Need a Philosophy Board

On top of that a lot of the aspects of philosophy concerning humanity turned into psychology and sociology.

Reality only exists at the most as a set of probable waves of energy without an observer, there is no reality without conciousness so your question becomes if reality shifts depending on the individual observer or if our no doubt unique pov is in no way special

I think sci is already the perfect board for philosophy

Science is just accurate philosophy

I think philosophic discussion on a board dedicated to it would be more open/controversial, especially since it is anonymous.

I agree with your claim that philosophy has begun to shy away from the bits that made it useful.

I would not mind philosophy enhanced by science, or at least clinical psychology or other human-related disciplines. I cannot speak much about sociology as I personally consider it as a misguided branch of psychology, one that is less useful/predictive. Sociology simply being to complicated to tackle from a societal perspective.

Now, a look at society from a psychological/historical perspective, one that is enhanced by the collective literature/mythologies (such as what JBP does in his biblical series) would be much more interesting.

And that same discussion and how it relates to our current socities, how it should relate to things like law, policies, culture, questions like the value of a life in an increasingly populated world, etc. What made previous societies succesful, what is their downfall, what pushed things forward and made them great, etc.

An example I had never considered before I heard it from JBP (not sure if its his own) is the divinity of man. Not that man is actually divine, but that the legal structure is founded on the basis that there is something about humans that is divine and so they are accorded a certain bit of respect/there are things we cannot do to them. He talks about it from both an evolutionary and cultural (religious) perspective. Understanding this thought and solidifying it in law could be useful, I believe.

It would be interesting to discuss these things on a board dedicated to discourse/discussion that is not already extremely polarized.

>Reality follows a set of axioms (physical laws) and is accurate one-hundred percent of the time.

Our perception of such axioms is limited to paradigm we're located in, user, and most of our paradigm are far from being final.

I do not believe this to be the case, namely because consciousness is most likely an emergent phenomenon and your post implies reality did not exist before humans, yet fossil records say otherwise. Unless you believe these waves all collapsed in a manner to consistently trick us, which I doubt.

That's because Veeky Forums isn't a philosophy board anymore, its a literature board.

I agree. They both misrepresent philosophy to some degree. Veeky Forums seems to be far too mystical, while Veeky Forums usually disregards it entirely. There are important discoveries in philosophy that are worth discussing!

True, but consider that reality is a set of rules/axioms, boundaries if you will.

Numbers, or what we perceive, is the movement of things between these boundaries.

Physical laws are our attempts at following this movement and trying to identify these boundaries.

Thus reality is always accurate even if we always aren't.

I believe this to be a plausible scenario (though I provide no proof).

>tries to talk about philosophy
>doesn't even /metaphysics/
>whats the point

Veeky Forums is the only board that can discuss philosophy well because scientists are better at philosophy than "philosophers" or people in the "literature" section

Just phrase your philosophical discussion in a concrete way using scientific terms, because you ALWAYS can.

I don't even like trolling but if they make a philosophy board it will be too hard to resist such an easy target

Agreed. The majority of the discussion here is actually either philosophy, or philosophy misframed as science. The two are closely linked, naturally, but the scientific framework is really more about empirical observations, projections based on them, and hard mechanistic data / consequences of greater models.

I find myself mostly talking about philosophy here. Dispelling certain things and providing people the means to start shifting away from the negative disposition they've come to, and realizing what "philosophy" really is. Which isn't so bad, and would be the case anyway (as this demographic wouldn't be drawn to a philosophy board), but it still isn't what this place is best used for.

>discoveries in philosophy
no such thing, quit using scientific language to describe philosophy

I disagree. If the universe is a finite state machine, made of many arbitrarily subdividable finite state machines, the delineation between discovery and invention becomes also arbitrary and strictly artificial. Discovery of a new state the universe allows to exist, within a broader framework, is discovery nonetheless.

What the fuck are you talking about, retard.

lit is decent for philosophy, considering it falls under the category of literature

well philosophy is a subset of math so here is fine

peterson is a joke. never understood why this meme man became popular.
zizek for rednecks

Because of /pol/,not even joking

What's so bad about him?

he's a faggot christcuck who just cries "muh tradition" without any actual arguments

atheism is the only scientifically valid belief system and he's a faggot for trying to change that

Just try to make a scientific argument for consciousness or morality. Learn your boundaries sciencefags you have the worst god complex

420chan has a philosophy/social sciences board.

