[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 364x400, Harris-Peterson-medium-e1530847905879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11715969 No.11715969[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So who won?

>> No.11715978

>>11715969
nigga on the left be lookin like steve carrel lol

>> No.11715979

>>11715969
Me. By not wasting 8 hours watching that shit.

>> No.11715999

Harris only by virtue of the fact that Peterson is even more stupid

>> No.11716009

>>11715999
sadly, this

>> No.11716019

>>11715999
I won't even listen to Peterson so long as he keeps rejecting the correspondence theory of truth. It's clear that he uses pragmatism as a tool to remain vague. That way he keeps his religious and atheist audience.

>> No.11716020
File: 45 KB, 479x720, tip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716020

>>11715999
>>11716009

>> No.11716025

>>11716020
Nice hat, where can I buy one?

>> No.11716031

>>11715969
I don't know who won, but we all lost.

>> No.11716037

>>11716025

Same place I bought my Japanese Steel. Spencers.

>> No.11716038
File: 234 KB, 500x500, 1535094285300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716038

>>11716020

>> No.11716046

>>11716038

Disgrace to the hat. Clearly doesn't tip.

>> No.11716051

>>11716038
This looks like some uncannyvalley peterson

>> No.11716076

>>11715969
>"and I'm not trying to weasel out here"
>proceeds to weasel out

>> No.11716084
File: 237 KB, 604x1832, 1524931424635.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716084

>>11715999
I'm not a fan of Peterson, but Harris takes stupid to a whole new level.

>> No.11716113

This is like the special Olympics but Harris wins simply because he isn't obviously insane. Peterson admits to having lifelong depression and takes SSRI's and believes apple cider caused him to stay awake for 25 days. He also has recurring incestuous dreams.

>> No.11716122

>>11715969
Peterson brought some hot fire this time, fuck what all of you internet cool guys think. Sam Harris was shrinking behind his constantly sliding goalpost as usual, he even told Peterson to put his hand on the stove. When is he going to come up with something new?

>> No.11716131

>>11716084
>if we set up the initial conditions of everyone's mind state so that they would make a certain "decision", by the laws of nature, what would the outcomes of each "decision" necessarily be? And using the metric of well being, what outcome associated with what decision would be the best?
There. The guy's pedantic issue is resolved.

>> No.11716138
File: 133 KB, 960x960, 40330463_508816262924596_9175881449591537664_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716138

>>11716113
>He also has recurring incestuous dreams.
What?

>> No.11716144

>>11716138
From Maps of Meaning:

>I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, which was also a river. Her genital region was exposed dimly. It had the appearance of a thick mane of hair. She was stroking herself absentmindedly. She walked over to me with a handful of pubic hair compacted into something resembling a large artist's paintbrush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm several times to deflect her hand. Finally, unwilling to hurt her or interfere with her any further, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush gently and said, like a child, isn't it soft?

>> No.11716153

>>11716144
What the fuck

>> No.11716155

>>11716144
kek

>> No.11716159

>>11716153
Yeah, clean your bucko and give me 5 dollars on Patreon.

>> No.11716162

>>11716144
what kind of decent person would admit to having such a dream in a published book. wtf

>> No.11716164

>>11716144
>I never let a bitch give me the Georgia again
Damn son, where'd you find this?

>> No.11716165

>>11716153
Clean your grandma's p-

>> No.11716167

>>11716144
prove that you didn't just make this up, i want a page citation and a screenshot

>> No.11716169

>>11716167
it's from the collector's edition

>> No.11716178
File: 259 KB, 1356x727, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716178

>>11716167
Get the ebook and see for yourself.

>> No.11716196

>>11716169
I need to get that DLC

>> No.11716198
File: 140 KB, 379x440, 3D4.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716198

>>11716144
>Peterson is a weirdo and a creeper with an incest fetish

Does he post here? He'd be right at home on 4chan.

>> No.11716200

>>11716198
Who do you think makes all these threads?

