Le beyond 150 IQ man strikes again. truly a great thinker

le beyond 150 IQ man strikes again. truly a great thinker

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
youtube.com/watch?v=jOZ94iMlEdY&list=PLBcYM0KFnb07NxahmlXm-qRJmTDOE5GqM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>God is not just an axiom, but the only possible axiom
Amazing

yeah but unlike Jo[k]e Rogan and other reactionary and/or alt-right pseuds like him, I bet Peterson would recant that if you confronted him with it. Don't get so caught up in the /pol/ memes that you forget he's a respected and accomplished academic.

When did rogan become an """intellectual"""? I've only ever known him for being an insecure manlet who comments on MMA fights. Now he's doing podcasts talking about high brow shit. What the fuck happened?

More pseudointellectualism from a pol level hack.

WTF, he doesn't want to get his nation raped and killed by non-whites, what is wrong with that guy

For some reason stand-up comics nowadays seem to feel entitled to talk about serious intellectual things. It's a sweeping trend. Maybe it started with Louis CK. Rogan isn't even the worst one though imo, Chris Gethard pisses me off way more.

...

I was a University of Toronto student in the late 2000s when he was just a revered psychology professor. I miss that time. Now everybody has heard his name and it's just people from all sides attacking/worshiping different straw men.

10 bucks say that you are a mongrel

This guy is just proof that "intro" videos and shit don't turn people into good readers. People like Peterson and School of Life don't open doors to critical thinking.

If you want to know about Jung. Just fucking read Jung. If you want to know about Post Modern thinkers, fucking read them. If you want to shit post online just watch Peteron's lectures.

>I go to Jordan Peterson for my mathematics and Stephen Hawking for psychology.

He does not understand Godel.

What I have noticed about the JP haters on lit is that they are all Christlet atheists whose contempt for the man stems from the fact that they simply refuse to confront the fact that anything is beyond the understanding of their little peanut brains. When faced with the debate on whether God in some shape exists they resort to childish debate tactics that expose their dogmatic hypocrisy, given their self-proclaimed open-mindedness and praise of debating ideas through dialectic.

One thing I notice about the JP cult is that they are all illiterate.

wew

One thing I've noticed about pseuds who hate JP on Veeky Forums is that they're all illiterate.

...

what the hell

Wew, settle down lads, you might hurt eachothers feelings.

Ugggggh what he's saying is so stupid, it actually makes me cringe. I really question the validity of philosophy teachers after learning about Peterson.

How does this even make sense? He's saying that God is the axiom, and without him we can't even define 'proof'? Think I'm misinterpreting this...

he is not a philosophy teacher, just a second rate shirnk

>prove he's wrong

Dogmatic atheists or dogmatic Christians, makes no difference at all. Both argue the factual evidence of myths and stories.

>topkek

Anything we can't prove should automatically be taken as fact.

Is that what he teaches in his university professorship?

Memes aside, he's right. Proof hinges on at least one knowable Noumenon.

And that thing MUST be god?

Fractal patterns, user. Fractal patterns.

>mfw the one JBP hater who makes all these threads is living out the resentful adversary archetype

The irony in the JP cult calling anyone resentful, a bunch of fags who got memed into becoming conservatives in their early 20s because they think their inability to get a gf is living proof of the decline of western civilization.

Kind of, at least relative to the definitions that people who put so much stock in proof use to describe everything that this Noumenon is not and everything that is not this Noumenon. If not by deducing other Noumena from said Noumenon and being pulled towards the ultimate Noumenon.

t. liberal 'refugees welcome' sjw

>one
>Implying

What's the deal fuckboy, too mad those evil feminists are out there going to parties and having sex with people who aren't you?

What else is both the minimum and maximum single explanation for everything?
>"Big Bang"
>Time
>Mass
>Colors
>Logic
>Math
>Laws of physics
>Emotions
>Reason
>Scale and size
>Creativity
>Jokes
>Culture
>Animals, plants etc.
>Psychedelics
>Other people
>Consciousness
>Observation
>Tragedy
>Work
>Beauty
>Choice
>Freedom
>Imagination
>Potential realities
>Surrealities
>...
This all had a single origin by our current knowledge. It's absurd to claim that the origin did not have these qualities in any fashion.

