What is truth?

Who was right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AiGhhylUb4M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Peterson outed himself as a pea-brained child and Harris didn't even bother to try making a point. Nobody was right, Sam gave up.

Peterson because, in order to learn to think, humans were first selected for millions of years in dangerous environments. Thus when Sam argues that objective rationality trumps darwinism, he forgets a major part of the human condition that shaped what it means to be a human.

Harris is simple minded and rigid to have a conversation over the concept of truth. Peterson was naive and too optimistic in his exceptions with someone as simple minded as harris.

It made me realize that Im a brainlet because I got lost quick

I think Harris is right as to what constitutes truth, and I think Peterson is right in thinking that a cold, mere scientific truth leads to nihilism and the demise of civilisation.

I think Harris is wrong in thinking we can overcome nihilism by just being 'rational' humanist utilitarian liberals and I think Peterson is wrong about our ability to meme ourselves back into a stable society with values.

So Harris has the facts, Peterson knows the facts will kill us, and both are wrong in thinking there is a solution.

Also capitalism's anti-human incentives will inevitably lead to the creation of superhuman AI Gods, Gnon is Cold and garbage time is running out.

We used our brains as an evolutionary advantage when we put it to work to figure out how to hunt. Nowadays we use it for different reasons.

Having a formal education is more valuable nowadays but we're still using the same thing to store that information.

I may also be retarded.

Peterson is a fucking meme retard and Harris raped him

That's the argument though. We are selected as a tribal species. Arguing that the human condition is best described as what came out the Enlightment is denying 300 millions of years of evolution.

Why don't you agree with Peterson? Isn't there some validity to (summarizing the argument of peterson here):

Truth is that which selects. We ourselves have lived for millions of years with a perception of reality closer to what Peterson is describing, namely information which helps us is that which is true.

Harris is saying that they agree but the change in language is unnecessary, Peterson takes his usual position about language being fundamental to perception and says that to concede what truth is to concede a perception of reality.

Also, the "not true enough claim" looks something like, if we all die from nuclear holocaust, our claim about the atom bomb wasn't true enough, it was an incomplete truth in the sense that our knowledge of the claim was incomplete, despite containing some element of "objective reality".

If that's what we all agree Peterson is actually suggesting then where's the issue?

spotted the pleb

want to add that the claims about language of truth also contains a claim about ethics

>Why don't you agree with Peterson? Isn't there some validity to (summarizing the argument of peterson here):
There's a lot of validity to his diagnosis of the problem from a humanist perspective, I just think there is no solution that salvages humanity. The evolutionary superorganism does not have the objective of serving our species, it will gladly transcend us towards complexity if we get in the way or do not keep up.

I think humanity as a whole is working towards more evolved lifeforms even at our own expense and that this force of nature, or nature itself, can not be stopped for our convenience.

>Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss.
>A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
>What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.
>I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.
>I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.
>I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.
>I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going.
>I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeks he his own down-going.

youtube.com/watch?v=AiGhhylUb4M

a fucking meme

Why won't Peterson debate Zizek? Is it because he knows he will destroy him?

This is a nebulous question in the first place. What kind of truth are they talking about?

I don't think he requests talks with others or anything, I think he just accepts requests others make to him.

JBP: It is best to think of truth pragmatically and instead focus on what seems to be within ourselves
SH: You're being foolish, scientific truth isn't pragmatic

Later on his episode with Charles Murray:
SH: Yeah sometimes science leads you to things no one should really know, like there's really nothing to be gained from knowing this

How am i to know the truth about a theory of truth? Dont i need a theory of truth which i believe to be true first?

Russell already proved Peterson right for fuck's sake

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

why doesn't zizek mention Veeky Forums?

not our guy?

Look I don't wanna be rude or nothing; I don't wanna tell you how to do your job

But what it toast?

i MIss real food, lollipops, chocolate chip cookies and a soda

>this is Hilbert vs. Gödel all over again
>first there's people thinking reason will eventually solve all problems, then people discover all sorts of paradoxes, then there's people thinking reason can never solve anything, then it does solve some problems we thought were unsolvable, then the whole cycle starts all over again
>we're in an endless cycle of debates, arguments and petty fights and it will never end
>and we'll never aim for the real goal, android gfs

Such a sad tale

Reddit Spacing

Reddit Philosophers

Leave

one man was able to look at the situation that had racked the brains of the most intelligent philosophers of the past millenia and could see the entirety of the circle that was chasing it's own tail, if only someone could know what he'd seen.

fists clenched, he screamed.

