Could this have gone any worse?

Well that's just the problem. Harris is blind in his following of logic, he can't see past it, while Peterson tries to...wake him up.

Shit like this is why nobody actually likes philosophers and rhetoritians.

Shit like this killed lit desu

Harris got exposed. Fucking hack can't make an argument to save his life.

>2017
>listening to philosophers
Philosophy is for psueds. True Ubermensch are comfortable in a state of negative capability.

Harris makes extremely contrived example and then act confused when he doesn't get his way.
Setting that kind of case and then concluding that you must be right because you showed a contradiction is not legitimate.

I mean if you take the example of the affair, it just means that Harris doesn't understand anything about the accumulation of blindness in a person life before betrayal shows up.

Same with the good scientist and polio. You can't just start philosophising midway.

I always laugh reading remarks like this. Chomsky gets it a lot as a public figure as well. Filled to the brim on on every book review site and every youtube comment section are tonnes of comments saying "what a hack", "such a pseudo-intellectual", with no fucking discussion of how they reached those conclusions.

It's kinda this. It's like listening to Brian Redban and Bill Burr arguing about RSS feeds but with more fancy words. They aren't even trying to figure out what's actually the problem with their conversation, it's just a less vulgar version of two construction workers arguing about chevy vs ford.

>less vulgar
maybe not

>with no fucking discussion of how they reached those conclusions.

Listen, idiot.

People aren't discovered to be hacks or pseudo-intellectuals by arguments, it is a feeling, a sense that you get.

You just KNOW when someone is a hack. It's just KNOWN.

If you don't know or get the "feeling" then you are probably a hack yourself.

Bollocks.

Hack!

Buttocks. A real intellectual can intuitively identify other real intellectuals. It takes one to know one, so to speak.

>two non-philosophers debate philosophy
no thanks

But Chomsky is a pseudo-intellectual hack for your information.

Two nobodies that I hope will be forgotten in 5 years but will certainly be forgotten in 20.

What the FUCK did any of you idiots expect? Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are equally trite and undeserving of your time.

I really sympathize with Peterson's going up against SJWs and ultra-liberals, I do, but even Harold Bloom is a more worthy public intellectual memed by Veeky Forums to read or listen to than either Harris or Peterson are. I don't mean to be cruel or dismissive, but Peterson is simply not a genius, and he won't be remembered for long.

Again, Harold fuckin Bloom is probably more likely to be remembered than Peterson is; Peterson will be an obscure footnote to certain academic essays and in textbooks, nothing else IMO. He has some good ideas but nothing revolutionary, and Veeky Forums's obsession with him is nothing short of retarded and inane.

This. Peterson is public and perhaps has some fame now, but mere fame isn't what persists.

>remembered for long.

this

he talks about pepe the frog on his personal youtube channel.he's your run of the mill anti-sjw e-celeb.

I think the problem is that Peterson's conception of truth requires him to touch on morality, but Harris refused to move on until truth (in isolation) was defined. Peterson, instead of agreeing with Harris on this one point (since I think that, essentially, they agree) wasn't willing to sacrifice the totality of his argument. Stubbornness on both sides, I guess. There's a good Reddit thread going on in the Sam Harris subreddit that explains it a lot better than I am.

>In this podcast Peterson repeatedly tries to bait and switch the topic to morality and freewill before the previous argument has been resolved.

He actually wanted to move on since Sam never got his point but Sam kept making sure they couldn't move forward so it ended up being a 2 hour podcast where not a single argument got "resolved".

>keeps them on track

More like kept them IN track.

What else can you talk about if you don't even agree on what it means for something to be true? You need to have some common ground before you can discuss other topics.

It was a trivial point and one that Peterson conceded several times

For the sake of the argument, the "truth" in the rationalist sense of a given situation wasn't important

Harris failed to understand that for Peterson, "Truth" is always tied to a theory of truth formulated for a specific action, and that the totality of these truths, in his view, are bound to Survival, which means that the constituent parts are as well

I'm really disappointed. Harris is a typical analytic philosopher desu, and we're all dumber for his pedantry and insistence on minute lingustic detail

I'm pretty sure Harris understood what Peterson was saying, he just thought he was wrong. Reality exists, and is a particular way, whether we are right about it or not. "True" is the word we use to refer to statements that accurately represent the way reality is.