>> No.11716204
File: 311 KB, 609x677, 3Meh5sxQuSSTJUYTfqvchQlizCmRkz_uQgl25RM3P_4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716204

>>11716198

>> No.11716243

More Maps of Meaning fun:

>Out from behind her stepped an old white bear. It stood to her right, to my left. We were all beside the pool. The bear was old, like little dogs get old. It could not see very well, and acted miserable and unpredictably. It started to growl and wave its head at me – just like little mean dogs growl and look just before they bite you. It grabbed my left hand in its jaws. We both fell into the pool, which was by this time more like a river. I was pushing the bear away with my free hand. I yelled, “Dad, what should I do?” I took an axe and hit the bear behind the head, hard, a number of times, killing it. It went limp in the water. I tried to lift its body onto the bank. Some people came to help me. I yelled, “I have to do this alone!” Finally I forced it out of the water. I walked away, down the bank. My father joined me, and put his arm around my shoulder. I felt exhausted, but satisfied.

If you consider yourself a fan of his work at all I would suggest reading what he writes.

>> No.11716262

>>11716196
>maps of meaning: lobster edition
>featuring 23 all-new peterson dreams, including one about his great aunt you won't believe
>bonus mystical diagrams and flow charts
>new unlockable dragons of chaos
>and much, much more

>> No.11716341
File: 57 KB, 294x235, hidepetersonthreads.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716341

>>11715969

>> No.11716365

>>11716341
excellent post

>> No.11716372

>>11716341
I hope you hid the other two threads there too.

>> No.11716528

>>11716084
That guy was stupid by equating hard determinism with fatalism

>> No.11716532

>>11715979
Was it really 8 hours?

>> No.11716536

Shitposting aside, I actually enjoyed this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkwF5qA6uE

>> No.11716544

>>11716341
>tfw those other threads were just as bad

>> No.11716547

>>11715999
I'd argue Peterson is much better than Harris at their actual fields (psychology vs neuroscience). In terms of philosophy, it's a crap shoot. Peterson makes massive claims about philosophers and then doesn't talk about things they actually said. Harris jumps into massive fields and then says "I didn't read all this fundamental shit, kinda boring bro."

>> No.11716548

>>11716532
well 4x 2hour sessions, only 2 have been released so far

>> No.11716585

>>11716547
Harris doesn't even have a field.

>> No.11716597

>>11715969
It’s entertaining watching Peterson get rattled when his ideas are being scrutinized by Harris, because deep down he knows how flimsy they are. When Peterson grabbed his laptop to answer the yes/no question of “do you believe in God” I couldn’t help but cringe. For all his hostility for postmodernism, it’s quite ironic the way he presents his ideas is exceedingly obscure. Not to mention his derision towards “transcendental rationality” undermines his criticism of postmodernism as well. Let’s just say, Something is terribly wrong if you get owned by Harris in a debate

>> No.11716623

>>11715969
Why does it matter which pseud wins? it makes me really sad to see these two constantly shilled here because it validates their status as intellectuals /lit/ would take seriously, which is a low standard compared to even Landposting

>> No.11716636

>>11716623
I think a fine, sophisticated intellectual such as yourself shouldn't take so seriously whatever it is that /lit/ might end up taking seriously.

>> No.11716642

>>11716623
Thank you Anon, for taking time out of your masturbation schedule to let us know what you think about something you apparently don't care about.

>> No.11716643

Harris, and it wasn't even close.

>> No.11716654

>>11716084
Based

>> No.11716656

>but of course, these two pseuds are nothing compared to me, the great intellect posting on /lit/

>> No.11716659

>>11716019
Every theory of truth is a waste of time that collapses into a theory of meaning the longer you examine it. The correspondence theory of truth is really the picture theory of meaning in disguise. Once you shift from talk of truth to talk of meaning, pragmatism all of a sudden starts to appear a lot more reasonable. The vagueness of pragmatism, any pragmatist worth his salt would tell you, is a virtue of the vagueness of our grip on the world. Check out the work of Hilary Putnam if you want a contemporary defence of pragmatism.

