Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris podcast out

I'm 1 hour in, who's winning?

Man this turned into a lame talk.

>conflating a bunch of authors whose single thing they have in common is that they completely flew over your head
>thinking you can even begin to understand what you'd need to BTFO a giant like Derrida

I don't even like him, but it's very easy to see how he actually made so much sense it eventually turned back on him, the guy was so far ahead of literally everyone else that his own work became self-defeating.

Nobody, they are stuck at defining truth.

Who defines it correctly?

You mean he was so far up his own ass that he literally became self-annihilating.

they're both absolute trash and if you like them or enjoy this """"""debate"""""" you should feel bad.

it is literally on the same level as joe rogan debating russell brand

>it is literally on the same level as joe rogan debating russell brand

lol no way

Even though it's annoying to listen they argue about epistemological bedrock, they are both miles ahead of Rogan and that Brand faggot.

Foucault, neither of them can give a definition to the concept because they fail to connect epistemology to power and its relation to the production of truth within individual subjects.

lmao

Peterson blew him the fuck out.

What an uninteresting talk. They disagree so strongly on fundamental assumptions that the debate is not productive.

kek

So can somebody give a rundown on how it went?

this is so shit they literally cannot agree on anything fundamental. watch this one instead its way more productive.

youtube.com/watch?v=-RCtSsxhb2Q

they spent 2 hours not saying anything.

Essentially: Sam is a realist and thinks scientific facts are true regardless of whatever people say or do, or think about them.

Peterson thinks that scientific facts are couched within a Darwinian framework, and hence the truth value of a fact cannot be separated from it's effect on us as a species. So if something is true but it annihilates humanity, then it wasn't "true enough" because it didn't keep us alive.

Sam disagreed.

>meme philosopher and meme atheist talk about meme issues
Who gives a shit, this isn't literature

So they're both dumb.

>There are no facts, only interpretations.

Peterson actually has a pretty Nietzscheian conception of truth, though not completely.

And I can understand why someone like Harris doesn't like that.

Nietzsche is basically holds the Peterson position, though.

I remember in one of peterson's lectures he gave the example of soviet attempts to engineer dangerous diseases to be distributed via aerosol. And that If it managed to devestate humanity the "truthiness" of the process used to do weaponize diseases could be called into question.

Idk what you think on the matter, but wouldn't that be considered an appeal to consequences? I'm sure that someone like Harris would retort by saying that a complex and nuanced understanding of the universe can't simply be invalidated because of what humans decided to do with that knowledge.

Or that facts are agreed upon interpretations.

>Peterson thinks that scientific facts are couched within a Darwinian framework, and hence the truth value of a fact cannot be separated from it's effect on us as a species. So if something is true but it annihilates humanity, then it wasn't "true enough" because it didn't keep us alive.
That is slightly interesting but only because I have a similar view. But if Peterson's Twitter is any indication he probably argued this in a complicated and unclear matter. Or maybe not complicated but obscure.

Nassim Taleb has a similar if different view.

Peterson comes close to this.

>I'm sure that someone like Harris would retort by saying that a complex and nuanced understanding of the universe can't simply be invalidated because of what humans decided to do with that knowledge.

And that's exactly what he's saying in the podcast too.

I didnt know you guys take Harris serious...

sam harris is incapable of producing interesting discussions with more or even similarly intelligent people which is why he goes out of his way to debate christians and joe rogan

>I didnt know you guys take Harris serious...
I think most are discussing this because of Peterson and don't care that much about Harris

Most people here don't know anything about Harris except that he's popular. That's why they hate him.

What a convenient position, snowflake.

Okay so let's talk about this...I personally have a huge problem with science and I think the middle ages knew it very well what science was capable of and that's why they kept it "hidden" from the world. With the coming of the modern era people's mentality started changing radically and they gradually distanced themselves from God into the arms of science, now regarded as a new all-knowing deity, but since science is the weapon of humans, it made them "all-knowing" - now, whether they are all-knowing or not, it is certainly a hubristic mentality. But nowadays, people regard science more highly than ever. Peterson's argument is "it is not worth knowing about the atomic fusion if it can kill us all" - basically, it's our fault if we meddle with small-pocks in a laboratory and it accidentally kills us all, while Harris thinks a mistake is just a mistake, and in a different lab they find the cure for small-pocks, voila science wins. Harris's argument is really barren to me, and listening to Peterson is really humbling and satisfying.
It is a curious example, because even though small-pocks had been eradicated, they kept the virus in a lab and accidentally killed someone before deciding to destroy it completely. I guess they wanted to use it for research to see if something can be done with it and it back-lashed. Harris would say well yes someone made a mistake, but what her forgets is that SOMEONE GOT KILLED, A REAL PERSON DIED BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PLAY WITH THIS VIRUS. Tell that to the poor woman's family. Harris's unawareness is scary, in all honesty, because it shows how scientists become devoid of the sense of importance of a single life.
I think Harris is the kind of person who would shoot a child in the head if it meant eradicating all the illnesses of the world. And Peterson would never do that because not only is he aware that the child is a living, breathing human being, but that eradicating all the illnesses in the world isn't necessarily a good thing. It is playing God. And that leads to disaster.

if you don't shoot the kid you're just a moron t b h pham

what if the kid is you? would you kill yourself for the "good" of humanity?

I'd kill myself regardless.

There's truth that is independent no matter what you believe and then there's truth that is true because of interpretations.