Underage b&

>being edge for the sake of edge
his religious stuff is somewhat summarized by
>this is how we behaved then and it developed strong character
it's an argument if he doesn't call onto tradition for the sake of it, but instead for the sake of the benefit it provides

...

He's giving a somewhat half-assed description of Kuhn's ideas.

B A S E D
AA
S S
E E
D D

I'd like a board dedicated solely to philosophy. Veeky Forums is AIDS, everyone on Veeky Forums is undergrads who probably haven't realized what Ph in PhD means, and Veeky Forums is really a hodgepodge of war history + consciousness threads + religious discussion containment.

Does not matter as long as reality would be accurate within its current set of laws
The question is whether reality is ever erroneous. My understanding has it that the wave-function allows for any possibility (even those that defy natural laws of the macroscopic world), and so the concept of erroneous does not exist.

Not necessarily, I find that the people genuinely interested in the pursuit of knowledge tend to be tilted towards the poly-math lifestyle, which I do not think too many people on Veeky Forums embrace.

If done right it may not be such an easy target. Though I fear it would be littered with fallacious arguments nonetheless, so trolling would be easy.

I agree. I see a similar trend here in regards to what I see on Veeky Forums, where they are far too pretentious within their own domain. Those on Veeky Forums deny philosophy its relationship with empiricism, while those on Veeky Forums get caught up in its reliance on formal logic, and so denounce its use. Of course I do not speak about everyone, just the ones that seem to be the majority.

It is the other way around I believe as philosophy encompasses math.

I believe you have not seen or read any of his work.
How do you define scientifically valid? If you want to talk about "best for society", the Christianity as interpreted by Peterson seems a good contender. It is interpreted through scientific/historical framework, with emphasis on evolutionary theory.
I believe you are brushing him off too easily.

Consciousness is memory held in ram, morality is emergent through evolution and further developed through culture, and laid out in word through religion/literature.

This is misunderstood. He considers god to be the ultimate good/logos.
The argument goes as follows: a value system is required for proof, God is the highest possible value (logos), thus faith/trust in god (the value system) is required for proof.

Please tell me he did not tweet that.

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554

>twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554

That's really embarrassing. I wonder why Gödel's work gets interpreted in inane ways? Especially considering the amount of rich material that exists on metamathematics these days.

Why is god as the highest value required for proof?

A value structure is required before anything can be examined, that's how humans see the world.
The god referred to here is not the creation-god that you are used to, but the highest possible good, an idea abstracted through our conception of good.

For you to do your proof you require a structure to work within. However, you also require a reason to work within that structure or for that matter even attempt at a proof.

This part is mostly done subconsciously as you accept that the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile, or good. You give yourself a value structure and develop it through your experience in the world (it is already instantiated at birth due to evolution).

Thus "faith in god", i.e "faith that your value structure is correct" is required before you may begin the proof. Though I reiterate this is mostly done subconsciously unless you are extremely driven towards a cause and do not know the means with which to achieve it.

For clarity's sake, I will say that what you believe to be the highest good need not be moral.

I also believe the reason he decided to post it like that is because of the restrictive quality of tweets (length), so he decided to be funny with it.

tl;dr he does not mean god the sky man, he means god as an abstracted ideal and value structure (he explains this in his videos, though you need to watch a few before you get what he means).

Petersonfags need to fuck off back to Facebook

>The god referred to here is not the creation-god that you are used to, but the highest possible good, an idea abstracted through our conception of good.
Why is the highest possible good required to have a value system? Do atheists not have a value system? Does math not work of you don't believe there is a highest possible value?

>Thus "faith in god", i.e "faith that your value structure is correct" is required before you may begin the proof.
That's not what you said God referred to. You said it referred to the highest possible good. And I don't see why the assumption that my value system is "correct" would need to be labeled as "god." That just seems like an extremely semantic way of saying one thing in order to imply something else.

have you tried ?

Why is faith in highest good required to prove other things?

>
Why is the highest possible good required to have a value system? Do atheists not have a value system? Does math not work of you don't believe there is a highest possible value?

I do not believe you understand what I wrote. The highest possible good is what everyone strives for innately, it is not moral or anything, it is the framework within which you view the world - your value structure. It has also been defined as an God when considered as an abstracted ideal (the collection of things good about people, if manifested in one thing, is considered God in this sense).