>> No.11716669

Honestly I didnt get Harris' points. Most of his rebukes were quips to male the audiance laugh.

Peterson on the other hand is still skirting around the big questions. Dissapointed in him.

>> No.11716675

>do you believe jesus rose from the dead
>"it would take me too long to answer that question"

How do Petersontards defend this?

>> No.11716679

>>11716675
>>do you believe jesus rose from the dead, yes or no?
How do brainlets defend this?

>> No.11716680

>>11716675
Hes a psychologist, hes probably talking about the metaphorical rising.

Tbh psychologists can spin anything into something with meaning.

>> No.11716685

>>11716675
Defend what?
His religious beliefs are clearly complex and unorthodox, and he doesn't want to give a short dumbed down answer because people will misinterpret and misrepresent it.

>> No.11716692

>>11716669
>Peterson on the other hand is still skirting around the big questions.
You would imagine that after plenty of debates he would clarify his positions further

>> No.11716693

>>11716675
He defends it in the talk that this very thread is dedicated to. I personally don't don't it a satisfactory defence, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that your next hours are better spent listening to the two "pseuds" than arguing on /lit/ what position they each occupy on the pseud continuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Z9EZE8kpo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkwF5qA6uE
In the second clip they begin by summarising each other's positions so skipping the first video won't come as much cost as it's less coherent as a dialogue (but your question is addressed in the first one).

>> No.11716695

>>11716528
He was equating hard determinism with modal anti-realism, which is still incorrect but best not to misrepresent people. .

>> No.11716697

>>11716675
because his real answer is "almost certainly not" but if he says that most of his christian audience will sperg because "muh religious beliefs"

>> No.11716699

>>11716084
So how does Sam get to number (8) in that list, which is the first lemma to introduce the actuality of values?

>> No.11716706

>>11716144
Literally me.

>> No.11716711

>>11716243
What's the problem with this?

>> No.11716713

>>11716547
Harris' field is philosophy. And yes, he sucks at it.

>> No.11716731

Isnt peterson some niche professor with his own unique ideas of God that essentially he has?

From what I see, hes some perennialist evolution guy with psychological dressing up.

>> No.11716753

seems like Peterson is just attempting and failing at defending Christianity/Judaism/Islam in particular, due to the dogmatic nature of their teachings (mainly due to being constrained to a finite body of information and teachings that cannot be changed internally).

But religion, or at least belief in a god has been demonstrated to exist among intelligent individuals, completely free of dogma. I don't see why Peterson is so stalwart in his defense: the loss of the church should not be a problem if God can remain.

>> No.11716756

>>11716731
>Isnt peterson some niche professor with his own unique ideas of God that essentially he has?
Yes and no. I don't think he contradicts any canonical statement about God, and he avoids going beyond certain minimalism to please and/or attract the fedoras.

>> No.11716759

>>11716675
That's a complicated question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAbWCaBVdUM

>> No.11716762

>>11715969
This spectacle dumbfounded me. Sam Harris is absolutely retarded and reeks of being extremely unread in metaphysics and western philosophy in general. He’s either making quips or some emotional arguement “but but the mean religions waaaaah think of the children!!11”. And for some reason Peterson doesn’t jump on any of this. It’s not hard to give basic critiques of hard determinist materialism of the vein that Sam subscribes to. Have these niggers even read Plato ffs? And every time Jordan is finally about to arrive at a good point of discussion he lets Sam strawman his way back to talking about nothing. It’s all a joke

>> No.11716766

>>11716756
>please and attract fedoras

yh you hit the nail on the head

>> No.11716772

>>11716759
Have to agree with Peterson here. Atheists have created numerous strawgods for them to debunk, and the moment someone states their belief in God, the atheists pretend it's about one of their gods.

