/lit/ - Literature

>>16815321
>"rationalist"
>"evidence"
Do you not see the contradiction here? Your "method problem", which is just a less lucid version of the Münchhausen trilemma, actually argues FOR the use value of induction, inference and empiricism. From the outset belief is necessarily axiomatic, this is something that probably to your dismay the analytic philosophers, and especially Wittgenstein, tried to point out. That's why he calls metaphysics 'sinnlos', not because they're not true, but because assessing the truth of a metaphysic is nonsensical. I'll echo him on this:
>My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
Please read a book, or at least the bare minimum of checking the wikipedia pages of the authors you're attacking.

>>16688404
>The right in recent decades has been lazy.
Based, self-awarepilled and introspective. I laud the effort.

>Consistent arguments are going to have to be made in defense of the principles of Property, family, virtue, and God. Once the consistency has been returned, it will be obvious to everyone involved that the left are nihilistic, amorphous, and dead intellectuals who have given up on principles and the world.
Dingdingding
I'm not a right-winger but it's pitiful to see the right defer to the authority of traditionalism and self-radicalization still when the former basis has been severely undermined and the latter will just lead to unnecessary destruction in a world severely interdependent. The left has a clear intellectual advantage (at least in terms of making the case for their arguments, I would say) right now. The right needs this kind of culturally relevant basis to be a reasonable POV again.
That's exactly what Peterson is trying to establish
Read the guy then use his work as a basis for your cultural elaboration