>tradition is stability

Fucking hate this meme. Literally "I was born in the wrong time!". Society is more stable than ever.

>go from riding a horse buggy to going to space and nuking nips in a few decades
>stable

>from 80% agriculturally employed to 80% factory employed and inventing the car in a decade
>from Britain owning most of northern France to fighting the French for 100 years and losing it all in a century
>from Britain being ruled by the House of the Plantagenet to being ruled by the House of Lancaster and the bloodiest day in British history with 500,000 British men killing each other in a few hours in 50 years
>from Britain being a largely tribal island to being ruled by the anglo-saxons in 50 years
>from Britain being again tribel to being ruled by the Romans in 20 years

I mean just how traditional are we talking here? Change is inherent to the Universe.

>a scientificist
>a pragmatist
none were right

>Change is inherent to the Universe.

Literally not an argument for anything. Why do people always back into confusing is and ought?

Stability is the state of being stable. Unchanging with respect to some variable. Tradition is the continuation of customs and norms through time. Tradition is stable norms and customs with respect to time.

Why do you have to be so obtuse?

You completely dodged my point. You said the contemporary world is unstable but it changed very quickly, I pointed out fast change has always been something that happens, you try and say I'm being obtuse.

>Tradition is stable norms and customs with respect to time.

Well I, and you yourself;

>go from riding a horse buggy to going to space and nuking nips in a few decades
>stable

...shown that tradition or at least the modern era *wasn't* conductive to a state of not changing. Ironically, and I say this with prejudice so I apologize in advance, the rapid change and fanaticism of the modern era was exactly what the post-modernists criticized. So you're actually not far from coming to the same conclusion as post-modernists, whom I'm sure you disagree with.

We were trying to come up with adjective forms of the word "scientism." I think we settled on "scientile"

>You completely dodged my point. You said the contemporary world is unstable but it changed very quickly, I pointed out fast change has always been something that happens, you try and say I'm being obtuse.

I never said that. I literally just popped into this thread to tell you about your unoriginal non-argument. If you want me to debate something in particular first unconfuse your ramblings.

>... post-modernists, whom I'm sure you disagree with.

Lel you have no clue who you are talking to.

>I never said that. I literally just popped into this thread to tell you about your unoriginal non-argument.

Well don't reply as if you're the person I was conversing with then, or I'm going to assume you are and know the context of the conversation. I'm not psychic.

>From Britain being ruled by the House of the Plantagenet to being ruled by the House of Lancaster and the bloodiest day in British history with 500,000 British men killing each other in a few hours in 50 years

What the fuck are you talking about?

More specifically, the 500,000 number. Dude, that's over ten times as many people died in the entirety of the Wars of the Roses.

Both are wrong

Am I the only person that finds hilarious the fact that from all the possible people these pseuds managed to find each other? It's like a play of fate they are not aware of.

Sorry I added a 0. Also it was 28,000, not 50,000.

K. But you still need to realize that the existence of change does not demean the importance of tradition and continuity to men. Change is inescapable, but that does not mean it happens everywhere at all times in every respect. Nor is it an argument for any particular action. Which was my point.

Especially mean is your denigration of people wishing for stability and a center in life. As if they would be fine if they just "embraced" change, or that it would be fruitless to fight against such forces. As if the mother settling on the Seine should embrace the sight of a viking longship, or that she shouldn't try to save herself.

Totally off topic, but the english translation really doesn't do the German text justice here, it's a shame there isn't an English equivalent for worfs like "untergang"

Peterson on Autism Patrol

>the existence of change does not demean the importance of tradition and continuity to men

Well what do you mean by tradition? Some traditions are good, some aren't. I'm not arguing that *some* tradition should be preserved, but things will change, and often quickly. The ancient Celts went from Pantheism to Monotheism within at most 2 centuries, and their entire tradition was rewrote and ultimately forgotten about. The ancient Celts believed in reincarnation, something Julius Caesar attested to, which was forgotten about until Eastern Mysticism entered Western thought in the 60's. To argue for the monotheistic as tradition is forgetting the traditions of the people before even them.