No amount of disclaimers, points, articulation or argument will move them from that position.

>> No.11716775

sam
>you can just facts to get to this goal post I just made about "wellbeing"
>wtf you mean what is wellbeing and how do you avoid interpretation issues
>begins to using big words which cant be followed as easily to avoid the questiom

Harris has his 1 idea about wellbeing, but never once have I seen him explain it. How the hell does he calle himself a moral philosopher?

>> No.11716782

>>11716772
theists like peterson just move the goalposts, when he' on the defensive he starts talking about metaphorical truth and stupid shit so he never actually has to defend any solid proposition.

>> No.11716784

>>11716772
I'd agree with him that it doesn't have to be a simple yes or no, but it's the way he goes about it. He's obviously just avoiding it.

>> No.11716786

>>11716162
Hello underage, decent people aren't ashamed of their experience.

>> No.11716787

>>11716782
>theists like peterson just move the goalposts
Well, goalposts move whenever we study God, mind, will, Universe, memory, history, consciousness.
There are only a few limited facts, and those have been mapped out by religions fairly well - cosmic justice, karma. law of morality, logos etc.

>> No.11716788

>>11716775
I love this part in the discussion when Harris is backed into a corner by Peterson and Weinstein and instead of coming to terms with it he just blusters.
https://youtu.be/BtkwF5qA6uE?t=1h25m

>> No.11716793

>muh fundamental intuitions
>muh wellbeing
>muh christian interpretations

it's like this is an advertisement for why ontology and epistemology exist

>> No.11716795

>>11716782
Can you clarify what is not solid about Peterson’s claim of metaphorical truths?

>> No.11716797

Harris on objectivity and subjectivity is the most pseud shit ever

>> No.11716802

>Be western thinker like sam and peterson
>Study christianity/judaism buddhism, Hinduism
>Never tackle Islam even though you continually mention it in your quips

so /lit/ why will they never properly address it?

>> No.11716803
File: 178 KB, 1600x1200, angelo_(gomahangetsu) 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716803

>>11715969
Harris got destroyed by Weinstein's interventions more than anything Peterson said.
In any case, I dislike Peterson a lot less than Harris even though I probably disagree with him on a lot more. He just reminds me a lot of he sort of intellectuals we have in my own country where they tend to mix pseudoscience with religion without really having bad intentions.
Harris is an utter piece of shit, and I think the only people who disagree are those that haven't followed him for long enough. He has been a triggered snowflake from his early beginnings, and almost always shills for the government and corporatists, every single fucking time. The guy is for foreign intervention, for torture, for guns, for big pharma... but somehow thinks he's a progressive voice on the Left? I'm right-wing and I still find him abhorrent.
He spends his entire time arguing for what's "moral" but then literally says "lol well that's too hard for me xd." He also jumps on bandwagons nonstop. I remember in the mid 2000s he would constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY bring up veganism. Now that he's friends with Joe Rogan? Radio fucking silence, my friend. He won't speak and anger the meathead. Suddenly veganism is the right stance but he just can't adhere to it anymore.
If you put a picture of Sam Harris next to the definition for lying kike you basically nailed it.

>> No.11716807

>>11715969
Peterson won, especially near the end when he gave his description of god. He basically got Sam Harris to admit that he would have no problem believing in such a god and then with the kicker Peterson said how such a god might answer prayers and Sam retaliated with 'b-but that's basic psychology'. Sam had to agree that religion might be an evolutionary heuristic to help people steer their lifes.
I kinda like these debates, Peterson isn't just your regular Christ cuck and he's taking these debates pretty seriously.

>> No.11716808

I didn't watch all of it, but from i watched Peterson.

>> No.11716813

>>11716795
its not that metaphorical truth isn't a valid concept, just that peterson uses it as a get out of jail free card whenever he's cornered

>> No.11716820

>>11716782
Except that those things have nothing to do with theists, you fucking goofball. They're just adaptive heuristics that are often mentioned in evo psy.

