An Open Letter to Sam Harris

They were. Harris couldnt move past it.

Humanitiesfag rejects science, more at 11

No.

They just reject the axioms.

They weren't talking about semantics. Peterson just has a different conception of truth, a conception that he borrows heavily from Nietzsche and American pragmatism.

The fact that Sam couldn't simply accept that they operated on different axioms made him look like an autist frankly.

>sam reasons and relies upon empirical data
>this makes him autistic

That's not why he's autistic. He's autistic because he clearly couldn't accept that Peterson has different axioms and had to try to convince Peterson that he was wrong about those axioms for 2 hours because he has a massive ego.

>Peterson has different axioms
You mean..like how other people have different pronouns?
How close-minded of Harris!

Now you're just extolling the virtue of being uneducated faggot.

>read X
>refer to Y
>in words of Z
>as stated by W
Why don't you make your own argument, cuntface. Academics are fucking drones

What were Peterson's axioms?
It seems to be
>"the truth of a proposition is how useful it is" and
>"something is useful if it maximises happiness or reduces suffering".
These are his two axioms. Harris demonstrates some examples of true propositions which are independent of their utility to humans. Peterson concedes this for individual truths but for the set of all true statements.
But how can we have access to this nebulous "Truth+"?

>But how can we have access to this nebulous "Truth+

Maybe there is no such access which is admitting that humans are finite and limited creatures.

They basically differ on the is/ought problem whereby Harris holds a Newtonian viewpoint whereas Peterson holds a Darwinian viewpoint.

The essential debate is about the dichotomy between religious truth and positivist truth

No the debate is between pragmatism and positivism.

Religion isn't even mentioned, and bringing it up is poisoning the well.

>people on this board respect "le positivist atheist science man"
>he gets his shit rekt even by retards like chomsky and peterson
every time

Sam would agree to some extent I think.

The point is Peterson was shown wrong and admitted that some propositions were true independently of their utility to humans. Actually I am not sure, that was what Harris was trying to get him to do and Peterson verbally said something like "I agree to an extent".
However he didn't, he thought there was some omega point out in the future which determined if all our current propositions were true or false, what I call "truth+".
However as you admit we are necessarily limited, so even if we reached the "omega point" and could finally unlock the truth vlues of all our old propositions, how could we know it? We can't unless we cease to limited in any way.

I agree. But honestly I don't think Peterson went into the discussion with the assumption that it was going to be a debate, but simply a discussion where they talked about their ideas.

What I personally wish Peterson said, following Nietzsche, was that truths that are true independent of their utility to humans are essentially not interesting because they have no value.

2+2=4 might be true as a matter of mathematics, but until you're actually putting someone in a space ship for example, and going to launch them into space, it's just a trivial piece of information.

...

>it is something rather more terrifying, "namely a principle that is hostile to life and destructive," perhaps even "a hidden will to death."

This is approximately what Peterson said though. The "will to Truth" is encapsulated perfectly in the model scientist because he is actually trying to find out what is true regardless of whether it gets everyone and himself killed in the process.

And this is obliquely related to Peterson's assertion that materialist rationalism actually causes nihilism in people.

does anyone have a transcript?
can't really stand listen to this guy reading out his own words

Why would anyone bother making a transcript of a video that is 7 minutes long?

I mean, if it's that much of a bother for you, you should just ignore the whole thing.

Why would anyone read out a letter instead of just posting it online though?

YouTube already has a transcript option.

Click "...More" under the video then "Transcript".

What causes nihilism in the person depends on the person. The Good Life is impossible for weaklings like Jordan Peterson. He has to seek refuge in the Christian faith because he is too cowardly to pursue truth and would rather believe than question. "For the mediocre, being mediocre is his happiness." Only the strong can attain that happiness which all men want. For übermenschen like Nietzsche, Sam Harris and myself the will to truth is a central pillar in our perpetual task of self-mastery, self-perfection, self-overcoming.

Peterson's interprettation of religion is somewhat different than one would first expect. It could mostly be defined as how one should act.

