Do you think Sam Harris considered Peterson a complete fucktard by the end of their conversation?

Do you think Sam Harris considered Peterson a complete fucktard by the end of their conversation?
Imagine spending 2 hours to explain a senile academic grandpa that true things are true even if you don't like them, while he screams about KGB

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/mikhailapeterson/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>believing science can found morality or ethics

Stopped reading right there!

No. Peterson has not a definitive conception of the world. He's trying to articulate ideas, not win the argument.
Harris however was completely exasperated.

>He's trying to articulate ideas
Well he's doing a shit job at it. At some point Peterson actually says "facts are not necessarily truth", kek.
I'd glad Harris actually called this fuck on his hypocrisy towards SJWs and didn't allow the discussion to move forward, he sacrificed the show but at least he didn't permit Peterson to interject his weirdass doublespeak interpretation of truth into further discourse

Why couldn't Peterson just agree to call his concept of truth something like "adaptive truth" and move on?

Peterson was trying to move on the entire time, Harris wouldn't let him.

They're both fucking pseuds. Stop posting this shit that has no relevance to literature.

Are you the same idiot OP who keeps making threads about Peterson all to hide the fact that you're triggered by him not wanting to indulge in your bullshit tranny pronouns and SJW shit?

Post fucking link already

They both seemed obnoxiously stubborn.

Sam Harris wanted to set the discussion off on his terms by using contrived, "micro-examples" to make his conception of truth seem self-evident.

Peterson, likewise, refused to play along or cede his ground, desperately trying to steer the conversation into ethics so as to elaborate his point.

They both knew that whoever the first argument favored would be more likely to make their points cogent. Also, Peterson is attacking a conventional notion of truth, which automatically put him in an uphill struggle.

Imo, Harris should've allowed Peterson to elaborate more, just by virtue of the fact that he's the guest. But I also think that Jordan was being overly stubborn to the point that he came off as sounding like a quack.

Peterson went off the deep end in the second hour and started rambling about nihilism an post-modern notions of reality. His micro-macro argument is idiotic, and Sam pointed out morality can be both a product of biology and a main imperative to action, while Peterson was trying to the establish hierarchy of importance

Peterson has said that when you debate someone, you want to make their argument as strong as possible, so if you can dismantle it you can be more sure of your own convictions. Didn't feel like he was doing that in this convo, pretty disappointed d e s u.

They are both fucking shit.

Harris is a pseud who is while technically a 'neuroscientist', he only did a degree to call himself that. He does not contribute to neuroscience since getting his title, his PhD research was funded by his own organization (no conflict of interest there bud), and most of the experimental work was done for him by others.

Peterson is just an old man who like other old men since the dawn of history believes society is decaying, and that young people having sex and some people asking to be referred to as 'they' will end the fucking world, as evident from his revelations of divine truth he arrived at after taking existentialism 101.

this

Put the Jazz cabbage down and go to bed, Sam.

I bet Peterson gets all the pussy in the world. Won right then and there.

Peterson was too deep for Harris. Harris wasn't able to understand what Jordan the Peterson was trying to say.

Harris was always a Veeky Forums fag. His B.A. was in philosophy.

You spent 2 hours listening to people who do nothing but post YouTube videos and shitty podcasts all day, advertising it to frustrated numales like yourself? Lel

...

>at least he didn't permit Peterson to interject his weirdass doublespeak interpretation of truth into further discourse
I know, right? Literally what it was. I can't believe he himself doesn't see the parallel to SJWs racism re-definition.

Peterson was a psychologist before he started his meme career

Do you guys think it's the same person who makes this thread every day?

HAHAHAHAHA

yes

looks like St. Vincent

someone add "TRIGGERED" to this image

...

>ywn fuck his daughter

instagram.com/mikhailapeterson/

Why has philosophy turned into a fucking sport to you faggots? I hope you all kys yourselves desu.

All of Sam Harris' interviews make me uncomfortable desu.

is that white obama?

>it's ANOTHER harris vs. peterson topic

kindly fuck off to Veeky Forums already

Philosophy has always been a sport. Competitiveness galvanizes the grand, historical dialectical process toward truth, friendo.

>true things are true
Nice ideology you got there you fucking faggot

>some things that aren't true are true anyway
Look who's talking you double nigger

>nigger doest understand the difference between true and truth

>facts are truth
it was a fact that the earth was flat you autistic mouth breather

No, people thought it was a fact when it wasn't

PETERSON EXPOSED

Anyone who can't understand why Harris needed to park the bus doesn't understand football. Sure the game ended 0-0 but Harris deservedly won the match.

Peterson recognizes that there are no objective truths and that all 'truths' are derived from presupposed axioms thus he chooses to define truth from the perspective of Darwin

I can't unsee this now.

these dude are not intellectuals

this is on the same level as a debate between joe rogan and russell brand

Yes, so facts are not necessarily truth.

>facts are not necessarily truth
>implying there is anything wrong with this statement

positivism is really the highest form of autism

Nice

Nietzsche pls go.

A """fact""" recognized by predominantly religious society of likes Memeson dreams of reverting western civ back to

You've said this before lad.

Yes but he also realizes on some level that Peterson being a moron is a reflection of him. 'Why is a moron the most requested guest in my podcast's history? What do my listeners see in him? How do I know they aren't seeing the same things in me?'

Both of them deserve more than being reduced to stupid memes.

That is why podcasts and youtube channels can be so wrong. People don't even read anything, they just listen to.
They do not produce anything, ie. they do not study.