>> No.11716825

>>11716685
He could of just answerws honestly and said "Not metaphysically, no" instead of portraying himself as le mystical deep psychologist.

>> No.11716829

>>11716807
>Sam had to agree that religion might be an evolutionary heuristic to help people steer their lifes.
I'm ashamed of how we don't even have a mechanical model* for this and the memetic organisms in the field of science. After Jung it should have been the first step, and even Tesla hinted towards it, but no one has dared go there, and we've collectively speaking, merely deteriorated in the field of philosophy.

*Demanding a model that isn't mechanical is impossible in our culture, at least after the class mongrelization.

>> No.11716833
File: 58 KB, 378x296, Douglas Murray.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716833

Can't wait for the London debate with our boi Douglas Murray to be released

>> No.11716840

Why does Peterson argue against letting the word (of the Bible) "fly off the page" with loose interpretation and then immediately afterwards defend himself with an incredibly loose and convoluted interpretation of the Bible?

>> No.11716844

>>11716840
He knows he'll get away with it. Hes a religious figure amoungst his audiance.

>> No.11716847
File: 361 KB, 1091x1364, 24845406_143307716327431_5069079548457385984_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716847

Peterson is right on the issue but in a way that would probably terrify him if he understood it. He is right that religion is often a good heuristic to go by in order to keep the species going. But by taking religion seriously, he falls for the memes and doesn't see the real picture. What's terrifying is that religions are totally made-up bullshit and yet they DO work as evolutionary heuristics. What's scary is that this garbage has a function, and that function is to keep us alive and spreading ad infinitum. Almost all the things that work "positively" for humans are meant to keep us in a neglect heuristic in which we never, ever consider the most fundamental questions.
In a way religion is the most true thing there is because it's what makes neglect heuristics most obvious. You look at something that you know for a fact is all fabricated deceit, and yet you see it working. Supposedly "for the good." But it's at that point that you have to question if there's any "good" at all behind all these evolutionary forces that lead us to spread out.

>> No.11716849

>>11716840
He doesn't argue against it, he just says that there is a hierarchy of value among the possible interpretations, meaning some are more valid than others.

>> No.11716850

>>11716795
Not him, but the way I see it, while it is true that certain heuristics like religion/religious narratives, might be evolutionary technologies (in a sense) by which we make sense of the world and ultimately survive, despite internal inconsistencies and literal falsehoods, the fact still remains that one can and should aim to comprehend the mechanism that makes them so.

Take for instance, the firearm ritual that they've talked about - as a responsible person, if I were to hand you my gun for examination, I would religiously make sure it is unloaded and the safety is on and once I've done that I would probably repeat the process, from making sure I've removed the magazine, chamber's empty, safety's on. And once you've seen me go through this obsessive compulsive process, you'd probably repeat it for yourself, especially if you were to hand it to your child. This is clearly a redundantly irrational ritual, but this paranoid ritualistic reflex that is coded in us makes for responsible gun handling and its utility is made clear in other situations and reduces the likelihood of accidents. having said that, we can approximate, if not exactly measure its utility. This isn't true for religion though. It simply isn't enough to say that religion is an evolutionary heuristic and doing away with it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater which could ultimately lead to our peril. It especially isn't enough for Peterson himself, who doesn't seem to be a believer.

I'm all for useful heuristics - I know better than to assume my nature or reason is enough to navigate existence and I appreciate that one of the benefits of some religions is for people not to make gods out of themselves, or others, in one way, or another. But it isn't clear how religion is an irreplaceably useful heuristic.

>> No.11716856

>>11716850
It's useful because it's self-contradicting and self-undermining.

>> No.11716857

>>11716847
>What's terrifying is that religions are totally made-up bullshit and yet they DO work as evolutionary heuristics.
The category of "totally made-up bullshit" is a meme.