Anyone else think Peterson is about to fucking lose it.
I think this guy has some overwhelming psychological issues, which might explain his style of "thought" against Harris.
Also the talk about the hypothetical man whose wife was cheating on him, seemed to draw heightened emotion from Peterson for some reason.

It wouldn't surprise me if he live streams his suicide with finale "open letter to humanity" or something of the kind.

And I am neither a Darwinist nor a materialist and I can still type the things I am typing without contradicting myself. Peterson likes to distort people's words so he can drag the big names along with him and drag the small names over to the side of his interlocutor.

kek

>It could mostly be defined as how one should act.

Indeed, which starts from a framework of pragmatism.

But this is his own idiosyncratic interpretation. Being a pragmatist doesn't mean you must be religious, in fact, as Peterson rightly says most of the pragmatists agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution, and probably weren't religious in the traditional sense.

>For übermenschen like Nietzsche, Sam Harris and myself

Cringeworthy.

I am nit trolling, I genuinely get the vibe that he is not well. He seemed on the verge of tears and we know he has broken down reading things at least once.
He probably has used the real but minor transgender thing as a scapegoat for an innate persecution complex?

Not as cringeworthy as your existence is in the eyes of your mother and father.

Why can't the guy simply be genuine?

Sounds like you have a mania about bad actors.

Seems like someone can't bear his collective consciousness, not even the shadow

Cute projection m8. Way to reveal your own state of mind.

No hay peor burla, que la verdadera.

Maybe.
I think he perceives his debate with Harris as a failure, he knows he lost, or will generally be seen as having blown it.
I think experiencing someone as rationally competent as Harris shattered his ego or at least initiated a chain reaction.
The more I hear about Peterson the more it becomes clear that he is neither rational nor entirely sane.

I don't think he thought it was going to be a debate at all and was caught off guard, and it was pretty clear that Harris came into it with the sole intention of treating it as a debate.

It's actually quite interesting, because almost no other podcast I've heard except the ones where Sam is debating the most retarded Islam-apologists, has he treated it like a debate.

thanks for the clarification, and nice trips

Work 80-90 hours a week and still try to comport yourself with decency and your face will look all tired and shit too

youtube.com/watch?v=uJBgj8U3lw0

>I understand you but will pretend I don't until you agree with me so we can move on to the point where I win because I'm right.

the cognitive dissonance as Nu-Atheist bandwagon hoppers realize that they were never anything more than a ripple on the pond of philosophy is fucking delicious. Peterson literally has to dumb down basic philosophy for this fucking retarded Jew to even have a CHANCE of understanding it, and he still fails, so he goes further. He dumbs down STORIES about philosophy to their barest minimum, with complete explanations, and STILL the Jew doesn't get it.

>I don't think he thought it was going to be a debate at all and was caught off guard, and it was pretty clear that Harris came into it with the sole intention of treating it as a debate.

Peterson went into it as a discussion, a chance for each person to work through their thoughts and hopefully each learn something. Harris went in for the purpose of defeating Peterson and would not grant Peterson his definition of truth so he could continue to make a point.

Honestly Harris sounded like a Veeky Forums troll who would just keep repeating the same point till you got tired.

>but that is not my definition of truth, you are wrong

You are subhuman

Another trip to the filter. Not that you're weren't already doing poorly without some ironic ad-hominem

This. A truth that has no utility to us is irrelevant. Peterson should have tried to make this clear early on and saved us from Harris' stubbornness (but admittedly Peterson was also being stubborn).

Why is Peterson's use of psychedelics for therapeutic means all of a sudden degenerate??

He's not pushing their use for god's sake, but it's a well known fact that psychedelics are a useful tool in psychological studies and therapy. Peterson being a clinical psychologist, it makes perfect sense that he'd have been curious about them at some point.

I mean goddamn, people that completely close the conversation whenever psychedelics are brought up seem like tribal people thinking fMRI machines are evil or something.