We Christians believe that all this is a small droplet against the vast endless God; the source of all this. What do you believe?

...

That characterizes some of the clueless /pol/tards who follow him. If you are in a high position and you speak out against social justice or political correctness you are hailed by them as a hero. They lick the ground these people walk on.

I like JBP but I keep /pol/tards far away from me.

Aside from that, I find that many of the people on /pol/ dislike him because, despite what people might like to think, JBP is a rather liberal and moderate person. There's even a straight up left-wing side of him.

You are clearly just another paid shill, and not even a good one at that.

There might be two

I do wonder which side is getting memed.

You see, I think when he's in he's talking about his Jung / Campbell shit, he's rather innofensive, and I even like that kind of idea (as a thought experiment, as much as I love Campbell I can't take him seriously), but when he starts talking about "postmodernists" and "neomarxists" he I lose all my respect.

See, this is resentment, thinking people are being PAID to disagree with you.
maybe idk clean your room faggot

What the hell is wrong with communists?
This is your utopia.
youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

Official humanitard misunderstanding power ranking
1. Well quantum entanglement exists, so maybe we're all connected
2. Dark matter and dark energy are basically made up. Cosmologists have just as much faith as any religious person.
3. Well if you were familiar with Goh-dell, you'd know that you can't prove anything.

...

What's the relevance of this to anything?

I believe in the singularity, the Big Bang, the primordial soup, and that anything and everything that exists today could only have done so under certain conditions which happened to be true/correct at the time.

Everything else is supplementary.

Watching Veeky Forums discuss Godel's theorems is always a funny experience.

Also, you forgot
>wave function collapse means souls exist

I do think he draws too much of a link between Foucault and Derrida and SJWs. There is some link (contra Veeky Forums), but I know those guys would not really like SJWs if they were around to see them. And I don't think they were out to destroy Western civilization. But Peterson has a huge focus on resentment (this might be partly the influence of Nietzsche).

If we turn off a certain portion of your brain, you become more atheistic and more welcoming to refugees.
What's the importance of your beliefs? Why shouldn't people ignore your views, especially if they are taken seriously? What gives truth its value? You?
You're not eternal, are you? You just might be, though.

I think you believe in memes and ideas, user.
Let us use a simpler world to explain the situation a bit. Let's take a video game, or 3D/2D simulation approach. After all, those models operate in our reality, and those models operate on their own.
Your approach is to see the pixels, see the algorithms. Yet you refuse to see the simulation, you refuse to see the game. You refuse to see the developer. Pixels are no proof. After all, we all believe that they exist.

>>wave function collapse means souls exist
Who perceives the perceiver?

>Memes aside, he's right.
Are you sure you understand Godel's theorems?

Not him but it's true, whenever any of those topics come up here or in non-science circles they are severely misunderstood and used to further unrelated agendas.

Sure, but why bring them up here? Unless the intention was to derail.

What else is there but shitposting?

What I don't get is, Derrida and the other post-structuralists are generally disliked or at least heavily critiqued by most contemporary theorists that would fall into social justice or identity politics. I get that post-structuralists are a good boogieman, and they threaten our sense of confidence in knowledge or whatever, but the toolbox they unleashed has been used by all sides of the political spectrum since. The right-wing's internet trolls inherited just as much from Derrida and post-structuralism as Spivak and Butler.

> What's the importance of your beliefs?

Nothing in particular. It's up to the individual to sort their ideals/beliefs into a hierarchy of importance.

> Why shouldn't people ignore your views, especially if they are taken seriously?

People are free to ignore me if they deem my views in opposition to their own.

> What gives truth its value? You?

Silly question, it's dependent on the current society and place of the time. What is true now may not be true in other places of the world today, or even here tomorrow.

> You're not eternal, are you? You just might be, though.

Nothing is eternal.

> Your approach is to see the pixels, see the algorithms. Yet you refuse to see the simulation, you refuse to see the game. You refuse to see the developer. Pixels are no proof. After all, we all believe that they exist.

Not comparable. In your scenario, a god or some sort of higher being would be in the sim himself, and would've had to have been developed. If nothing can be made from nothing, than neither can god have been made from nothing.