>> No.11716859

>>11716813
It's because he doesn't really believe in the dogmas, he beliefs these stories provide a great amount of metaphorical truths. Your just an angry atheist hoping to see a christcuck being destroyed, but actually have a strawman of what a christcuck believes in and don't actually know how to take down christcucks like peterson.

>> No.11716862

>>11716857
Said meme exists in order to have us avoid certain other memes, patterns, beliefs and behaviors. Presumably to protect us from chaotic and unpredictable, anti-social behavior.
Calling bullshit on anything that is actually useful for a social group among humans is, to me, bullshit. Foreign contaminants, noise.

>> No.11716863

>>11716857
>The category of "totally made-up bullshit" is a meme.
No, it's not. Unless you're implying that everything written in the Bible is somehow true.

>> No.11716865

>>11716849
But what system determines that hierarchy? Whether or not it can be construed to act as a metaphorical truth, or in any case to act as some guard against his"chaos"?

>> No.11716868

>>11716863
>somehow
With a magic word like that, I can make everything true, and I have.

>> No.11716871

>>11716859
why can't he just say the resurrection of christ is methaphorical truth then? The reason he obfuscates is he realises that if he admits he believes its literally true people will laugh at him

>> No.11716872

>>11716847
Totally made up bullshit or carefully meditated mental tools

>> No.11716877

>>11716863
You can't transfer information packages that aren't true information packages. They can be 'read wrong', and they can be written in a way that is easily 'read wrong'.

>> No.11716883

>>11716865
It's determined by how useful it is to society in so far as benefiting as many people as possible.

>> No.11716884

>>11716871
Because I think he has a bit of magic realism in him, he read to much Jung and now believes in supernatural superpowers you can gain when unlocking the mysteries of the universe.

>> No.11716889

>>11716883
>as many people as possible
Wrong, unless you nudge the definition of people and possible.

>> No.11716891

>>11716872
>>11716877
Are you guys retarded? What does this have to do with how useful the tools that it gives to us are? I'm asking you whether or not what's written in the Bible is true. The answer is no, it's not, and that's why it's self-refuting, which is a good thing.

>> No.11716893

>>11716889
What do you mean?

>> No.11716895

>>11716891
>(((which is a good thing)))

>> No.11716902

how can people support this maniac?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKsysdE9rUo

>> No.11716903

>>11716850
You’re basically echoing Sam’s response to the gun analogy. And I would reply in similar fashion as Peterson as to say, I’m not seeing the difference between the rituals. You say we can measure the utility of being safe with firearms but we can’t measure the utility of large communities of people living under a shared value system working towards common goals? In Christianty’s case a system whose apex ethical notion would be something along the lines of love thy neighbor. I’m seeing lots of utility friend.

>> No.11716908

>>11716891
>What does this have to do with how useful the tools that it gives to us are?
The underlying structure is always true. I have never measured falsehood in any quantity. Lies and errors are contextual. Ill intent behind statements that lead to error in any way are always the responsibility of the reader.
> I'm asking you whether or not what's written in the Bible is true.
I must have missed that. Why are you asking me? Do you not know? A mirage is nothing but truth.
There are no alternatives to truth. You can't use non-existing information.
You can't process what isn't real.

>> No.11716909

why is dogma by default bad?


DOGMA IS GOOD

>> No.11716912

>>11716891
Truth is bendable, you can strategically carve out and claim truth in falsehood and viceversa, all to play the meta game and win in some way at life. Who cares about universal truth anyway, it's not like we can know it from our limited perception so why not just use believe as a tool and become a magician, play the meta game, fool your own mind.
Noob.

>> No.11716914

>>11716893
Men are expendable, and can be used sparingly and with little remorse to their disappearance. Both work just fine.

>> No.11716921

>>11716528

There's no functional difference between hard determinism and fatalism.

>> No.11716926

>>11716921
But there is. You don't know your fate necessarily, and can be moved beyond the confines of determinism, if that is your fate.

