Yfw Stiller crushed Kermit and his crypto-postmodernism

>yfw Stiller crushed Kermit and his crypto-postmodernism

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Jordan "Christ be upon you" Peterson is teaching students that truth is relative RIGHT NOW
Spooky. Next generation is fucked

>there are retards on this board right now who care about either of these "thinkers"

>yfw modern philosophy is so pathetically impotent there's nothing to discuss but a shit debate of two pseuds

Harris is pretty well informed in philosophy desu people just mock him because they disagree with some of his less popular views. I understand why people attack his view of morality being objective but even that isn't far outside the academic mainstream.

Petey is at least an occasionally amusing/interesting wacko, Harris on the other hand, is a fedora tipping pedant and neocon shill who should be parachuted into Raqqa as soon as posible

Philosophy needs to become aggressive again. We need another philosopher/poet/mystic of Nietzsche's caliber.

Harris BTFO Muslims
Peterson BTFO SJWs

They are redpilled and will help restore whiteness and masculinity in the West. Don't be cucks

>Sam Harris assumes the office of the caliph

When is part 2?

harris rationalizes completely and talks too much, how is that wisdom

...

>muh world of atoms
>muh premises are truth, how dare you to disagree
He argues like a person, who is looked in his narrow world, in which he can determine truth in his system, but can't comprehend there to be other systems. "Truth" is not something which is completly relative, but it at least to us humans depends on the system we operate with (e.g. non Aristotelian logics vs Aristotelian logics/ tertium datur vs tertium non datur).

It's funny that Peterson calls himself a Christian before any ideology and yet adopts the pragmatist conception of truth. He's good on a lot of issues, but should rethink his stance on epistemology.

I think so too. Peterson wins the discussion about truth, but otherwise he is naive to think he has broken free of Ideologies. Everyone is "possessed" by his own "demons", but maybe it's not really what he is thinking and he only tries to stabilze the community. In a way his explanation are deep, but still shallow in a cosmic sense and likley even in a human sense. He still operates with an completly humanistic view of humans and seems almost completly disintrested in Realpolitics and Evolutionary biology.

It was a stupid conversation. By the end I was pissed at both for wasting my time and not clearing up their epistemological d differences before conversing.

>disintrested in Evolutionary biology
what? he talks about it all the time and ultimately bases most of his arguments upon it.

I like listening to SH talk so much.
He's so calm and civil.

Is there anyone that even comes close?

This is tripe. Harris is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person is like.

Name 3 living smart people.

A grenade. But you have to put it really close to your ears before taking the pin out.

Don't you mean '3 intelligent people currently living'?

Although that's still kind of vague - in what fields exactly? D. Dennett, A.C. Grayling, S. Pinker, N. Chomsky all do similar "stuff" to Harris but are immeasurably more intelligent than that Stiller lookalike (whether you agree with them or not).
There's an awful lot of intelligent people though, could you improve the grammar of your question?

shinichi mochizuki
roseanne barr
henry kissinger

>I understand why people attack his view of morality being objective but even that isn't far outside the academic mainstream.
This is in the academic mainstream since Jeremy Bentham.

It is though, pragmatism is the way to go

>Kermit

Fuck you OP, can't unhear.

Slavoj
Sloterdijk
Girardfag

David Foster Wallace
Dave Eggers
Steve Bannon

You can't compete with this
youtube.com/watch?v=Ixc9i1G7eew

There are a lot of smart people that are alive today, so that's a pretty easy question to answer. Three of the smartest would be Noam Chomsky, Vladimir Voevodsky, and Johan van Bentham.

This video, and a few discord servers, made me realize that most of the people in the alt-right are under the age of 18.

I'll get right on it. Who needs to be BTFO first?

11/10 post

people who shittalk peterson should watch one of his interviews, he's a very clever man.

he's a transphobic piece of human garbage who shouldn't be given a platform to espouse his hateful views

low quality bait

Is he dying of AIDS?

Harris is the only pseud. Even though he studied under Rorty, he still doesn't get pragmatism and from this thread many of you still have no clue what Dewey or Nietzsche were writing. Pragmatism does not hold any known moral criteria as beyond potential for revision. Pragmatic ethics may be misunderstood as relativist, as failing to be objective, but that is like suggesting that science fails to be objective. Ethical pragmatists, like scientists, can maintain that their endeavor is objective on the grounds that it converges towards something objective.

this is your body on the redpill

Richard Dawkins
Noam Chompsky
Anita Sarkeesian

he's probably just slowly losing his mind, paranoia can cause weight loss and leave a physical toll

Don't poison the well. Not yet at least.

>D. Dennett, A.C. Grayling, S. Pinker, N. Chomsky

You're actually serious.

>gains sudden insight into the type of poster that hyperbolically smears Harris

Hollly shit.

What's wrong with Steve Pinker?