You're correct, change is not an argument for action, but its at least a contradiction of traditionalism. Traditionalism seems to only survive as long as the people who experienced it are still alive.

>is your denigration of people wishing for stability and a center in life

I haven't denigrated them in anyway. I've argued stability is more of a thing now then it ever was before, at least in the West.

>As if the mother settling on the Seine should embrace the sight of a viking longship, or that she shouldn't try to save herself.

I haven't argued that.

I already gave the definition of tradition. That is it.

> but its at least a contradiction of traditionalism

No it's not. As without change there would be no concept of tradition. I do not mean to say nothing should change, or that we ought never revise our traditions, but that your snarfing at modern men and their attempts to find stability is silly, especially when you assert that the West is more stable than ever.

I don't know where you live, but that is certainly not the case for most people. We have seen almost unprecedented change when we account of breadth and scale. I am actually curious as to what you believe is "more stable" today. Certainly not sexuality, taboo, finance, family, religion, law, or politics. Not the French revolution, not the reformation, not the expansion of Christianity, not the Saxon invasion, not the Schism are of the same breadth and scale.

>the existence of change does not demean the importance of tradition and continuity to men

He you explain the importance of tradition, not what it is.

>but that your snarfing at modern men and their attempts to find stability is silly

But I never did this. I invite you to read my original point: "Society is more stable than ever."

>especially when you assert that the West is more stable than ever.

Well I wasn't snarfing then was I? And by all measures, it is.

>I am actually curious as to what you believe is "more stable" today

We've gone nearly 70 years without a large scale European war. Economic and social theory has pretty much not changed since the 80's. Sexuality hasn't changed, being gay has been legal since 1969 and the first transexual was in Britain in the 50's. Family has changed, only because divorce has been relaxed and law and politics are two things that have changed, yet only in the sense they've become more capitalist. The NHS and the work of Attlee has been almost completely eradicated.

>Not the French revolution, not the reformation, not the expansion of Christianity, not the Saxon invasion, not the Schism are of the same breadth and scale.

Well now you're just talking shit. Those were moments that defined the Western and Anglo world. It seems to me you're experiencing nostalgia for a time that never happened.

Which discussion are we referencing, my dudes?

>He you explain the importance of tradition, not what it is.
I literally said:
>Tradition is the continuation of customs and norms through time.

>But I never did this. I invite you to read my original point: "Society is more stable than ever."

Yes yous did. With le wrong generation maymay.

>Well I wasn't snarfing then was I? And by all measures, it is.

It absolutely is not. Your understanding of what constitutes society is limited severely. Indeed you seem to only have surface understanding of most societal institutions, otherwise you would not say that we are more stable.You think 100 years is a long time or something. It's not.

>Those were moments that defined the Western and Anglo world.

Never said they didn't. But that they all are less in scope and scale than what we see today. Today we are seeing an almost complete transvaluation in almost every facet of life.

Each of these did rewrite society, but they did not touch on such a totality as we see today. You fail to understand breadth AND scale. Instead you'll talk about some event and not realize it was more focused and selective than what we see today.

Peterson autistically sperged out and if you think he was more correct then it's very likely that you're autistic too

>Economic and social theory has pretty much not changed since the 80's

Sorry, but continuing with this specifically. That is an absolute farce if you believe that. Both that it is a long time, or that the have not changed. In fact I specifically study economics and I will tell you a lot has changed since the 80s. We have seen decisions made and events happen that most people would have thought impossible back then. The mere existence of negative interest rates spits in your face.

>Sexuality hasn't changed

No, but sexual norms sure have. Also:
>1969
>long time

>law and politics are two things that have changed, yet only in the sense they've become more capitalist

You have no clue what your talking about. You also don't seem to know what capitalism is then. Or even how these institutions have changed.

you're retarded

this is how Frege argues against the adequacy of any theory of truth

stop making appeals to mathematics you don't understand

>Tradition is the continuation of customs and norms through time.

But which do you choose and which do you cast away? I'm not arguing the concept is invalid, after all, I do support traditions, but which is it?

>With le wrong generation maymay.

Well it is often time. If I think something is valuable, I'll argue it on its own merits, not because it is traditional.

>Indeed you seem to only have surface understanding of most societal institutions, otherwise you would not say that we are more stable.You think 100 years is a long time or something. It's not.

