ROUND 2

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qPGUiFDFrwk
youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg
twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/838566254017335296
youtube.com/watch?v=0o87c5eVuK4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

This board is going to be completely shit up for weeks after. Again.

WILL HE BECOME UNSORTED?

Prepare for more "flag-planting" from Ben (i.e. autistically refusing to cede argumentive ground to an intellectually superior interlocutor)

Oh good, will they argue the nature of the word, "truth" for a six hours this time?

Has this been a good example to any of you? That philosophy, in general, is just a bunch of made up, semi-psychotic, bullshit?

So what IS truth?

If truth is beauty, does that mean that DFC anime girls are truth?

This belongs on the history AND HUMANITIES board anyway, along with other non-fiction. Philosophy isn't fiction, isn't literature.

He should speak with @SamHyde instead.

Truth is something we can agree on in the sense, that yes maybe none of this is real and we're all living in a simulation, but we ARE stuck with many, many realities that we're forced to deal with every moment of our lives.

The fact that they might be, "not real," doesn't ultimately matter, as if you don't fucking eat then you'll die, and if you don't talk to women, you wont get laid, and you're stuck dealing with the reality of this world, for as long as you're here.

>history AND HUMANITIES board
>implying this board is an actual entity on Veeky Forums
>implying it isn't proxy-reddit

FIGHT!!

This actually annoys me. Sam made it explicitly clear on his blog that he doesn't give a shit about anything Jordan has to say beyond his resistance to political correctness.

>That philosophy, in general, is just a bunch of made up, semi-psychotic, bullshit?
A good example? That you gave up because of two burger hacks?

Did you even start greco and resumed roman?..

You mean if beauty is truth.

Maybe they'll talk about that.

No they won't. They'll just be stuck on epistemology again.

You guys have your Sam or Jordan jerseys, hats, and signs made right? We're going to be watching the debate at a local wing bar.

>"The main criticism directed at me has been that once we hit this impasse, I wasn’t a gracious enough host to let the dialogue proceed to other topics. I understand this complaint (and even anticipated it during the dialogue itself). But I feared that if we moved on to discuss the validity of religious faith, the power of myth, the reality of Jungian archetypes, or any of the more ethereal topics for which Peterson has become a celebrated exponent, without first agreeing on how sane and reasonable people can differentiate fact from fantasy, we were doomed to talk past each other with every sentence." - Harris

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that they are just going to circlejerk again.

Who is this intellectual heavyweight?

Everybody whooping and hollering and clapping at the screen while they watch the show, live-tweeting between filling their mouths with fried chicken, or their preferred vegetarian option.

yeah, well you're missing the pre-game too, we're going to wal-mart parking lot to pound brews and criticize all the shoppers for buying into moral subjectivity.

No, it's ZFC that's truth! Dumb wild burger.

I'm sorry, but how is this literature related again?

Jordan and Sam are now wrestlers

describe their gimmicks

It's actually a pretty good microcosm of how philosophy constantly tries to legitimize itself by attaching itself to literature.

>We're too stupid and nonsensical to be a a science....so let's try to worm our way in with the humanities crowd!

Jordan's finishing move is the Deus DDT.

Why do you guys hate fun? Everytime this is even mentioned there's always four or five of you malcontents who have to shit up the threads with "muh not Veeky Forums, get the fuck out!"

Like are you a mod? No. Then shut the fuck up.

I hope they agree to not mention the word "truth" this time.

I went to Veeky Forums once.

It's not so bad. The treatments are expensive, and you can never really have sex again, but living with AIDs is not as bad as it used to be.

There is the
>positivists-truth
and the early positivists think that you shall reject talking about anything but the empirical concepts related to that.

Funny enough, most scientists who would consider themselves positivists don't recognize all the fuzzy concepts they still use. They are not very purist about it.

Elevating this truth leads to scientist, and in the worst case, to a technocratic totalitarian system.

Sam Harris takes this truth as THE truth. However, he acknowledges that there is more to the world than science.

Peterson understand Harris truth, but completely subordinates scientific reasoning to his (ideologically loaded) goals.

Sam Harris doesn't seem to get how a thinking man (and I don't want to be very restrictive here, 50% of people have above average intelligence) could adopt this stance.

Most likely, no thinking listener to their opinions will adopt either of those guys stance. Except the fanboys on reddit/SamHarris.

It's a bit troubling that both of those speakers have found a large audience (and thus a possible claim to fame) with the right wingers. Funny to see how they argue for those peoples points (I'm not excluding myself) while at the same time trying to say nothing that would make center-left people outright reject them.