>was that truths that are true independent of their utility to humans are essentially not interesting because they have no value.

Exactly.

youtube.com/watch?v=3znjCuLlf8E

>The evolutionary psychology stuff sounds really weak.
It really isn't.

>I don't buy it at all that males who believe/use/whatever the archetypes somehow make it on top of the hierarchy.
He is not making those claims at all. He is not saying that if you like carl jung you will come to the top of the hierarchy. He does go in to great detail about hierarchies in his lectures and he says that human hierarchy are based on competence. If you are competent you get elevated. And rightly so, you'd want someone that is competent to have the responsibility and be leading.

Why wont this faggot just die already.

FUCKING DROPPED
U
C
K
I
N
G

D
R
O
P
P
E
D

Why do pseuds like to misrepresent evolution so much?

cringe

I got this feeling watching his video beforehand discussing him about to go on harris' thing, then his tweet afterward, adn now this. i hope he's doing ok

tfw your brain is trying to break out of your skull.

This man is an embarrassment to philosophy

Carl Jung is not cringe you uneducated swinal pleb, he is one of the greatest minds, and certainly the most greatest psychologist ever to make a step on earth.

Why do you think Peterson uses the concepts (or Darwinian truths I may say hehe) of archetypes in his own pragmatic theory of truth philosophy? Peterson himself speaks highly of Jung, no doubt in my mind why.

Learn about Jung and become aware of collective consciousness. Or - stay a philistine and fail (if you are male) to reach the hierarchical top.

they've babbled about metaphysics for a while now, but what specific actions of humanity are Peterson and Harris arguing over, rather than just arguing over a metaphysical worldview

>most greatest

Can some Anons explain why a lot of other Anons are defending Peterson's Epistemological Pragmatism with such alacrity? How is this a popular movement, I'm not sure if this post sounds arrogant but what do people find appealing about this philosophy?

I honestly don't get why anyone would hold this position.
Ok, so maybe it is irrelevant but it still exists, doesn't it?
Even if the whole world were to concede that the word truth only includes truths that have utility, what word do you use for truths that don't have utility?
Even you call it a "truth with no utility". So is it a truth or isn't it?

psychedelics are mind control devices planted here by the archons to enslave us

>what do people find appealing about this philosophy

anons who had weak fathers, dry spiritual upbringing, or little meaning in their lives look up to Peterson as a spiritual father figure and anons who had strong fathers or religious upbringings have their emotional foundations reaffirmed when Peterson talks about the importance of the Great Father and tradition

science is a tool, it is not something to be deified. when you place science and its philosophy at the core then the search for truth, as defined by science, becomes all consuming. man is more than the search for scientific truth, you can't just remove myth and religion from people and replace it with science and assume we as a society will function and grow.

or something like that

Pardon me for the psychobabble, but I would say it is simply the bandwagon effect
People love him for his anti-pc stance, and their interest for Peterson just increases

>reading Jung passage about how his patient was viewing him as a father-god figure
>realize this is what I'm doing with Peterson
fug

>psychedelics are mind control devices planted here by the archons to enslave us

You have the backwards, it is the catholic church that are here to enslave us as the agents of the demiurge. Psychedelics can free us from this material prison.

Harris seemed to be trying to make that same point and Peterson wasn't denying it but it seems that what he was arguing was that pragmatic truth is more important than scientific truth, and Harris disagrees.

psychedelics give you the illusion of freedom and make you complacent in your material prison by thinking you can transcend it chemically

I would argue that the psychedelic are just a catalyst for you to change your life, they provide perspective, and are not transcendence by themselves.

Although you make a fair point, it is easy to get trapped in the mindset you suggest.

>using your eyes and brain to read the Nag Hammadi texts is somehow less of a material phenonema than using your digestive system and brain to consume five grams of psilocybin

Yeah, but what is something true for if it doesn't have any utility? What's the use in saying there's a 50% change that I have an odd or even number of hairs on my body?

It's literally inconsequential to anything either in the universe or as a matter of human life.

