/lit/ - Literature

>>19739375
>How did Darwinian philosophy ever get any trackion at any point?
Because he understood and articulated the driving force of life anon.

>>19739604
>driving force of life is to survivenomehp ruoy npu .orbygolonemohsurB

>>19739375
>According to Darwinists an event is true or not not based on facts and reason but based on weather or not it's "evolutionarily viable
no 'Darwinist' ever said that, you are either an underage zoomer that only knows shit through memes or a browncel that only learn about Darwin when reach Europe and now is pushing a retarded strawman to cope

>>19739676
>no 'Darwinist' ever said that
I can compile interviews of the most famous Darwinian philosopher alive but in the interest of not wasting my time, promise that you won't just pretend it's not true just because you think that it's not beneficial or whatever

>>19739754
Link the interview

>>19739770
Promise first. I dont want to be sifting through that garbage just so you'll say "not beneficial for the species for me to be ousted like this, not true"

>>19739375
>Darwinian philosophy
there is no such thing
>Am I missing something here?
yes, you are missing any understanding at all of Darwin's writings.

>>19739770
>>19739895
Now that I think about it you can just decide that your promise was never true in the first place. Oh well, here goes nothing.

https://youtu.be/07Ys4tQPRis (20:00 - 31:35)

https://youtu.be/2lO6WJ9rfs4 (follow my timestamps closely if you want to skip a lot of bullshit)
(47:12 - 47:32) (55:55 - 56:38) (01:01:50 - 01:04:40) (01:08:15 - 01:08:50) (01:17:35 - 01:18:14) (01:30:03 - 01:30:21) (01:52:56 - 01:53:49)

best for last: (59:00 - 59:23) (extended to 01:01:13 but if you really want to defend Darwinian philosophy after hearing this, you might be nuts)

>>19739904
jordan b peterson isn't representative of any major philosophical current.
extreme, cringeworthy retardation like this is what happens when inbred, barely literate browncels are allowed into the west.

>>19739375
>According to Darwinists an event is true or not not based on facts and reason but based on weather or not it's "evolutionarily viable", this means that if someone sees something and it makes him depressed he can just choose not to believe it because "oh, it's detrimental to my well being, therefore it's not true". They openly admit that, within the Darwinian framework, "facts aren't necessarily true".

I have never heard anyone make this argument. Where did you see this?

>two more weeks

>>19740025
See >>19739904
>>19739996
He says himself he is talking Darwinian philosophy

>>19739375
>retards on this board are still unfamiliar with the is/ought distinction

>>19739904
Pterson is not a 'Darwinist' and he is a pro-religion jungean mystic who made claims about 'darwinism', a topic that he shows to know shit about

I don't even know where to get started with this thread. The sad thing is that OP doesn't seem to be trolling. He really does think that Jordan Peterson is the key representative of "Darwinist thought". He really believes that Darwinists do not believe in objective truth. I ... I mean, I thought that slave/master morality Nietzsche thread that's in the catalog right now was really bad in terms of wild misunderstandings and ideologically motivated reasoning but this... I mean, what in the flying fuck. Like, how did poor OP come to this state of talking confidently about things he knows nothing about?

>>19739375
Thomas Browne preemptively refuted Darwinism. Darwinism is Lutheranism without the God.

>>19740268
Why do people like you just moralize and not make arguments. If he’s so dumb you should properly set him on his course. Clearly you know more than all of us

>>19739375
You need to stop listening to Jordan Peterson. "Darwinism" as in a theory of knowledge is not the same as a Darwinian theory of evolution.

>>19739904
>Peterson
He's a retard, and you're a bigger retard for taking his retardation seriously.

>>19740329
Darwin theory of evolution evinces a certain type of philosophy. If you just take it at face value it is just a fact and hardly indicative of any theological truth.

>>19740311
I mean, there's not much to say. OP is making utterly ridiculous assertions. The reality is:
1) The vast majority of Darwinists do not believe that there is no such thing as objective truth.
2) There is no good reason to treat Jordan Peterson as a key representative of Darwinist thought.