>> No.11716937
File: 195 KB, 600x585, big dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716937

>>11716926
>can be moved beyond the confines of determinism

>> No.11716945

>>11716926
>>11716937
I’m fucking crying

>> No.11716946

>>11716903
I'm not saying that we can't measure "the utility of large communities of people living under a shared value system working towards common goals". But that's not the definition of religion. That is a goal that I think we should pursue, but it can take many forms.

All I was saying is that it is easier to see the cost of a redundantly irrational ritual like the gun example. The fact that some people may indeed posses the psychological attributes whereby such a fail-safe mechanism is truly redundant in any situation and thus waste time by engaging in it is a minimal cost which is evidently superseded by its benefits. That is not to say that there aren't better fail-safe mechanisms for gun handling that come with even fewer costs.

The point is there is no dogma in more or less rational fail-safe mechanisms for gun handling and that's what we should aim for in life as well. But then the question is, if we abandon religious metaphysical dogma or stretch its interpretative spectrum too much, will religion still survive as a belief system? If it doesn't, my intuitive calculation is that its metaphysical claims come at a cost far heavier than the gun ritual and that its net proceeds aren't beneficial to begin with.

>> No.11716952

>>11716937
Let's say that God or Allah wills you into something more or even less than a deterministic unit.

Determinism itself removes the concept of order from the Universe. There is no motion, there is no change, there is only one thing, not even an event, not an action, because it is not relative to anything. Fatalism, however, is relative to the actual viewers and actors.

>> No.11716954
File: 1.78 MB, 1732x1155, intellectual debates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11716954

>>11715969
I'm kinda fascinated by public pseudo-intellectuals. I get JP, he was in the right place at the right time and basically came up naturally with Youtube and some tranny shit.
But what about Harris? What's his story? He doesn't have much charisma or any original ideas, he's just a mildly autistic 115IQ normie neoliberal.

>> No.11716956

>>11716954
>But what about Harris? What's his story?
Jews push atheism as it is a toxin that kills nations.

>> No.11716966

>>11716956
>atheism
Oh, right. I completely forgot about that cringefest. God damn americans...

>> No.11717000

>>11716946
>that’s not the definition of religion
It is its function, which I think is the the important bit we are discussing. How would you go about achieving this goal if I could ask that? Where should we derive our values so as to cooperate with each other? A government? I think we know where that leads. Some single tyrant? Maybe the self? But you are the government and the tyrant. Do you perhaps see the utility of our highest values being placed outside the realm of man? The idea of God might be much more clever than you allow it.

>> No.11717025

>>11717000
> The idea of God might be much more clever than you allow it.
You keep ascribing fedora features that I never made claims to. I also acknowledged the dangers of turning ourselves, or others into gods and acknowledged the utility of a heuristics of life precisely for that reason. Fight the strawmen you wish to fight, but I feel like you're having a different conversation now so I'm out.

>> No.11717056

>>11716084
I think he contradicts one of his premises in the third tweet, when he writes "Unfortunately, many experiences suck." It appears to me that to even talk about somemthing as "sucking" it is necessary to presuppose an "Ought".

>> No.11717061

We lost

>> No.11717069

>>11715999
>>11716084
>>11716113
>>11716597
>>11716623

There's a pretense to intellectualism you see whenever these two are mentioned and it's embarrassing.

>> No.11717081

>>11717056
Nah, by sucking he just means being painful (see his touch the stove injunction). All the work is being done by the 8th theorem, where he pulls an ought out of his ass.

>> No.11717086

>>11717069
There's a pretense to intellectualism in every thread on this board, you fucking idiot.

>> No.11717092

>>11715969
harris "won" because he talked about the wonders of atheism for 4 hours. Ignoring all jp's attempts at having a useful conversation in the process.

>> No.11717099

>>11716084
Isn't "avoiding what sucks" just negative utilitarianism? Why doesn't Sam Harris stand for antinatalism then?
>>11717061
/thread

>> No.11717101

I think Peterson being extraverted and Harris being introverted accounts for most of their disagreement. What is important is that 2000s "atheist" pundits lost.