Ironically, if life itself were a sim - without a creator, but say we're being controlled by a child - then nothing would have changed. We'd be in the same situation, with no god, and setting our own morals and ethics.

What would you do if you discovered that life was a game? A lot of people claim they would turn to anarchy, because nothing would matter anymore. But nothing would have changed. We'd be in near enough the same situation as now.

>Don't get so caught up in the /pol/ memes that you forget he's a respected and accomplished academic.
...in psychology. He's as much of an authority in matters of philosophy and religion as someone like Dawkins.

Pretty clear that he doesn't actually read them. He prob just looks at some sjw publication and sees Foucault or Derrida as sources and thinks they are behind it all.

worst zeitgeist "academic" ever.

but what do you expect from the preferences of a bunch of neck-beards.

He's not wrong. If the universe was created in accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. This is the foundation for science, this is what drove the west (and early pre-Asharite Muslims) to seek out and discover. Most religions do not posit a creation at all. The universe is said to be eternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it has no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable, and (perhaps) arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration--there being nothing to reason about.

effortposting, but we try not to talk about it too much here

To add to this, science works on the presupposition that the universe is consistent and predictable. You have to suppose this is true otherwise there's no point in doing experiments and looking at the results because the universe and the laws of physics can change at random, thus invalidating your results. The only good reason that I've found to justify this presupposition is that the universe actually was created by a rational creator with a purpose. If God isn't real and we aren't created then why shouldn't we believe that the universe is unpredictable?

If somebody does have an answer for this I am genuinely interested.

This has nothing to do with Gödel

So? I'm responding specifically to his statement that God is the prerequisite for all truth.

>They lick the ground these people walk on
You don't really know what you're talking about. You're assuming a whole lot of things about this /pol/ boogeyman collective you've fabricated for yourself.

>JBP is a rather liberal and moderate person. There's even a straight up left-wing side of him
I can tell that by this part of your post that your understanding of anybody's politics in particular and politics in general is incredibly juvenile. Where on the economic-axis do you think National Socialism fell?

>/pol/tards
lurk more or head on back to redd*t if you can't handle unsafe opinions

So JBP's wrong about Gödel saying anything like that. What you're talking about is different (yet still retarded although for entirely other reasons)

I don't care how he got to that statement, it's simply what I'm responding to. Could you explain how I'm wrong? I don't pretend to be the smartest person but when faulty thinking is pointed out I do make an effort to correct myself.

>Where on the economic-axis do you think National Socialism fell?
Extreme right, dumb /pol/tard.

>national SOCIALISM
Nice try, kike

>lurk more or head on back to redd*t if you can't handle unsafe opinions
>holohoax.png

>literally prosecuted and murdered communists
>but they were left wing I swear

the absolute state of capitalists, everyone

>all those retards commenting
>all the retards itt

Obviously the use of the word God there was going to go over everyone's head. He uses the word symbolically to refer to the notion of what is objective to us, something that is in-itself and outside of us. He is really saying that thought requires a presupposition that is regarded as being the case, but you can never know for sure that all presuppositions are the case, so to think and to be in the world requires a little bit of faith in something or other outside your grasp.

Only incels hate capitalism

Mental gymnastics. Consider the possibility that Peterson is actually talking out of his ass and that's why nobody but his internet cult take him seriously.

>nazis hated communists so they must have been diametrically opposed on everything
this is the level of sophistication possessed by the crowd that pisses their pants over le /pol/ boogeyman

>let me post this political compass, this will surely convince everyone of my political knowledge!

My gf hates capitalism too, but you hardly see ancaps with their fingerless gloves getting any action

It's not that I think they were diametrically opposed, is that they thought so, you fucking dolt.
Also
>political compass
>accuses anyone else of not being sophisticated enough

J E J

Consider the possibility that you're literally too retarded to grasp anything anybody is saying but you're like 14 so you won't even consider that.

Hey, I'm not the one making excuses for retarded tweets. Tell me, how does Gödel connect to this "metaphor"?