>>19740339
but evolution is exactly that, just a fact
it has nothing to do with any theological non-sense

>>19740345
>2) There is no good reason to treat Jordan Peterson as a key representative of Darwinist thought.
If you accept him as a darwinist at all (no reason not to) then he is the most famous Darwinian alive by far
>>19740259
You make it sound like he's strawmanning some thing he's against but he speaks in favour of it.

>>19740370
Most even somewhat intelligent people today are Darwinists, so the actual most famous Darwinist alive is probably like, Biden or Putin or someone like that.

>>19740370
no, i'm saying that he doesn't know shit about what he is talking about and that he is a jungian mystic interpreting the topic as a jungian mystic

>no reason not to
he doesn't call himself a 'darwinist', he identifies as a jungian
'darwinism' is not a philosophy in the first place

>>19740259
>Peterson can't be Darwinian because he's pro-religion
>>19740389
>names two christians

But on a more important note, has any of the two ever actually said anything on the subject? Because both have publically said they're Christian, you can't just assume they're also of a particular philosophy based on basically nothing

>>19740389
>>19740397
Either way this would make Peterson "Only"the most famous Darwinian philosopher alive
>>19740394
He says he is of the" Darwinian outlook" here >>19739904

>>19740397
Biden and Putin may be Christians or at least call themselves Christians, but I very much doubt that either of them really believes that humans were specially created by the God of the Bible and are not descended from other primates.

>>19740408
Why does it matter how famous he is? In any case, probably almost all philosophers are Darwinists so Peterson being a Darwinist isn't saying much. The thing is, natural selection is a priori true in any system with variability, heredity, and competition. There is very little reason not to accept natural selection as, at minimum, one of the key driving forces in the development of Earth life.

>>19740421
At best you might say they probably don't have a strong opinion on the matter one way or another but there's no reason to believe they have a strong opinion on the subject and it's the one that's seemingly contradictory to the thing they proudly state publically

>>19740447
Because most famous = most influencial
This is especially true when he's most famous by such a large margin

At this point it's fair to say he is the leader of x thought where x is every philosophical current he belongs to

>>19740408
and yet he doesn't call himself a darwinist nor present any 'darwinian' outlook , only a mystical jungian interpretation of what he think evolutionary principles are about, which again he knows shit about the topic in question
if you want a 'darwinian' philosopher with an 'darwinian' outlook go look Richard Dawkins or J.F. Gariepy

>>19740397
>christians
most christian recognize biological evolution as a fact

>>19740478
He calls himself exactly that tho, watch the video. He is arguing in favour of the position he states. Its a position that he holds.
>not REAL darwinist
Has either of these two denounced peterson's take here? No, because he is the leader of Darwinian thought and those are mainstream Darwinian philosophical takes

>>19739375
>Am I missing something here?

Probably an actual serious reading of Darwin.
I suggest you put down whatever contemporarytards you take as representatives of darwinism and look into primary sources.

>>19740487
That means there is no contradiction between Peterson being pro - religion and being a Darwinian

>>19739904
>this nigga is REALLY POSTING JORDAN B PETERSON

>>19740521
I want to understand contemporary Darwinian philosophy not archaic Darwinian philosophy.
If you wanted to learn about contemporary Christianity you too would look to contemporary Christians not dead sea scrolls

>>19740511
There is no such thing as "the leader of Darwinian thought"

>>19740553
I'm not saying it's an actual title like the pope or something I'm just saying that's the effective role he has within the movement.

>>19740535
there's no such think as 'darwinist philosophy'
if you want to understand the current knowledge on evolution go read Dawkins and Gariepy

>>19740473
>influencial
yet somehow this was the least retarded part of your post

>>19740572
If there's no such thing then what is >>19739904 talking about?

>>19740567
>within the movement.
there's no "darwinist" movement
darwinism is at most a shorthand for the principle of natural selection

>>19740585
You are conflicting the theory of evolution and support of it with Darwinian philosophy

>>19740567
>>19740585
This. The idea that there is some kind of "Darwinist movement" is absurd and even if there was one, Peterson would not be its leader. Peterson is not primarily known for believing in natural selection.

