So what happed to the Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris podcast?

You know it's just a thinly veiled dick measuring contest as well as we do.

His podcasts generally aren't.

I don't agree with him on plenty of things but Harris does seem sincerely interested in constructive conversation and has always tried to do so.

Of course he can't stop everyone from chimping out all the time.

I cant wait to see drink his sweet sweet duck tears

This isn't a Veeky Forums topic. Get lost.

pls back to your user upvoted neo-liberal """thinktank""", you're too retarded to waste bandwidth on Hiroshimoot's poor overworked servers

strangenotions.com/the-most-famous-debate-on-the-existence-of-god/

Sad! when you're so close to the nominalist project that you can't even see it.

Peterson is nothing but an embarrassment. Can't believe people here are genuinely interested in this guy.

His lectures are fantastic and his debate against Bill C-16 is strong. You and the people you likely support are the ones who come off 'genuinely' embarrassing.

Butt blasted uoft tranny detected

>pic
What did he mean by this?

He is referring to autists who identify as dragon-kin. If you respect and acknowledge their type of bullshit, you would be detroyed.

This sounds false. pls tell me what he really meant.

Why are you guys so interested in this obscure and extremely specific aspect of Canadian politics?

I like to think that Sam Harris was BTFO.

He takes himself far too seriously now, like some sort of intellectual frontiersman.

He needs taken down a peg.

That's what he meant. Dragons aren't real so they can't eat you, but once you acknowledge them as real then they get the power to eat you.

>once you acknowledge them as real then they get the power to eat you.
but they don't?

Does that mean he also believes we can eat cowkin?

Its a debate, retards. Nobody "lose" here.

Metaphorically speaking. Having your culture and identity detroyed by left wing cultural marxist loser kids is a bit like getting eaten.

Does this sound less stupid in context?

How is it stupid? You were the guy that needed 2 posts to understand it.

>your culture

You mean traditionalism. Culture is memetic

>if you take seriously someone who thinks he's a dragon then your IDENTITY AND CULTURE ARE DESTROYED
How is it not stupid? That's not to say otherkin BS is valid, but believing that some people are mentally dragons or some shit probably isn't going to ruin your life.

>narcissism, delusion, and degredation of culture and identity won't lead to the destruction of your society

Degenerates have always existed. Society has still persevered. What makes gender pronouns and otherkins the definitive battle? Genocides and world wars weren't enough?

>narcissism
stop posting here

Degenerates were not accepted, let alone encouraged

>Degenerates have always existed. Society has still persevered.

I mean, we haven't literally gone extinct but that's an interesting definition of persevere.

I bet you Jordan just went above and beyond what Sam could handle.

Hopefully it'll never get uploaded

>KIDS THESE DAYS ARE DRESSING IN A WAY I DON'T APPROVE OF, THAT MEANS SOCIETY IS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE
t. every generation.

Pick up a history book sometime.

Right back atcha, famalam. Grumbling about the degeneration of the youth is a tradition that goes back centuries, the only difference is you're probably way too young to be doing it.

I think you misunderstood, I'm not insulting you. I'm making a friendly suggestion. Read some history.

k

This isn't by any means what he actually meant by that quote. Peterson isn't a /pol/fag no matter how hard people on both sides try and meme him into an alt-right icon.

His quote is complaining about the cultural perception of Jung, following his "new-age-ification" by Joseph Campbell.

What he means is that dragons in archetypal "slaying the dragon" stories represent threats to either the individual or the community which when vanquished allows the hero to retrieve some kind of reward which the dragon has been guarding. Often this is a mate or wealth, but it can be understood as literally anything that you desire/need and have some kind of obstacle blocking you from reaching. It's an archetypal narrative.

Peterson's point is that new-age types always emphasise that you should face the "dragon", (another similar idea though slightly different is that of "facing your demons"), but never recognise that there is any danger in doing this. The context he says it in is one that you can interpret it many ways, since it's just an offhand comment. But the most valuable interpretation and the most relevant to people on this board might be that you should be careful when facing up to the "dragon" of, say, pervasive cultural nihilism following the destruction of traditional values (and I'm not talking about "whiteness" or any /pol/ shit, I mean religious explanations, moral universalism etc.), and that without real preparation and understanding of the situation you risk being consumed by the dragon, which Peterson would probably explain as being immersed in chaos and the loss of any sense of meaning in the world.

Saying it has anything to do with Dragonkin is retarded. They are a symbol of a system of oppressive order, which, while underpinned by a system of all-consuming chaos (the loss of concrete identity and the flight into fantasy), is probably better expressed archetypally by a story about, say, a mad king, if you want to capture the paradoxical mixing of a system of chaos perpetuating itself through a envoy of order.

Not a Jung expert by any means so anyone who knows more than me should feel free to contradict me on this last point about archetypes.

Joke's on you I'm a right wing nationalist.

I listed to him on the Rogan podcast, he's a hysterical sophist.

This. I'm not denying that his thoughts re identity politics are refreshing, and incisive, or that his lectures are fairly acerbic but the ontological and moral axioms he's willing to build off of are disappointing.
>inb4 read Keirk.

if you can't make your point in 250 words, don't make it.