If every person was a white sheet of paper and there was no human nature besides what we would want it to be, you could make the argument that human nature becomes whatever the majority decides upon, given their actions create the environment the majority claims to be adjusting to.

Saying, if enough people believed humans were cunts and you had to be a cunt yourself in order to survive, they would create the circumstances that proof their maxim and eventually it would become selfevident despite it not being true on principle.

We don't really need to use something so abstract. We see similar trade offs in every domain of human behavior.

The "child" is every person that dies as a result of general human endeavors. There are none where the child gets to live, because there is always someone that will suffer and die from the products of human efforts to find things that work better; and that is because we don't live in a universe where thee are solutions, only trade-offs.

Peterson stomped his shit in. Harris BTFO again

So no one could have told them, it depends on context and they are both right in their ways?

Science is best bet at approaching facts, and can in cases 80-98.99% can. But science has also been wrong, and can get muddled within its own theory, limits, shortcomings, optical illusions.

And that also, some facts are used, in the sense of how useful or not they are, which may hide some facts from eye, or make some of what seems to be truth, facts, not absolutely, but only because they are hoisted up there by powers desire.

Am I the only one who has the feeling that intellectualism is pretty useless considering how those two couldn't get pass "what is truth" in their discussion?

I get why you would ask the question, but it seems like if you got a whole parlement of guys like that nothing would get done.

wtf i'm #brainlet now

>pic
Oh, Jordan Peterson is THAT guy. He's an average intelligence pleb.

Abstract thinking has only become common in enlightened modernity. If you ask the question: "Bob encounters someone who wants to sell two horses worth $1000 each for that price and Bob also knows someone who is desperate to get two horses and promised him to pay $1500 each for two horses. Should he buy the horses?"

A modern person would say: "Sure, he'll make a 1000$ profit."
An economist would say: "He should analyze the risks, make an estimation of expected profit and see if it integrates well into his portfolio."
A medieval farmer would say: "He should definitely take a good look at the horses. My neighbor bought a horse, good breed, shining fur, a real piece that horse. Paid a hefty price too. Broke a leg a year later when he drove it up the mountain with his carriage. Had to put it down. My brother Jake told him it would happen. Now, Jake knows a good horse when he sees one. He has that hand with animals, you know. Haven't bought cattle without him, wouldn't dream of hit. He said to my neighbor it won't endure the work, it's not a work horse, is what he said. Wouldn't hear of it, and that's what it got him. Maybe you want me to introduce that fella of yours to Jake..."

We laugh at the inability of the farmer to understand abstract problems, but I think Peterson would say he is the only one who has considered the problem within a proper framework of reality. The modern persons answer is solid, but pretty unsophisticated. The economists answer is just useless to a farmer that doesn't already know the ins and outs of portfolio theory. The farmers answer is truer, in a way.

The economists answer, if properly formulated, is extremely powerful and useful of course, but it is divorced from a big chunk of reality, of the actual, direct situation and consequences of actions. It only exists within a mathematical model until you embed it within a proper framework of reality which requires other knowledge. Knowledge that is beyond the field of scientific inquiry.

This is in my opinion also what the US election was about. The people voted for the businessman over the politician, the billionaire equivalent of a plumber who puts his hand down the pipe over the indoor waste-pipe fitter who assures you that he has done all the measurements on the pipe and that he knows exactly what needs to be done.

Too many things wrong with this post to even bother with but I just wanted you to know that holy fuck you are stupid.

wow gj user you really showed him

Walter Ong?!

youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZK9W4V1Rc

Meme philosopher?
He's a psychologist.
I've been to see him speak. He's a twat at best.
Not siding with Harris here. Just saying the man is a hack.

I used to like Harris and mostly agree with him, but this time I felt his ego got in the way tbqh.

you're more retarded than him fag

literally kill yourself

>white shirt
>suspenders
>rolled up sleeves

He looks like an old time police detective.

who's the qt on the far left?

You mean the tranny?

this post made me laugh really hard. It's like something you'd read in a satirical account of a philosophical debate

I don't get why Sam couldn't just concede that Peterson had a different ontological framework, and just continue the discussion on to other topics.

I think Harris came into the whole thing with the express intent of having a debate and not having a discussion at all, and actually trying to win the debate.

It's kind of annoying and it really shows Harris having a massive ego.

the kid is jesus christ

Why? I'd agree with him

You're fucking retarded.

Stop posting here.

>I think Harris is the kind of person who would shoot a child in the head if it meant eradicating all the illnesses of the world. And Peterson would never do that because not only is he aware that the child is a living, breathing human being, but that eradicating all the illnesses in the world isn't necessarily a good thing. It is playing God. And that leads to disaster.
Nice cognitive dissonance faggot. You're creating a false dichotomy, if shooting the child to cure all diseases is a possibility, as in we take your retarded hypothetical seriously, that act is not something that exists outside of nature. It is the result of human development. Shooting that child is the natural unfolding of life, which is essentially what you argue for but pretend that humanity becoming smarter and smarter and developing science is somehow an aspect divorced from the natural world.

That girl's a cutie (no, not the trannie).

>this is what the average Canadian campus looks like
the world is doomed

(she)

>not the tranny

I've got some bad news for you...

Because you can't have a productive conversation with a person in good faith if you believe he is either as stupid or delusional as Peterson appears to be. His ridiculous claims needed to either be clarified or dismantled to move on.