>>19740584
he is doing a jungian interpretation of evolutionary principles to push his particular mystical wordview that has nothing to do with evolutionary principles that he doesn't understand

>>19740593
wtf is "Darwinian philosophy"?

>>19740593
there's no such thing as a "Darwinian philosophy"

>>19740311
anybody who's ever read a book in their life, reacts as that anon did. never post on /lit/ again.

>>19739375
Darwinianism is a causological tautology which can be deduced a priori, it cannot be refuted. You simply have a poor understanding of it.

>>19740601
Judaism basically

>>19740601
>>19740604
See >>19739904
>>19740598
Has ANY well known darwinist expressed disregard for his take there? Dawkins? Anyone? No.

>>19740618
You don’t even realize the theological implications of Darwin evolution. You’d have to be a completely oversocialized NPC to not get it. It seems like all this ‘reading’ that you pretend to do has lost your ability to actually think.

>>19740653
>if you don't express disregard for something it means you accept it
Really? What the everloving fuck are you talking about?

>>19739904
>Peterson

>>19740478
>if you want a 'darwinian' philosopher with an 'darwinian' outlook go look Richard Dawkins or J.F. Gariepy
dennett is probably the main evolution guy in philosophy today.

>>19739375
Read 'The Folly of Fools'. That will explain why self delusion is a useful evolutionary resource that is in every facet of life.

>>19740669
Imagine if the most famous Christian in the world, the pope, said some take about Christianity. For this argument it could be... He said jesus is the son of God.
If this were a controversial take you'd have notable Christians calling him out, patriarch of Moscow would at least say something. But, since in the Christian world that is in fact mainstream opinion, nobody says anything.
Peterson is so famous you can't possibly make the case that his contemporaries somehow wouldn't be aware what he's saying

>>19740572
>Gariepy
lol he is a french pseud internet grifting hack.

>>19740682
What are you fucking SAYING man???

>>19740691
What part did you not understand?

>>19740682
Peterson is not primarily known as a Darwinist. If you asked 1000 people who know about Peterson to describe him in a few words, words having to do with Darwinism would be very far down on the list. The correct analogy is not the pope - the correct analogy is more like some semi-famous person who happens to be Christian but is mainly known for being, say, a musician or a politician or something like that.

>>19740685
So is Dawkins

>>19740703
nope he's a legit evo biologists. not a philosopher though. you're really only a step above the level of OP if you think your e-grifter frenchie is comparable to dawkins.

>>19739996
>>19740329
>>19740674
>>19740596
I'll bite
Why do you hate peterson so much? His advice is really good.

>>19740702
The pope is primarily known as a theologian. Peterson is primarily known as a philosopher. These are equivalent.

>>19740722
I wrote >>19740596.
I don't hate Peterson and I have no idea why you are asking me why I hate him.

>>19740731
The pope is primarily known as a CHRISTIAN. Peterson is not primarily known as a DARWINIST.

>>19740731
peterson is primarily known for being a psychologist, self-help guy and social commentator.

>>19740713
I don’t know what egrifter celebrities views on religion are. Dawkins has been anti-religion guy longer than he’s been science guy at this point. Even someone like Hg wells realized the importance of spirituality so to speak, and this scientific oblivion envisioned usually resembles Christianity without the conventions. A lack of faith in nothingness is evil and leads to suicide logically, even if it’s not so immediate. Both of them have the same quality of academic achievement although Dawkins is more in favor and also older. I’m a stem guy too btw so I don’t get so impressed with schience worshippers. I love physics, but it’s not theology.

>>19740740
If a famous Muslim theologian was making wild claims about Christianity like interpreting communion to be cannibalism or something, you'd have prominent Christians correcting him as well

>>19740765
Jordan Peterson is
1) not that famous
2) not primarily famous for being a Darwinist
3) not really on evolutionary biologists' radar, given that he, you know, isn't a biologist

>>19740797
>1) not that famous
Name 5 philosophers alive that're more famous.
>2) not primarily famous for being a Darwinist
Considering it's at the core of his philosophy i beg to differ but I think this is irrelevant as its still his philosophy
>3) not really on evolutionary biologists' radar, given that he, you know, isn't a biologist
Doesn't matter, its a philosophical dispute

>>19740756
>my flavour of the month /pol/ e-grifter who happens to have an academic background is comparable to dawkins
Lol you're a fucking retard. You have no idea about the selfish gene and the extended phenotype and their influence.

