepe" video. With Pepe, SJWs choose, of the millions of random variations of Pepe, to focus on the Hitler Pepe or the scheming Jew Pepe, in order to declare the entire meme a hate symbol, which is ridiculous. Peterson pointed out that this was ridiculous, and that this is the result of SJWs projecting their own opposite onto a definable enemy. That is to say, they believe so fervently that those who are their enemies are "racists, Nazis, Hitler, bigots, misogynists, sexists, etc," that they actively seek out those who would legitimize their beliefs by embodying what they are AGAINST.

In the same vein though, Peterson's appeal isn't just because of his refusal to use transgender pronouns, but because of the danger he articulates, which is radical Marxism taking over the world. His frequent references to the Soviet Union and "50 million people killed in the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959", as the logical conclusion of political correctness, legitimize these alt-righters insofar as they can go beyond claiming that SJWs are "crazy" or "obnoxious" and may now claim that they will bring about the end of the world.

I think that given the fact that he has been working within academia for the past few decades, his fears of cultural Marxism and his focus on refuting the claims of the radical left make more sense then if he were to spend his time also articulating the faults of radical, right wing thought (which would be preaching to the choir). Frankly, I'm glad that the alt-right crowd is flocking to him, if only because he's actually articulate and well educated and could possible aid in their attempts to sharpen their arguments (the legitimate grievances of the alt-right), while shedding their bad ones.

I, for one, largely thought that the claims of the alt-right were overblown UNTIL Peterson got involved in his current situation. There are legitimate concerns to be had about the far left, and I think nobody articulates them better than Peterson.

This debate will be shit because Peterson hasn't studied the history of epistemology which means I won't get to see the hack that is Harris get btfo.

Bingo!

>hasn't studied the history of epistemology

What in the blue fuck are you talking about? You're aware of his credentials right?

>pragmatist
>psychologist
>understands the importance of religious structure in culture
>talks about hierarchy, evolution, and evolutionary mechanisms a lot
>well read on nietzche, jung, solzhenitsyn
>knowledgeable on the crimes of the soviet empire
he's a crypto natsoc, book it

Good post.

Yes, that's why I know he hasn't studied it.