You can still say it's true as a matter of information, but that's the whole point with Peterson's pragmatism. He doesn't think truths are relevant unless they have utility and relate to humans in some way, and unless you think you have some ideological duty to gather every single piece of useless and utilityless fact of the universe, you'd see that too.

just think about your average hippie stoner and how misguided they are

But you're just concatenating two distinct ideas; why does asserting that science is a good tool for assessing/finding truth predicate that I'm asserting anything about societies need for myth and religion.

This is completely untenable. I find it annoying/disappointing that so many Anons are heralding JP's archaic epistemological pragmatism worldview as wise/incisive/etc on here

reading a book or eating a fungus isn't enough

and yet you would have never known about Gnosticism had you never read about it, odd how that works

>But you're just concatenating two distinct ideas; why does asserting that science is a good tool for assessing/finding truth predicate that I'm asserting anything about societies need for myth and religion.

Listen to how people talk, they will say things like I don't believe in religion anymore I believe in science. Science has become more than just a tool it is a worldview, a belief system. What science says is true, everything else is false and immaterial.

From a materialist perspective that may be true but that does not mean it should be the way we organize our society. I would argue it is the nihilistic trap. Everything is material, nothing matters, you are unimportant. That is what the belief in science, not science as a tool, as created.

I said it isn't enough

I'm not literally gnostic but I think their symbols are useful

I'm not literally a hippie but I think their drugs are useful

>You can still say it's true as a matter of information, but that's the whole point with Peterson's pragmatism. He doesn't think truths are relevant unless they have utility and relate to humans in some way
But it's still true.
If it weren't true maybe you should refrain from referring to it as a truth.

I guess what I find so baffling is insisting on calling things true but at the same time saying they're not actually truths. I don't disagree with what is being said, I just find the use of language preposterous.

Tbf though, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who is completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy.
I'm reading this
iep.utm.edu/truth/#H1
and I'm getting a bit frustrated at the pointlessness of it, but I guess that's the whole point of philosophy.

ok that's good for you but from my own experience I have learned that most people who are into psychedelics get little out of them while thinking that they have gotten a lot

In 100 years this be common knowledge: if you haven't tried psychedelics you haven't lived.

One dose of LSD will add a whole new dimension to your existence you could never have dreamed of.

Yet you morons, scared by your public education on drugs, won't do it. That's the only reason you abstain.

I mean, it's $10, takes one evening, and the risks are relatively non-existent.

this is exactly what I'm talking about here

which is why the use of psychedelics need to be used in the appropriate cultural context. It is part of a process that involves study and then introspection and analysis afterwords.

their use has been divorced from this type of context and have become a commodity . The experience is then reflective of the culture in which it is consumed, its hollow and without spirit.

>metaphysical propositions
>ontological axioms
>epistemological roadblock
>metalogical street
>a priori houses

I've taken LSD three times times in my life. Nobody I know in person even knows about it. So no, I'm not 'into' psychedelics...

I just think they're a useful tool for introspection. How useful? Again, $10 and 6 hours is a small price to pay.

>I don't disagree with what is being said, I just find the use of language preposterous.
Yeah, in the end it boiled down to 2 hours of semantics. Shame.
Hopefully the second part will have some actual discussion.

That's not the claim I'm making, you're just recoiling against angsty atheists.

> I would argue it is the nihilistic trap. Everything is material, nothing matters, you are unimportant. That is what the belief in science, not science as a tool, as created.
Then you're wrong. Being a materialist doesn't necessitate being a nihilist. And just because you meet/interact with a bunch of materialist nihilists doesn't make it so.

user there is no rigour in your post/its internal logic. I'm not trying to be rude but that is a sophomoric argument at best.

you might be right

but I think that just shows there isn't anything intrinsically good about it, it needs other communal structures and support to have a positive effect of any significant magnitude, which is why I think statements like "if you haven't tried psychedelics you haven't lived" are grossly misleading at best

Stop acting like LSD is the only way to access these esoteric, even normative, states of consciousness.