And yet they speak, they scream, they be meming like the small bitches that they are, and the noise is all over the place, making the original subject of study absolutely worthless

Hi Jordan

Look at the guy who's impregnated her, 110% darwinian survivalist chad
We don't even stand a chance

he even saved a persons life from a crowd of false thugs what a true hero.

Should I actually read Gulag? It seems like it'll be extremely predictable and not worth it.

Post Petersons face when her daughter brings this hunk of an evidence of the survival of the fittest embedded in the larger metaphysical framework over to dinner

Pretty sure he just meant that when writing 2 sided arguments since you have an infinite amount of time to research both views, unlike a real argument which has finite time for replies.

Why would a deeply religious man let someone who looked and acted like this anywhere near their daughter?

It was exactly the opposite. Peterson kept giggling smugly because he knew he was arguing with a psued that didn't even comprehend his argument.

image makes me want to hang myself

This desu. If Sam would have allowed that relativism the rest of the conversation would have been useless.

They are both brilliant men and twice as intelligent & wise as 99.99% of Veeky Forums.

It amuses me watching the pseuds Veeky Forumsizens make ad-hom attacks against these guys, while in real life they would all get intellectually assraped by both of them.

>not being a sneaky fucker who outwits chads

...

why did he cry

you're so Brave New World it actually makes me want to endorse our current 1984 society

Thinken of pinocchio ;_;

Every time this debate is brought up people argue about if truth is subjective or objective is going in circles until the thread 404s.

I hate that podcast just for generating such shitty discussion.

Harris should have let peterson ramble on and then attacked him just because the way peterson thinks, it's hard to really understand what he's getting at without him talking for awhile.

Nothing is true, everything is true.

>people asking to be referred to as 'they'

There's a big difference between asking and legislating that people MUST refer to others as such. You know which one Peterson objects to.

>some people asking to be referred to as 'they' will end the fucking world

It's not that some people are asking to call him they.

It's that people can ask you to call them by any preferred pronoun they can imagine, and you have to just go along with it, because if you're a guy like Peterson, it can mean your job. This is all government enforced, it's not as if his standpoints are making him unpopular on the contrary he has quite the fanbase, it's that it's simply unlawful to take the stance he has. That's what's really absurd about the whole thing, not the idea of eventually deciding to use some pronouns for trans people, it's being forced to use EVERY pronoun somebody can think of under penalty of law.

It is inevitably going to put people into conundrums where the moral thing to do is break the law as somebody is going to define themselves as a completely insane tumblr gender and they will need people to snap them out of it. However "misgendering" somebody, which means disagreeing that the gender somebody says they are is correct even if it is incorrect, is unlawful.

It's a small thing, but the SJWs "progress" with one small battle at a time, and this is just where someone had enough. Canadas hate speech laws in general are highly questionable.

T. autist that has seen like 1000 screeching autist memes who doesn't understand why the government thinks I'm gonna be happier if people are afraid to say what they really think publicly, but make fun of me privately. Fucking wrong I'm just paranoid all the time.

A huge amount of Canadians think Canada has a constitutional right to free speech.

We need people like peterson to inform them that not only do we not have that, our speech rights are actually getting weaker over time, literally in the name of progress.

So, just like Harris points out in the podcast, isn't that hypocritical of Peterson to do same thing by subjectifying the concept of truth. SJW's wants their feelings to dictate the truth, Peterson wants to pull the same with religion

I've heard of Petersons concept of truth before in philosophy many many many times before. He was arguing for fairly old hat ideas like what you consider Truth depends on what axioms you accept. That different philosophers had different ideas about what constituted "Truth" because they made different assumptions, and if you make the same assumptions they did, the conclusions they came to about what is true made sense. I really don't think Peterson is a genius philosopher, but what Peterson was saying is not all that controversial to me.

I really want to emphasize I'm not saying this to bootlick Peterson, so much as to criticize Harris, who I honestly see being as philosophically developed as I was at 16.

Harris really makes an assumption that if you can't prove something is true or false you it shouldn't be considered true, by invoking arguments such as the Russells Teapot thought experiment. One can claim there is a teapot orbiting around the earth, and nobody can really disprove this, but just because you can't prove or disprove it doesn't mean you shouldn't have an opinion on it, you should assume beliefs that can't be falsified without evidence are false. I believe it's Harris actually playing it fast and loose with the word "truth", because he believes in shit like Hitchens's razor as an inalienable truth, and then tries to find out what is the truth after making a certain set of questionable assumptions Harris himself doesn't even seem to be aware that he's making. If anything, what Sam Harris thinks truth is, is unconventional, autistically narrow, and is actually less aware of the arbitrary assumptions he's making than Peterson is. Harris to me just shows a stunning lack of self-awareness. That might be too forgiving, I think he might just be too immature, or prehaps too much of a self-promoting whore to debate philosophy if he can't win an argument.

When it comes to Peterson being hypocritical when he wants to redefine truth and not change pronouns - I again really don't feel Peterson is being remotely original here, Harris would get into the nearly the same argument with Plato that he got into with Peterson.

I've NEVER heard somebody use singular they or xir to refer to somebody ever, and do not believe they've ever been widely accepted by the trans community. The concepts Peterson is talking about are FAR older than these pronouns.

Also, more than that, you have to remember Peterson is fighting a LEGAL OBLIGATION to use certain language, Peterson not wanting to be legally forced to use certain pronouns is different than Peterson using definitions of words people find stupid.

Peterson wants people to have the right to say "Hey Jordan Peterson, I think the language you're using is stupid, and we should use differant language". SJWs are ACTUALLY AGAINST THIS and want to use force of law to get people to use their preferred pronouns no matter how stupid they may be.