You can talk about whatever you like, especially considering that Harris seems to understand the pragmatist view of an evolving language game of knowledge, it's sufficient to talk and see what seems to be the case
Beyond that, you get into the exact epistemological argument that Harris insisted on

>What else can you talk about if you don't even agree on what it means for something to be true?

Basically everything. Anything is better than getting bogged down in semantics for 2 hours.

They could have debated whatever potential point Peterson would have made, had they been able to move on from the first fucking subject.

But Sam is too autistic for that.

I understand, but as far as the podcast went, Peterson didn't really seem to disagree

That is true. The can of worms is opened with the question "what should we do about it" and "how do we know we know exactly how the Truth of Reality is"? And "how do we know that once we know we know the Truth of Reality, we know we are choosing the Most True, Best thing to do with our knowledge" ala, ethics, law, politics, economics, sociology, application of science theory (knowledge of the True Realityness equivalency of science theory)

I came into this thinking Peterson was going to cock up the conversation but it was Harris's ideological hangups, he should have gotten over it and moved on to Jordan's views on morality and religion

>"True" is the word we use to refer to statements that accurately represent the way reality is.

and yet Harris insistence on this wasted all our precious time, and gave 10 pointless different examples of the same argument without allowing to Jordan to move on to his moral worldview, so having that view of reality clashed with reality itself

>way reality is

that's epistemology, Peterson was pretty outright in that he was only concerned with what is useful

There's nothing more depressing than listening to that. Discussions like this one is the main reason philosophy is seen as nothing but mental masturbation among the masses.

>mfw philosophy actually produces something of real value to humanity
>mfw I have no face

>since I think that, essentially, they agree

explain

Audio is the wrong medium for philosophy.

>blind telecommuters can't think

Ironically Harris proved Peterson's point by pointlessly pursuing a scientific result for "truth" thereby depriving us of a valuable discussion

> philosophy is seen as nothing but mental masturbation

But that is exactly what it is.

Harris was playing a silly role imo. There was no indication that Peterson was going to do a Derrida and just refuse to argue about reality at all based on some eccentric epistemoligical argument.
In the first part, Harris was quick to move on because he wanted to get to more important topics

The problem is that Harris believes his view is self-evident, and Peterson can't explain his view.

Don't get me wrong, I think Peterson is brilliant, but he cannot explain himself for shit. He lacks the discipline and coherence of a philosopher.

You're right, but Peterson isn't a philosopher and his focus is on explaining human behaviour and morality. His darwinian truth theory is pretty weak but nontheless important for his theory as a whole

Just listened to the whole thing.

I don't think it's as inconclusive and masturbatory as people here are making out. I definitely land more on Peterson's side regarding these issues and find his concept of truth incredibly persuasive when it's framed correctly. But here, I have to admit that he comes across as if he's making a set of claims that aren't really implied by his concept of truth, almost as if he's bought into temporarily the false interpretation of his ideas that Harris (understandably) is working with.

The burning house example he brought up was a good one. The question "Is this room on fire?" may have a simple answer in the framework of scientific inquiry, but this framework is neither here nor there in a situation where its relevant to inquire "Is this room of the house on fire?", namely one where there is either a fire in the house or not, and we're testing that proposition with an immediate visual survey of the room we're occupying. Obviously in this case, the answer to the question "Is this room of the house on fire?", namely that no fire is visible, is not a satisfactory answer to the implicit project in which the question is nested. Harris interprets this as Peterson claiming that the existence of fire in the house, which will kill the person asking the question, makes the answer to the question of whether fire is immediately visible in the room somehow untrue, which is obviously incoherent. He thinks this because he is still understanding the question within the framework of scientific inquiry, despite the fact that such a question would never reasonably be nested in a solely scientific context. Peterson, for some reason, actually seems to pick up on what Harris misinterprets his argument to be and carries on with that.