>>19739904
> posts Peterson
oh my.
For crying out loud the theory of evolution is not ontology or epistemology. First of all "an event" can be either an experience or a fact, depending if it relates to your personal world or the world of Nature. If the fact relates to a non-living object, evolution and survivability has no relations to it. If it does relate to a living object, the fact might concern evolution or need to acknowledge evolution to be put into its fuller context, or it might not. "Most crows are black" is a fact in itself, it doesn't need to be proven that they became black as an evolutionary measure in response to some selective pressure.

>>19740827
>"Most crows are black" is a fact in itself, it doesn't need to be proven that they became black as an evolutionary measure in response to some selective pressure.
According to Peterson in order for "most crows are black" to be true it needs to be established to be beneficial for human survival. Like if it was somehow beneficial for human survival for us to think most crows are white or something then "most crows are black" wouldn't be true

>>19740820
Okay so you have zero reading comprehension and worship names. If your only contention to that guy, who I know nothing about, is that he’s /pol/ then I can’t take you seriously. Reread and answer what I said, let’s pretend to have some intelligence at least.

>>19740845
>According to Peterson
Why would anyone ever start that sentence and not immediately stop himself?

>>19740851
I don't know why you'd bring jf gariepy up in the first place. It'd be like bringing up sargon of akkad (carl) next to niall ferguson.

>>19740890
I never brought him up, I have no idea who he is other than he seems like a piece of shit who is highly educated. This was my first post >>19740703

Sargon of Akkad has no scientific background, Gariepy seems to have gotten tons of grants and was getting a PhD from duke until he got me tooed and became a /pol/ celebrity.

>>19740860
I'll bite
Why do you hate peterson so much? His advice is really good.

>>19740912
Okay jf

>>19740818
>Considering it's at the core of his philosoph
if you had what Peterson or read his book you would know that the core of his philosophy is a jungian interpretation of christian mythology and the heroes journey, not 'darwinism'

>>19740937
Again, my main contention to Dawkins was his theological POV not his scientific achievements and I said he’s known more to the public as anti-religion guy than anything else, and I said I have zero idea what Gariepy’s views on religion are. Wouldn’t shock me if he larped as being trad.

>>19740818
>its a philosophical dispute
it isn't because there's no such thing as "darwinian philosophy"

>>19740960
Yes it’s in origin of species

>>19740949
Idk how you can say "how you determine something to be true or not" isn't core philosophy

>>19741013
and that's has nothing to do with 'darwinism' but with peterson jungian misinterpretation of it

>>19741013
>"how you determine something to be true or not"
how is this even related with darwinism ?

>>19741027
Ask Peterson Not me
>>19741024
Not what he said.

>>19741083
>Not what he said.
he was wrong and anyone that knows anything about the theory of evolution can see that, specially because nothing written by Darwing or any other evo biologist says anything on those lines
That is derive from his theory of archetypes, theory that is of a jungian basis, not 'darwinian'

>>19739375
>Who is Herbert Spencer?

>>19740682
https://youtu.be/0R18wYAuS1k?t=307

>>19741148
The question there was literally "why don't you call him out"

>>19741169
>"why don't you call him out"
because peterson is irrelevant in the area, is not recognized as having anything to do with evolution biology or darwing, he is know for basic self help and mystic nonsense and dawkins, and others, already wrote articles criticizing his non-sense positions
the question is why you are so attached to this idea that peterson is even relevant in the are and willfully ignore all the relevant names

>>19740933
Which ones? The ones that could be given to you by almost anyone older than 50? I had loving parents and grandparents, I guess I don't get how these things requires a jungian analysis to back them up.

>>19739904
Why does this post cause so much seething? He's right. Guy is full of shit.