The reason I do not believe you understood what I wrote is because you ask if atheists have a value system. I told you it is innate in humans, it has been shown that we view the world through a value system (else we would not know what to even look at).

Math does work, but you cannot "not believe there's a highest possible value", because everything you do implies there is otherwise you would be doing nothing. If you murder people, you innately believe that murdering people is something that is worth doing.

>That's not what you said God referred to.
That is what I said. God refers to the highest possible good as collectively agreed upon through human evolutionary history (the traits we consider valuable to retain).
"The good" is the value structure you hold, the framework within which you view the world and make decisions. Otherwise the extremely complexity of the world, even just the sheer number of objects would overwhelm us at any moment. But we ignore most objects because we do not consider them valuable in our immediacy.
It is called god because it is all the good things about humans that have been retained through evolutionary history. It isn't a literal god that made the world.

>If you murder people, you innately believe that murdering people is something that is worth doing.
Belief that something is worth doing is not necessarily the same as highest value.

Can someone answer me this with any clarity:

does peterson believe in a christian god aka a creating concious benevolent superintelligence (possibly with beard)? like, does he pray to it?

or is it all metaphor for psychology?

I've seen christcuks claiming he is totally christian and proves christianity is true and the only Truth and all that shit.

Refer to He has a video where he explains it, but I forget which lecture it is.

No but to you it is the highest value, we are not talking about objective "highest value" here. Otherwise, if you REALLY thought that something was more valuable (not consciously think, but innately believe), you would be doing it instead.

He has specified I believe that he acts as if god exists because it is possible to improve oneself as a person with it. Check out his Biblical series if you really want to know, he looks at everything through a evolutionary/psychological perspective.
He simply believes that the bible has more wisdom in it than people credit it with, as he also believes of religions the world over. He believes that people are too quick to dismiss it as nothing but superstition, when there is more there.

What does me being born with a tendency to value something have to do with it being a prerequisite for proving something logically, mathematically or otherwise?

>The highest possible good is what everyone strives for innately, it is not moral or anything, it is the framework within which you view the world - your value structure.
Then why call it god? Again, is the purpose to describe something in a way people can understand or to mislead?

>The reason I do not believe you understood what I wrote is because you ask if atheists have a value system.
Where did I ask that?

>Math does work, but you cannot "not believe there's a highest possible value", because everything you do implies there is otherwise you would be doing nothing.
Humans don't operate to maximize subjective value. I might believe that the highest possible value for me is publishing a paper, but I might also be lazy. Or I might just not know what to do. Clearly I don't need a highest possible value to believe that the statement 1+1=2 has more "value" than 1+1=3. So again, you have not explained the logic that allows you to claim such is necessary to use math or to prove things. You conflate having a value system with having a highest possible value.

>That is what I said. God refers to the highest possible good as collectively agreed upon through human evolutionary history (the traits we consider valuable to retain).
That doesn't respond to what I quoted. I quoted this:

>Thus 'faith in god', i.e 'faith that your value structure is correct' is required before you may begin the proof.

Also, there is no collectively agreed upon good, it's subjective.

>"The good" is the value structure you hold, the framework within which you view the world and make decisions.
Then why call it god? He could just as easily have said that "one requires a subjective value system in order to choose which axioms are valuable." Then everyone would have understood what he was talking about. So either he did not mean what you are saying or he purposefully obscured what he meant in edgy language that could only misconstrued. Why?

..that answer was not as clear as i'd hoped.

does he believe/pray to a christian creating entity or not?

>An example I had never considered before I heard it from JBP (not sure if its his own) is the divinity of man. Not that man is actually divine, but that the legal structure is founded on the basis that there is something about humans that is divine and so they are accorded a certain bit of respect/there are things we cannot do to them.

Definitely not an original idea. It is saying that western legal systems were designed to protect natural law, which was developed by people like St Thomas Aquinas.

Just spare me the time and tell me you are trolling, you cannot be this dense.

>Then why call it god? Again, is the purpose to describe something in a way people can understand or to mislead?

Because the concept is used for more than just this. It is much more complex than I have shown here. You'll have to actually watch his lectures if you want to know more.

>Where did I ask that?
"Why is the highest possible good required to have a value system? **Do atheists not have a value system?** "

>Humans don't operate to maximize subjective value.
That's where you're wrong. The highest possible value is whatever you end up doing. If you laze its because you value it more. If you strive for an answer, it's the same.