It stems from Jon Stewart and the foundation laid by the alt-scene. Many open micers have this delusion that the modern stand-up comedian is an orator rather than a comic and the pleasure of the form should extend from commenting on politics and social milieu rather than creating laughter with jokes. It's less of a conscious choice and a result of unfunny wannabes flooding open mics set up in bars that have no barrier for entry. If you're not getting laughs, you can hit low hanging fruit that the audience is guaranteed to cheer for. Couple that with the fact that bookers only care about social media followers and you can make a successful career in comedy without ever writing a joke.

Rogan is a bit older though. He's one of those guys that doesn't have to fight for a laugh anymore and has gotten more obsessed with the development of his "voice" rather than his comedic ability.

Harvard took him seriously.

>peterson has some left-wing ideas
>/pol/ BTFO!!
meanwhile the actual nazis merged the state and corporations, had incredibly high taxes, etc.

Not in religion, mathematics or philosophy.

Yeah and my gf is a Slovenian super model.
I know you're lying because all leftists are also faggots

My country has done both things more than once while having a immense hate boner for communism.
ok

You might want to read Nietzsche, because he made the same argument, albeit in a much more sophisticated and clearer way. JP is really just rehashing Nietzsche but in a non-genius fashion (since he isn't one just like none of us are).

I think its more heretical to interpret the entire bible, even the gospels as mythology and call yourself a Christian than to write if off entirely

everyone on this board is illiterate

A more abstract God :^)

>My country has done both things more than once while having a immense hate boner for communism.
So did the nazis. That's my point you fucking illiterate retard.

He's not paid, he does it for free

My opinion of the JBP cult would be significantly higher if they could admit that JBP says some stupid fucking shit instead of going through insane mental gymnastics every time someone points it out.

Then again, when the guy thinks that anything with a political message can not be art (this includes the movie Frozen for some reason), maybe that's too much to ask from the people who take him seriously.

desu the movie Frozen is something even /pol/ could get behind. The characters are all white. Its about a relationship between a hard working middle-class white man and a perfect white woman.

>Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.
>Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple.
It's apparently too feminist for him. I'd like to see the cult defend this.

>JBP said a dumb thing about Frozen
>/pol/, JBP, Jung, Freud, and every single drumpf voter BTFO!!
you're literally 14

you should ask yourself why it even matters to you

He's a respected academic, look into his resume.

That's a factually wrong assumption you're doing there, it's disproven by this : youtube.com/watch?v=jOZ94iMlEdY&list=PLBcYM0KFnb07NxahmlXm-qRJmTDOE5GqM , rest assured it's a more than safe assumption that more people are doing the same thing he is.

This, I'm passing by this board to pose a question, I mainly browse /sci and /fit if you wanna know, fighting on an online board is beyond pathetic, I fucked my blue eyed swedish girlfriend I met while on Erasmus today and then went to the beach, back home now, gonna make a healthy dinner, get a bj and watch a movie (we're gonna watch baby driver), sorry for the blog, but this is what a normal human does, achieve this for a minimum.

He also said dumb things about the nature of proofs and Gödel, yet none of the JBP cultists in this thread want to admit it. We're all just "misinterpreting" him and it's just a "metaphor". The only reason he even got famous was because he said some dumb things about Canadian law and pronouns.

>Silly question, it's dependent on the current society and place of the time
Is that always true?
>Nothing is eternal.
You believe in singularity but not in eternity? Are you not a miraculous product of random chance? It loops forever if these are all the pieces of the puzzle. The singularity did explode once. You think that is a one-time event? You don't find it peculiar?
>Not comparable.
Wrong. It very much is comparable as we can very well be the players here and now. Even this text field isn't all that separate from me right now. Unless I make it. Your mind, conscious and subconscious, is linked to everything you know, claim to know, memorize etc. We can divide things into smaller pieces until we find the 'smallest'. These are quarks for now. They are the 'bits' of the comparison. They behave according to us (as well as many other things).
>Ironically, if life itself were a sim - without a creator, but say we're being controlled by a child - then nothing would have changed.
We are players or NPCs. I'm on the player camp.
>setting our own morals and ethics.
Humans have never done that. Never will. There are clear lines that humans won't trespass on that field. You will never have a society where it is morally right to betray one another.
> In your scenario, a god or some sort of higher being would be in the sim himself,
Who is Christ / What is Logos / Cogito ergo Sum

That would only imply that you can comprehend more abstract things.