If Harris could just accept that particular case, which is common sense really, it would be easier for Peterson to extrapolate that outside of hypotheticals, there is no situation which is solely and exclusively a matter of simple scientific truth, because scientific truth itself, when it is at play in the real world, is nested within contexts of motivation which require a more complicated conception of truth, of the kind he's promoting.

Hopefully, Pt. 2 will iron out all this stuff; I don't think we'll get a Pt. 3 either way.

And Jordan vs. Slavoj when? I'd like to see him have to defend his ideas against an intelligent Marxist, who doesn't fall into Peterson's (I think a little unfair) characterization of leftists (Zizek being opposed to political correctness, his having been a dissident in a communist state etc.)

>Zizek
>intelligent
>Marxist
>intelligent
hahahaha

It's mostly important for his morality. His description of religion is brilliant. He does bound the two up quite a bit, but they are separable.

shut the fuck up kid

>this post

this

This guy gets it. Peterson wants to ground everything within realistic circumstances, which have contexts. Harris keeps pulling out hypotheticals which have no context, which Peterson doesn't see as valid.

Zizek is too agreeable and deep down he's an admirer of religion, Christianity especially
It wouldn't be a very controversial discussion, but I would nevertheless like to see that, if only for entertainment value

>somebody tell me what went wrong
>perhaps on reddit

love this guy already

Why? If it's within the realm of possibility then it could very well happen.

If Peterson's definition of truth lead to the death of people who held it, would it cease to be true? Seems kind of self-defeating as a definition.

>fire
Wut?

It would seem that Peterson doesn't care about metaphysical possibility. Wondering about possible but unrealistic situations is not pragmatic.

The problem is that if it did happen it wouldn't be in any way similar to its presentation as a hypothetical.

In a hypothetical it's possible to disconnect a situation from its various nestings within contexts. So the affair example from the podcast is perfect. There is no real situation in which an anonymous male stripped of all detail except his having a cheating wife, his having discovered this through photographs, and his having killed himself, has an anonymous wife who is having an affair with an anonymous man. The moment you introduce the amount of detail necessary to make the situation in any way "real", it becomes necessary to move away from a strict scientific defintion of truth, and towards something like what Peterson is arguing, acknowledging the context in which the question "Is my wife having an affair?" is nested.

Whats the problemo mate?

It makes sense because he continually wonders what people think of him. Upvote my thoughts!

Harris being a stubborn autist turned it into a slog.

Alright, guess I'll have to listen to it to get the problem of introducing additional factors into the equation. As far as I see it, it gets more complex and there's more to account for, but it being hard doesn't change the fundamentals in any meaningful way.

Gotchu senpai, this is just Zizek and Milibank going crazy on their readings of Hegel, Heidegger and God. (I'm still at the first part of Zizek's first essay, so I'm going mostly by the introduction)

forgot image, sorry

Peterson Zizek debate when? Thats a debate that id like to see, even though Peterson would probably get btfo

the podcast was full of situational truths, the metatruth of was missing, but the meta-meta truth was profound: turning a conversation with based Canadian Gepetto into a 2 hour epistemological dispute because of your fetishisation of situational truth causes immense suffering for the listener and is for this reason not worth pursuing

the only truth that was missing was the capital T Truth

>analyzing a situation so remote, that introducing any detail moving it towards a real one would invariably render any product of such analysis worthless
>mental masturbation in an imaginary vacuum
Philosophy is truly the meme that keeps on giving.

I actually thought it was pretty interesting

A L E A F
L
E
A
F

That's an oddly unintellectual response.

You clearly must be 'pink-haired-little-person-eraser-tipping,' right?

>retarded and inane

More like repetitive and redundant! Hahah!

What muddy water you swim in mudskipper

Blown out? Hardly. Harris seemed like he was skirting to the side of any point JP put forth or simply wasn't capable of taking any of his points head on. It seemed pretty sophomoric in all honestly, and I can't exactly say I wasn't expecting anything more from that snide little hack to begin with

not that guy you were responding to but thanks for recommending this, was exactly what this random user was looking for

Open letter from Peterson to Harris: youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZK9W4V1Rc

>start the debate with arbitrary axioms before defining their terms and get nowhere
2 hours of nothing desu.

desu it was pretty hilarious to see Sam sperg out as he dealt with Peterson.