Well that's not true. Many societal institutions have lasted well longer than 100 years. But The USA isn't older than a few 100 years so you can't really speak of The US in those historical terms.

>But that they all are less in scope and scale than what we see today

No they aren't. The French revolution, the October revolution and so on are all events that upturned society and defined not only the local nation, but other nations for decades, and are still going on.

>Today we are seeing an almost complete transvaluation in almost every facet of life.

We are. Much of it thanks to the internet, which you are using. I mean, I find it funny when people are talking about globalism while using an image board system that allows anyone across the world to communicate instantly and arguing for Generation Identity revolving around Europe when Europe has never seen itself as a solid entity until recently and has been racked with internal conflict over the last 2000 years. But now its an "identity". But to argue society is less stable today then it was then is false.

>but they did not touch on such a totality as we see today

Well that's not right, as you attest. The most major upheavals in society came from realizations that the upper class *weren't* perfect, that they *weren't* any better than anyone else. The case of Blanche Monnier for example shed light on the kind of dirty secrets the French aristocracy held for years, and changed opinions about hierarchy in France.

>Nu-atheism vs nu-christianity
Can the fedoras and closet homosexuals just kill each other off already?

Peterson. Anyone not Sam Harris.

>n fact I specifically study economics and I will tell you a lot has changed since the 80s. We have seen decisions made and events happen that most people would have thought impossible back then. The mere existence of negative interest rates spits in your face.

From Thatcher/Friedman onward, not much has changed. I mean obviously it has, but in the late 40's in Britain we almost had a fully socialist government. Now, that's incomprehensible. Economics in America hasn't really undergone any revolutions since Reagan. All of these actors agree with the principles, but disagree with the execution.

>1969
>long time

Well again, how far back are you going?

>No, but sexual norms sure have

Well that's not necessarily a bad thing.

>You also don't seem to know what capitalism is then. Or even how these institutions have changed.

From the 60's to today economics and politics have been ruled by capitalism, and I don't say that as a bad thing. But its a fact.

>But which do you choose and which do you cast away? I'm not arguing the concept is invalid, after all, I do support traditions, but which is it?

I am not evaluating specific traditions. That's not my point. My point is we are in a state of great flux, unlike what we have seen in the past.

>Well it is often time. If I think something is valuable, I'll argue it on its own merits, not because it is traditional.

That's nice, but you shat on tradition itself. The very idea of having continuity, which for many people is requisite for mental health. Not everyone is as individualist or as much a free spirit as you. And society needs to work for them too.

> Many societal institutions have lasted well longer than 100 years.

And many are fluctuating.

>We are. Much of it thanks to the internet, which you are using.

Thank you. Literally my only principle point. Again, I'm not arguing for specific traditions.

> The most major upheavals in society came from realizations that the upper class *weren't* perfect, that they *weren't* any better than anyone else.

Major oversimplification. Only the most recent post-1700era could we say this.

>From Thatcher/Friedman onward, not much has changed....

Absolutely, 100% incorrect. We have seen major revision since 1980s. Indeed we just had the most major upheaval in economic theory in 2007, and 2011. We now speak of the end of neoliberalism, even the IMF has doubts.

>Well that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, I do not argue normatives, only positives.

>From the 60's to today economics and politics have been ruled by capitalism

Incorrect. It has been acquisitive, but it is not capitalist. Unfortunate I cannot characterize it in a few words. It's too syncretic.

Harris

Like Harris pointed out, Peterson wants to marry truth to good, or wise.

Therefore Peterson cannot state that wise or good people can say something factually false.

His language has less use to communicate. To confuses two variables for one variable, with absolutely no gain to the language.

Harris and everyone else who does not confuse truth with good or wise is free to talk about how a good person can be wrong about something, because they do not marry good to truth. They are separate. Peterson has to say that these people are then not good or wise, which only limits his language for no good reason.

Confusing these two variables for one will not stop the mad scientist. It only limits language.

>I am not evaluating specific traditions

But you can't advance arbitrary positions because they're "tradition" without being absolute.

>My point is we are in a state of great flux, unlike what we have seen in the past.

We're not. Not anymore than we ever have been.

>That's nice, but you shat on tradition itself

I will. Just because something is tradition doesn't mean we should carry it on.