Pretty good rule to live by, and practice, so that other's don't throw a TLDR at you.

The guy who asserts that all meaning is absolute and that there are universal truths is a sophist? Kek, ok bub

lol just how the chomsky harris-debate was a """""""tie""""""" right?

you never read a book did you

a story is pretty different from an online post, or opinion. dumbfuck.

It's also pretty good advice to always attempt to tell any book or story with as few words as possible.

I want to disagree but when I listened to his take on religion on JRE it seemed that his presuppositions were all flowery, nebulous abstractions from which he built more sophistic abstractions.

The basic idea seems to be that our most perfect virtues are manifested in our religious icons and without these icons to follow and answer our questions we will succumb to nihilism as well as lose our cohesion.

As a hardline Durkheimian I'm inclined to agree, but the way he speaks sometimes makes you think "this guy is bordering on complete bullshit."

>I'm not talking about "whiteness" or any /pol/ shit, I mean religious explanations, moral universalism etc.)

Sounds like you're chained to an ideological principle, one you've been inculcated with since you were very young, like most Westerners, and refuse to acknowledge race as an element of identity and civilization

>Peterson's point is that new-age types always emphasise that you should face the "dragon", but never recognise that there is any danger in doing this.

I'm partial to this Nietzsche quote, "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

BGE was written after his seminal works and the insanity had been setting in. A bit prior to the abyss quote he wrote, "all superior men who were irresistibly drawn to throw off the yoke of any kind of morality and to frame new laws had, if they were not actually mad, no alternative but to make themselves or pretend to be mad."

To my mind, this is a tacit admission of, even if inadvertently, the failure of post-Abrahamic philosophy, especially his own, to restore the purpose and impetus in Western civilization more broadly. Nihilism can simply not be defeated, and instead of killing God so merely a few ubermensch can slay the dragon, we ought to restore God as the rightful gatekeeper of the West.

>there are people who unironically consider both of these retards intellectuals
>they will listen to their "debate"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>religion is true but not like other things are true

Trying to revive God with semantics, sophistry in action.

>actually defending this
People like you are the reason pedo rights will be a thing. Flash some propoganda in your face and you can accept anything, no matter how vile. This kid is BEING PROVOCATIVE AND GAY WHEN HE HASNT EVEN GONE THROUGH PUBERTY. HES A FUCKING CHILD. DO YOU THINK THIS IS OK?

His view on religion is kind of like Dan Dannett's view on free will. They realise it's bullshit but try all kind of manoeuvres to keep the idea around as a noble lie to keep the plebs in check. They believe they're being dishonest for a good cause. Basically SJWs in that regard.

This. Harris is a glorified shitposter who got his shit kicked in when he thought he could "debate" Chomsky.

Well, yes and no. Degeneracy has indeed always existed, but it is in the last stages of an empire before its collapse that it is normalized and celebrated, until it takes over and becomes the norm.

>Sounds like you're chained to an ideological principle, one you've been inculcated with since you were very young, like most Westerners, and refuse to acknowledge race as an element of identity and civilization
You're right to some extent that I'm reticent to give my whiteness too much emphasis as a facet of my identity, and there are culturally programmed reasons for that squeamishness. But mostly, it's not so much that I'm refusing to acknowledge it as that I'm downplaying it in order that the user doesn't get the wrong impression of what I, and Peterson, mean by "traditional values", which is a little more developed and nuanced than what a meme-nationalist thinks "traditional values" means. I just didn't want him to get the wrong idea and be turned away from him.

And also I do think that whiteness is secondary in comparison to what should form the primary part of our traditional identity, which is the achievements of western civilization, including Western Asia (and maybe Russia but that's a big maybe, as much as I'd like to include them so I could feel cultural pride about Tolstoy and Dosto). These are the cultures which Greek Antiquity and Abrahamic Religion forms the foundation to, and thus the most important for us to identify with. Thus, we share our ideas with a cultural pool which, while primarily white, does not entirely consist of white people

I haven't really thought this idea through; it's something I've been mulling over just recently, because it's only just recently that I began to see the West as something I'd like to identify with rather than some great oppressive structure, as we're expected to regard it. But I don't think Middle Eastern (Western Asian) culture is an other to us, as both sides of the political spectrum claim.

But race is an element, I agree. Just not one I'd put particular emphasis on when it comes to deciding what my cultural heritage consists of.

>To my mind, this is a tacit admission of, even if inadvertently, the failure of post-Abrahamic philosophy, especially his own, to restore the purpose and impetus in Western civilization more broadly. Nihilism can simply not be defeated, and instead of killing God so merely a few ubermensch can slay the dragon, we ought to restore God as the rightful gatekeeper of the West.
Peterson actually talks about this. He seems to have a lot of contempt for the ubermensch idea and considers it a half-baked response to the problem of nihilism. His reading of Jung sees his thought on religion forming a more mature response to the nihilism problem than the ubermensch.

Part of the reason Peterson, even though he's an atheist in the strict sense of the word, is so appealing to people is because he's reopening the field for conversation about religion in a way that modern people can understand. I suspect a lot of people will take his line of thought further and we will see more public intellectuals espousing literally religious ideas.