When Petersen is confronted with someone from an extreme position, it's funny to see how he reformulates his stance to not state something that would have to be rejected by the other. It's arguably a bit dishonest.
Sam Harris is more like Trump in that sense - when someone says something he can't agree with, he'll get triggered and comment on it and fight it.

I'm looking forward to this. I don't think Peterson can win these debates, but it's still admirable for him to try and for Sam to have him back. It's not like Harris is about to start plugging Carl Jung, or that JP is going to start practicing transcendental meditation (which might end his career).

Harris is miles away from the culture war that Peterson lives in. It's why I think he's going to have the high hand, because he can be detached, which is going to make Peterson have to make his case in the ever-more strenuous way that seems to be driving him to total exhaustion. It does seem like that's a place he likes to be in, but it only works if he's able to do his motivational-speaker thing. Sam has already Sorted Himself Out tho.

Maybe when you get situations like this you need a third party, a moderator or a panel. I don't know. Having them go head-to-head will be interesting but maybe it would be better to just set it up in a way where they don't have to slug it out over frameworks and axioms. This is of course Peterson's thing, the terms of the discussion, and I don't know how he sways Harris on his. What I would like Sam to do is try out the same move that he used on Hannibal Burress: 'I can sum up your position in a way that you would agree with, but I don't think you can do the same for me. Do you want to take that bet?' That's one of the best things I have ever heard in a discussion. If Harris can do that for Peterson - and really I think he has to, Peterson doesn't even have to go the other way - then that would that.

It's too bad Peter Sloterdijk isn't available for WU. He says some interesting stuff in this clip about culture and rage management.

youtube.com/watch?v=qPGUiFDFrwk

Maybe having a good Stoic public intellectual would be good too, someone between Harris and JP, between ultra-detached utilitarianism and ultra-attached Jungian archetypes. I suppose Taleb kind of/sort of falls into this category. And he's another guy not likely to do WU.

>Sam has already Sorted Himself Out tho.

lolno. He's still trapped in a "I'm a good guy for creating nuclear weapons because it's true and it works" mode of being.

Wouldn't surprise me that Sam eventually comes out and says that a Skynet type A.I would be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

What's WU user sampai?

You might be right, that if you wanted to undermine his position you would have to draw out the political consequences of his thought, or engage him on that realm, as Chomsky did. I found that argument to be more or less a draw but I might have to go and look at it again.

>Wouldn't surprise me that Sam eventually comes out and says that a Skynet type A.I would be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

I don't know about this. He's actually given a good talk about this, saying that the danger is in building an AI we can't control.

youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg

WU/Waking Up podcast.

I know he's talked about it. He's also talked about how we don't have a economic system for when the A.I overlords are coming, so we have to change how we do property and have to make sure that not 1 corporation steals all the wealth created by the A.I, like he's some Jacques Fresco-tier pseudo-communist.

Harris talking about property and economics? That's interesting. Seems like that kind of stuff is out of his usual comfort zone of being erudite, charismatic social commentator and distinguished talk-show guest. Pretty much everything he's said about Trump I agree with, and to some degree most of the religion stuff too. But venturing out into property and economics seems like it would be terra incognita for him.

I think Z still considers him a neoliberal apologist, although Z has probably said everything he needs to say at this point and is mainly just repeating himself. Harman made some good points in their conversation about the need to re-think capitalism in perhaps a less grim way. Negarestani also, lots of those guys. Getting over transcendental miserabilism; who knows, maybe it's just Nietzsche again, the need to will past decadence, perhaps even past the anthropocene. I liked N's phrase, 'crossing the cognitive rubicon.' I think what he meant by this is, although I could be wrong, taking the general condition of acceleration as being what it is, something that is now acquiring an autonomy of its own, and focusing more on this idea of the engineer rather than the existential political subject. Harmonizing yourself with the unconscious processes of global capital is perhaps not genuinely Nietzschean, but given that for some it may not in fact be possible (or even desirable) to go full ubermensch that a slightly less heroic trajectory is required.

Personally, I don't really know how you stop planetary corporatization without falling back on tribalism or nationalism, so my usual thought is to say, just try and avoid allowing yourself to become an object (or simulacral subject), either of techno-capital or ideology. There are aspects of planetary corporatization that may in fact be positive, and not even in an NRx sense. In my ideal world there is a middle path that links up the subject with their context in a kind of warm and fuzzy Heideggerian way but I sometimes wonder if that really is only a kind of a fantasy, and this is why I mainly hide under stones and drink and read Baudrillard and defer. So obviously I'm as bewildered as anyone else.

Apologies for the off-topic ramble, but thanks for making me think about some of this stuff.

Veeky Forums doesn't allow contemporary topics, it has to be at least 25 years old

HYPE

How's it going to go down this time?