>That doesn't respond to what I quoted.
It does, it says that we have a common value structure that we use to navigate the world. This is well known in evolutionary theory.

>Also, there is no collectively agreed upon good, it's subjective.

There is. Morals don't emerge from nothing, they emerge from natural and sexual selection. Agreed upon means that society agrees on a set of traits that make you good/successful. To deny this simply means you are completely unread on the literature.

>Then why call it god?
It's twitter, if you want sophistication, watch his lectures.

Your attempts to demonize him without any genuine attempt at understanding point to extreme pathology. I recommend you reflect.

I apologize, but you will need to hear it from the man himself.
He says that he acts as if a god exists. I do not think he offers prayers but he structures his life in a way that reflects the existence of the christian god as he interprets it. Which is VASTLY different than the common interpretation. I strongly suggest you watch his biblical series if you really care to know, or at least episode 1 of it.

Link: youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

I am being specific with the idea of the Holy Ghost. I don't doubt that someone else probably came up with it, but I don't think you are describing the same thing.

The idea is as follows: in Christianity everyone has a bit of the Holy Spirit within them, a bit of the Divine.
Therefore, the law assumes that to commit and affront against us is an affront against God.

That seriously answered nothing. Does he anywhere in his speech say that he believes he can literally telepathicly talk to a creator, or that its a metaphor for psychology and not literally a physical entity?

It can't be that hard ot answer that if he actually adresses it. How can this not be known information if he's that famous and talks that much about it..

If he doesn't, why would I possibly listen to hours of unrelated talks?

(cont)
I'm not trying to ne a fucktard, but I am frustrated that noone can answer that. It's not a complicated question.

Another maybe easier question: does he think all the stories are impaccable and genious and "true", or are there shit parts or any flaws at all.

fucking love pepe memes, praise kek bro

I don't have the answer to your question. He does not believe he can personally talk to god.
It's much too complicated for me to explain, and in any case the video I linked should be enough to explain. I know its length but it's required when the conversation is this complex.

To answer your second question, he considers the majority of them true but not in the literal sense. They are metaphors to describe how one should conduct oneself in life, and the roles that we should take as people. Extremely complex metaphors that he addresses.

He does not argue that the bible is a scientific account, ergo he knows that the earth isn't 6000 years old.

>non sequitur: the tweet

>I don't have the answer to your question.
but
>He does not believe he can personally talk to god.
>They are metaphors
this is almost a quote from my question I think.

Didn't sound that complex to me, but fair enough, thanks for replying yo!

My answers are simple though. To truly understand it simply watch the video I linked. it provides a much clearer understanding and is semi-entertaining to boot.

>A value structure is required before anything can be examined
That's just not true. I can examine things from a purely objective point of view: my coffee is hot and has a sweet and bitter taste. That requires no value structure, only the ability to observe. Examination of an objects value can be from an materialistic and objective point of view: a rifle is a steel tube that whips a small rock at Mach 1 with a monocle on top. This instrument can be used for several purposes. The manner in which the rifle is used is not relevant to the rifle itself, therefore one cannot view the rifle as good or bad. The fact that many people view a rifle as good or bad is an example of a subjective assessment that often factors in political or personal bias, which pairs the rifle with the intentions of the shooter, which is not an assessment of the rifle itself. This makes philosophical assessment difficult because most people observing and assessing topics factor in a bias, which skews the purely objective nature of that which is being observed.

Besides, every religion (and by association belief in just one of many deities) has its own value structure. By what standard is the "correct" structure determined?

I agree, we need a Philosophy and Religion board. there's no board that's acceptable to talk about it.

Your post shows you are not read on the literature because you are arguing against something that is basic.

You cannot observe the world without knowing what to observe. There is too much detail in the world to concentrate on it all. For example, you do not concentrate on every part of a wall when you are in a lecture room. This is your inherent value structure, which is innate in you at birth to a certain level and developed further through your life experiences.

Extract from these the things that individuals concentrate on the most in terms of human qualities and you arrive at the "highest good" or the most "valued thing", extract it from everyone and you arrive at the Christian notion of God the Son

The correct structure is any structure that works, but its already been chosen by evolutionary history (because it worked)

The ability to observe requires a value structure. This is well accepted science.