>The very idea of having continuity, which for many people is requisite for mental health

Well I'd argue the opposite. Continuity of the witch trials would invariably harm disabled women's mental health. A form of canon maybe required, but the field of history is designed to do just that.

.Not everyone is as individualist or as much a free spirit as you. And society needs to work for them too.

I'm not arguing that. But ironically, much of US history from the 1850's to 1940's was radically individualist.

>And many are fluctuating.

As one would expect and as they always have.

>Major oversimplification. Only the most recent post-1700era could we say this.

Not necessarily. And if we're going pre-1700, I'd argue most of the uprisings and social upheavals were justified.

>Major oversimplification. Only the most recent post-1700era could we say this.

Yes, because of the 2007 banking crisis. And if I'm honest, I'm scared. I worry that the post-modern world is going to write off all the benefits of capitalism (or rather, voluntarism) just because of one event. But I understand reform is needed. The banks need to be kept a closer eye on.

> It has been acquisitive, but it is not capitalist. Unfortunate I cannot characterize it in a few words. It's too syncretic.

>>
Anonymous 05/16/17(Tue)00:26:14 No.9512146 ▶

It mostly true though. I haven't seen anyone who's ever pulled much weight argue against the fundamental basis of capitalism in so many years.

>But you can't advance arbitrary positions because they're "tradition" without being absolute.

I haven't.

>We're not. Not anymore than we ever have been.
We absolutely are. I do not know how to make it more clear. I implore you to read history books. Especially on religion and bureaucracy.

>Well I'd argue the opposite.
And you'd be wrong. Ever wonder why all those people are arguing for traditionalism? Because lack of center upsets them. It upsets many, but many are willing to keep their mouths shut.

>As one would expect and as they always have.

As above, you are being deaf to the kind and severity of flux.

> I'm scared.

You should be desu. Because we have no clue how to revise the models so far. Also, if you know BlackRock and Aladdin, understand that even though they avert many potential finance disasters they are in constant state of panic. Bayesian networks and risk management have inherent limitations. Whats worse is the current political community WON'T FUCKING LISTEN TO US WHEN WE SAY THIS TO THEM.

Just remember, whatever disaster happens next, it's not so much the economists fault as it is the politicians.

Anyway, I need to go. But I implore you to peek behind the curtain of power and learn about these systems, because it is not nearly as stable as you think.

I have. I'm just saying although a lot has changed in the last few decades, its not abnormal.

cultures that spend their time thinking about such stuff get murdered by cultures that don't

then those cultures in turn get bored and think about 'the meaning of truth'

and then someone murders them

their first discussion on sam harris podcast about the nature of truth

Give us a definition of truth. Let's see how that works out for you OP.

"p" is true if and only if p

Harris is a mere man of his age; nothing more.

Peterson has some spiritual dimension about him at least. As qualified as it is.

>Yes, because of the 2007 banking crisis. And if I'm honest, I'm scared. I worry that the post-modern world is going to write off all the benefits of capitalism (or rather, voluntarism) just because of one event. But I understand reform is needed. The banks need to be kept a closer eye on.
iktf

They're both intellectually dishonest wankers who talk at cross purposes. They were both equally wrong

i really like jackie chan

Well it's a pretty god damned good argument. Where's my ribbon?

You guys don't honestly take Ben Stiller seriously do you????

Sam seems to not be able to grasp the basic concepts Peterson brings up its like watching a child try to follow an adult embrassing and sad!

I do

It made me realize that intellectuals can be worse than pseuds.

Sam Harris only seems to exist to kill his made up version of God, specifically the Christian God. Peterson is some odd father figure.

>this tradition vs change dichotomy
A pattern of changes can exist.

He's a total hack, thoroughly underread, his 'philosophy' is garbage and has no academic rigour, he's not a scientist and has no right to talk about neurobiology.

Sam Harris is a pseudo, he's got you all fooled holy shit.

They had an impossible argument that didn't go anywhere.

It was entirely petty.

Literally the only user this retarded thread that seems to understand the issue at the heart of the dispute. Its pretty depressing.

Harris if we use the definition of truth pretty much everyone agrees on. Peterson if he gets to define truth however the fuck he wants.

... Not really, m8

how many levels of postmodern irony is this chink on?