What the fuck was Peterson talking about last time? He sounded insane.

Yeah...that's generally what happens when you get more than one philosopher in a room together, their babbling starts getting revealed as the truly psychotic bullshit that it genuinely is.

>tfw 20 years old and know more philosophy than these brainlets

He was trying to elaborate a pragmatist epistemology mixed with his own kind of Jung-y pragmatist ethics of mankind's striving and self-overcoming in the world, without really getting down to brass tacks and explaining the pragmatist epistemology first.

Harris just had no idea what he was talking about, and was basically saying arguing with the surface level of Peterson's comments.

I sympathise with Peterson but I think he should have slowed down and not tried to bowl over Harris by presuming the guy's entire worldview is scientistic and materialistic. I think those are both the case, but you're not going to convince the guy by pouring a literary melange of all the Nietzschean shit you've ever read onto his face, while he's trying to go
>????? BUT IF SOMETHING IS TRUE, IT'S TRUE! HOW CAN YOU VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION BRO?
and you just keep rambling about dragons and primordial alethea.

>He sounded insane.
The guy thinks the government telling him not to be an asshole to trans people is literally fascism, what do you think?

p a t r i c i a n

Is this what people think of Peterson's trans law objections? You sound like one of the students arguing with him.

Do you think Sam will be as autistic as he was or will he be able to let the conversation move forward?

I'm actually wondering if they're going to start right where they left off. Considering Sam's reddit objection I don't see how round 2 will be about anything else.

...

fucking murakamitards

Wow I sure can't wait to see two guys of middling intelligence try to prove which one's the MOST middling of intelligence. Can't wait for Harris to try to 'unpack' everything Petersen says (because that's important on a fucking podcast), and in the process autistically cuck the conversation out of any progress or value

just fuck off. they bring out the worst in each other.

"Let me show you how smart I am by systematically deconstructing the english language. I am the master of all meaning and my name is SAM"

It's literally a brilliant tactic. Whenever Petersen voices an opinion using Jungian jargon and Sam didn't read that far in his 'The Portable Jung' book yet, Sam just claims Petersen is misrepresenting a definition of some everyday word in order to prove what an expert Philosafarrr he is. That way he doesn't have to bring any actual knowledge of anything to the table, but still seems intelligent because le what is truth

Why does anyone even listen to Harris in the first place?

Does anyone else listen to the so called intellectuals of today and fear they'll end up just as retarded by the time they reach their 40s?

I feel like Peterson was intentionally leading Harris on a linguistic goose chase when he could have easily stated what the basic disagreement was

I never realized, Sam Harris played in Click, damn

Can someone explain Peterson's point to a brainlet

>The guy thinks the government telling him not to be an asshole to trans people is literally fascism

More like left-wing authoritarianism, but yes, it certainly is.

guess he'll have time to prep now that this clash of the titans is off


twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/838566254017335296

why can't these fucks get along when this makes so much sense

youtube.com/watch?v=0o87c5eVuK4

>if we make a hydrogen bomb that means what we know about sub atomic particles is factual
>if that hydrogen bomb kills us all what we knew was not true enough

>I suppose Taleb kind of/sort of falls into this category
Uh. How exactly?

How did Sam dispute it?

Sam wants it to go the other way around.

Sam wants morality to be scientific, but Peterson don't think it's possible, so Peterson wants to incorporate science into a grand narrative that includes morality instead.

>Sam wants it to go the other way around.
Wich is?

Also, how is Sam planning to have morality grounded on science? And what are the scientific notions that he picked to support his thesis? (inb4 neuroscience)

>Also, how is Sam planning to have morality grounded on science? And what are the scientific notions that he picked to support his thesis?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

Sam essentially disputed Peterson's "true enough" comment. Sam said just because we all die doesn't make something not true. To which Peterson responded that something "is a fact but is not true"

They were talking about different things, Which is why the convo went in circles

Dubs will make it so

I listened to the whole thing and I didn't hear the part where he dropped The Gulag Archipelago. What part of the podcast was it?

He didn't say anything about the gulag archipelago

I just like the Peterson memes

>66

Confirmed

>legislating to fine and jail people who refuse to use words invented by radical ideologues who resent western civilization because isn't tyranny

just wew all my lads

can you post more, my peterson meme folder is small

...

...

Save the traditions of the old dominance hierarchy that work while improving the ones that dont

Don't say or do things that you can not complete or know to not be based in the reality according to your experience

SORT

YOURSELF

...

OUT

Fug

mfw i realize i have to go to the dragons lair before the dragon comes to my village

Clean your room first

...

what does these mean user?

happier days

I HONESTLY don't know