If I sound aggressive its because I am tired of reiterating. I suggest you instead research the topic as it is more likely to convince you than I.

Stop using these nebulous terms like "highest good" or "the most valued thing". These are absolutely subjective and only have meaning to a specific individual.

>this is your inherent value structure
No that's my inability to focus on every part of the wall. That has nothing to do with my values, but rather my physiological inability to focus on several things at once.

Your whole post is a damn word salad and you make a lot of assumptions.
>this is well accepted science
>extract it from everyone and you arrive at the Christian notion of God the Son

Straight Appeal from Authority and Non Sequitur right there. You are citing science but claiming faith is a prerequisite for observation. You also assume everyone's value structure stems from a Christian value set, which is not true in the least

You are retard the definition, I am just going to leave it at that. You refuse to understand or even attempt to understand either due to pathology or mental inability. I refuse to help clarify anymore for you. If you want to understand reread what I've written with a head not so far up your arse.

If not, then I apologize but there is no helping you. You will always remain a mental midget.

Peterson is great 90% of the time except for his cringeworthy religious views

>You are retard the definition
You can start arguing anytime.

> You will always remain a mental midget.

You better cool it before someone gets hurt.

Not everyone has the patience (and mental ability) of a rock

The reason why there isn't a philosophy board is because our current setup acts as a choke on shitposting.
/phil/ threads on Veeky Forums are restricted to pragmatic philosophy
/phil/ threads on Veeky Forums have to be about philosophy that actually has works written about it
/phil/ threads on Veeky Forums are at least on a board where people are literate
You don't have a full license to shitpost on any of them like you would on a /phil/ board. A /phil/ board would end up like /x/; an echo chamber of shitposting and schizophrenia.

Nigga just post in /pol/, you'll get more honest to god answers.

But it would be fun to have all three viewpoints clash IMO.

This is pretty interesting. I was thinking, wouldn't it be interesting if /pol/ and Veeky Forums, or /pol/ and Veeky Forums or hell all 3 like this user says were one board for a few days?

Veeky Forums to cut down on the retardation
Veeky Forums to add in appreciation for literature/non emperical science
/pol/ to add political undertones.

Though desu I mostly see it as a way to make /pol/ less retarded and more interesting.

>rifle is a steel tube that whips a small rock at Mach 1 with a monocle on top.
accurate, greetings from /k/

his is history and humanities. aka there literally already is a philosophy board

>normie
>has IQ north of 260

pls brainlet step aside

...

Veeky Forums is my new board
goodbye Veeky Forums
i will not miss

Not him, but what makes you think that the Universe is finite? I think your underlying assumption is wrong. It's not the universe that's finite, but our understanding of the universe that is.
We are finite beings in an unlimited universe.

fag

Consciousness is an artifact of the processes of the brain. It does not exist, and you cannot prove it exists. It's not a scientific or philosophical debate. It's a brainlet debate.

Goodbye brainlet. You never had the phenotype.

Expansion implies that the universe is not infinite in size, no?
Not him either

But it is a philosophical debate when you can discuss its features based on the premise that it does exist despite not being able to (scientifically) prove it
>Process in brain
No it's a soul that inhabits the brain

I fucking hate Veeky Forums
Veeky Forums gets better philosophic discussions than Veeky Forums

Veeky Forums is a non-functional board. The inability to quickly and easily share short/long passages from literature through the board itself just turns Veeky Forums into masturbation and cult warfare.

Veeky Forums has the best memes though.

>definitely not an original idea
this is a very Veeky Forums style response. This kind of criticism offers no chance at progress forward. It just becomes an attack.

>"hah. you thought you were clever trying to talk about this. Well guess what, I am more clever than you. You see, I know that this idea has been around longer, and I can prove it by [name drop] [name drop] [name drop]"

Veeky Forums has already devoted both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums to the good potential for philosophical discussion. If you visit both and find both lacking, then (your problem) is due to the quality of the userbase, and not down to some sort of mistake on the administrations' part.

Your next two posts sound like some dumb, terse things which undergrads commonly bleat, but perhaps they weren't really yours, OP. An interesting philosophical problem which Veeky Forums constantly presents, especially when discussions get spicy or interesting, is: who is really saying what?

>/Veeky Forums/ is pretty much a meme board. They are too unwilling to discuss things and are overly insecure about everything, vehemently so.