>tfw fedoras are calling JP a sophist, too dumb to understand his beliefs
He is not advocating a belief in a literal external, personal, supernatural being that governs the universe. His "god" does not exist in the exterior world.

>His "god" does not exist in the exterior world.
While he doesn't believe in a traditional deity, I think his position is a little stronger than you're letting on.

From Wlwhat he has articulated, his "god" is just the unknown layers of causalities that are manifested into a being in the human mind. His ideas are from Joseph Campbell and Jung. Though, I have the feeling he has some belief (agnostic?) in the christian religion, but he has not articulated them.

Name some living intellectuals that you respect.

Then why does he cling to the misleading label?

It's the label that Campbell and Jung used, psychologically and anthropologically. Campbell says the previous definition is the essential part of god in religion, so I guess you can say he is stripping away the mythology from god. JP seems to be a "death of god" theological follower, not abandoning Christianity but reinterpreting it for the modern age.

Chalmers-chama

Broadly because he thinks religious language can be used to express things that everyday language can't. And he's absolutely 100% right.

But if you're autistic about this kind of thing, it's something you'll never understand.

Why can't he use poetic language that isn't misleading? Why must he use concepts which mean different things to almost everyone?

Seems like he is deliberately misleading or an extreme poor communicator.

>leftists have literally started defending pedophilia

Quintessential anti-intellectualism.

>Started
They've been doing it since the 60s/70s. See Ginsberg. They just got PR savy and put in on the down-low until now.

they're two writers having an intellectual conversation.

Are you that kid in the picture? Because you write like a child

You can stick your arbitrary rule right back from whence it came

if either of you ever debated peterson or attempted to offer a succinct opposing viewpoint you would be BTFO by his 40 years of deep historical and religious education within minutes. So fucking easy to sit back hidden and spout criticisms and labels. The guy has dedicated the entirety of his adult life to trying to understand how society can overcome dangerous ideologies, and has dedicated this understanding to teaching people how to be better, more moral and orderly people. And he has done it all without a hint of condescension. He is literally dedicating himself to the upholding of truth and the betterment of human beings despite incredibly strong pressures to do the opposite. Have some respect

Jokes on you, no one thought otherwise.
Fuck off, reactionary scum.

Spooky

Both are thinkers for pseudointellectuals, so it doesn't surprise me at all that Veeky Forums holds an affection for them.

You are a pseudointellectual.

Jesus dude. In what domain do you think you eclipse JP or SH, academically, spiritually, philosophically? Staggering avarice

The fall of Empires is much more nuanced. What you call degeneracy is just an easy target and much like Pandoras box irreversible making it a sustainable ideological enemy when necessary. It should be realized though that the modification of social mores is not irreversible due to hedonistic tendencias and innate nihilism but because mankind are master adapters. We will always persevere but many will be left behind. This is scary, yes, i know. We can pontificate "but at what cost?" endlessly and strive to work out the kinks, sure- but the fear that our future selves will succumb to anything less than what we already are is foolish. Survival is brutal and we may have to learn to live with an understanding for nihilism without condoning it. I see this as a result of a perverted view to what our domain of struggle naturally is. We seem to be approaching some omega point in shared consciousness, at least we seem to want this. Why else are we here on Veeky Forums? This has greatly distorted the real and personal. I do not see a retreat as possible at this point and perhaps I too will eventually succumb to despair, but until that day comes i know that at the end of this day the only social mores i can and need to care about are those of my friends and family.

>make a claim
>can't be bothered to back it up
spooked

Dude, peterson is the embodiment of spooked

>there are scientific truths but there are also religious truths

kek

well put

you referring to this?
youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE at 2:02:19

Peterson is too concerned with applying his thoughts to real life issues to get caught up with silly memes like spooks.

but there does come a degree of being too spooked. what one may call noble another may call a foolish call to arms to supplement their own failings.

if you gave chimps an innumerable amount of typewriters they too would eventually come out with an argument against anything- the necessity of the argument though?

peterson's arguments scream of narcissism. the world does not need to bend to him, as pretty as his arguments may seem to be. they lack any and all scientific proof- and by which i mean statistical data.

this should have been a given. i mean the man cries in his own youtube lectures, showing a grave misconception of truth and his own personal id

>A FUCKING META HERO

how many novels has this guy actually read? he is strong and eloquent in his language but he comes off as never studying literature or language beyond the undergraduate level.

>What is the hero's journey?

>from whence

Eeeeewwww.

Maybe he's dumbing it down so that Rogan can understand.

That's very charitable of you.

joe rogan needs to be taken to task for providing a platform to this kind of bs. i know there are some sam harris defenders here so i ask of them how can they support this shit???

Not sure about the exact context of this quote, but Peterson tends to take a very mythologically oriented perspective in his Maps of Meaning lectures. Hence he often uses 'dragons' and 'demons' etc. as metaphors for the unknown, which can, essentially, eat you. He often draws lines between basic evolutionary biology and traditional mythic stories (ie., we were once eaten up by / killed by snakes a lot so we created a lot of stories where snakes are represented as evil).