Jordan was basically acting like a smug pepe and Sam was acting like a frustrated wojack the whole time. Shit made me laugh

I loved Petersons smug little giggles

HEH

But also... Sam at the end said "keep your energy up"

Is Peterson dying? I think he has cancer

trips of truth

I don't know if it's the natural reaction when someone who was raised to be very catholic becomes a pseudo-intelectual leftist dilletante, but I've been hooked on heterodox readings of christianity. Strongly recommend René Girard as well. From what I gather from people who actually fall to the JP meme, Peterson is just a more diluted new age version of him.

What Harris doesn't seem to understand is that the topics are linked. Petersons view of truth is part of his view on morality. This phrase "truth serves life" is not to say that the fact of the matter changes based upon what one wants out of life or what will further human existence. Instead, it is more linked with this idea that existence is inherently good and that truth must serve goodness. Harris is at his most juvenile when he name drops Meditations because Harris wants to simply assume there are universal laws; he wants to skip over any grunt work and assume not just universal laws but science as a means to get there too. Luckily for him Peterson is willing to accept that too. Where Peterson differs is he sees the current trend of progress as a deeply destructive force on all levels and probably believes that all post-modern roads lead to the destruction of the species (hence his Darwinian line of thought). If there is any order to the universe, he seems to think that higher moral values will lead to the continuation of the species even if it doesn't seem to work on the level of micro examples.
That's how I was seeing this disagreement anyway.

t. guy who took notes on all of Jordan Peterson's youtube videos

Tbh I haven't actually watched any Peterson videos and I haven't read any of Harris either. I did watch an hour of the podcast and what I heard was what I posted. Harris does come off as trying desperately to hang on this use of the word "truth" as I think he knows he won't be able to justify what Peterson was trying to open up about the simultaneous belief that morality needs to lead science and that morality will come from science. I actually think Peterson has some issues but none of them were what Sam was aiming at.

Truth and morality are ideologies, nothing is objective

Thinking truth and morality are ideologies and nothing is objective is an ideology.

>Peterson doesn't believe that philosophical problems stem from language

Pleb! Read some Wittgenstein idiot.

Seems to me they were just arguing about the difference between "truth" and "true" in relation to how they are use within representations. That and Peterson was kinda retarded to equate morality with truth cause you end up arguing about morality in the end. Like why the fuck does matter whether the intent of scientist to either weaponize smallpox or creating a vaccine have to do with the truth of germ theory?

What is everyone talking about here. Fast forward to 1:17. This is the closest Sam gets to making Peterson capitulate, . Peterson's position is untenable unless he is willing to concede that what he's referring to as 'truth' isn't what everyone else means when they say truth.

Sam: We could put you in a situation, where knowing something or not knowing something would get you killed. And yet the fact that it would get you killed doesn't reach into the truth value of the statement.
If there's someone going around Toronto killing people for not being able to name all the US presidents in sequence, and let's say he's wrong about what the sequence is, so if you give him a sequence that is in fact inaccurate that is untrue, but it works for him and you survive, it doesn't make it true, right?
Jordan: It makes it true enough to survive.

>what he's referring to as 'truth' isn't what everyone else means when they say truth.
Speak for yourself.

He clarified what he meant by truth in the podcast.

Yeah but from what I can gather, he is arguing that truth is relative depending on how far out you look.
In the example, for the killer in Toronto, what is currently true is the sequence that will let you survive the killer. But if you take it out further and consider the country as a whole, the sequence is not true. You won't pass a history test with the incorrect order list. So in the darwinian means of truth, what is true is now not true. Now you extend this further and further out to reach the boundary that is metaphysics. This is the boundary and there is nothing further out. Now is this what we consider as truth?

Stop

Sam Harris seems to have a very low self esteem. When he doesn't understand something he becomes condescending and "frustrated" as if the fault is on the other person.

Yes, and he's just co-opting the term, he's a pragmatist who is pressing the epistemological sense of the word into his 'useful' sense

no

Sam Harris needs to learn how to move on for the sake of being an interesting conversation partner. Peterson was about to move on to some really interesting spiritual questions, and Harris autistically couldn't get off the nature of truth.