>> No.11717103

>>11716847
It's not totally made up bullshit if it works and is the best thing. And in fact believing it's totally made up bullshit makes it stop working.

>> No.11717108

>>11717101
Wish we could have seen Peterson get hitchslapped xD

>> No.11717110

>>11716262
lol

>> No.11717173
File: 779 KB, 913x766, badthings.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11717173

>I'm not a fan of X, but X is incredibly stupid and you're all stupid for taking it any more seriously than I do.
Woah calm down there with that shit fellas. You gotta substantiate your claims.

>> No.11717178
File: 25 KB, 665x574, 47b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11717178

>>11717101
You don't think the fact their fundamental metaphysical foundations are diametrically opposite might have something to so with it?

>> No.11717201

>>11716895
How is it not? Aren't we supposed to get to the deeper truth of reality? Don't tell me you think fucking science is going to take us there.
>>11716908
What a non-answer.
>>11716912
Because you might want to uncover what life is really about?
>it's not like we can know it from our limited perception
But I see you're a nihilist. I shouldn't be surprised, this is the Marilyn Manson of subreddits after all.

>> No.11717209
File: 48 KB, 660x495, 1498912918164.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11717209

Also, threadly reminder that no discussion of morals ans ethics can take place between non-westeners.

If you are not a Westener, please mention so in your post so we can disregard your opinions and perspectives.

>> No.11717234

>>11717178
They're not opposed at all. They're both agnostic metaphysically, it's just that one fears denying the absolute metaphysical claims of one particular set of scriptures will make the whole tradition crumble at his feet. And he might be right. He's just negotiating his faith in public.
And the other one simply doesn't concern himself with what he doesn't know and thinks that there's enough basis in what we already know and what we CAN know in the future to start from there by developing heuristics of our own.

>> No.11717292

>>11716788
lmao, is this Sam Harris guy supposed to be intelligent?

>> No.11717293

>>11715969
>So who won?
Uhh, no one who attended that debate for sure.

>> No.11717299

>>11716903

But Christian societies from the outset have proven that they aren't aiming for a "love thy neighbour" goal. They'll attack non believers with equal fervour as believers due to either petantic bullshit or populist rhetoric and use God to justify either.

This isn't a refutation of Christianity, but it is a refutation of large scale Christianity as it puts so much weight in priests and saints which are easily manipulated for material gains rather than introspective views on salvation.

>> No.11717301

>>11715969
Harris edged out the first debate, but Peterson smashed him in the second.

>> No.11717311

>>11715969
Weinstein won, easily, pinned them both down

>> No.11717542

>>11717301
Harris self-imploded in the 2nd debate, climaxing at the end in negative self-awareness when he says, "it's not about point scoring, it's about making sense in a way that's consequential.". What a hack

>> No.11717566

>>11716084
The stupidest arguments against determinism here, folks!

>> No.11717667

>>11715969
WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THESE INTERNET CELEBRITIES ON 4CHAN?
WHY IS THIS ALLOWED ON THE LITERATURE BOARD?
HAVE I BEEN HERE TOO LONG AND BECOME TOO OLD TO POST ON THIS SITE?
fuck you mods

>> No.11717680

>>11717667
This is really the most appropriate board, considering this is the de facto philosophy board

>> No.11717858

I don't get how Harris even dares to debate about morality without even understanding the infinite regression problem. This is college freshman tier ffs.

>> No.11717896

>>11717858

Peterson is a likeable guy and all, but this debate is
>a psychologist who uses his own terminology/definitions/theories (which aren't shared by a significant fraction of his collegues) vs a public 'intellectual' who doesn't understand basic philosophy
>of all people these guys talk about god and morality
>conclude nothing of value except extremism is wrong

I sure hope he gets to debat Zizek, at least something interesting could come out of that

>> No.11717948

Sam harris is such a fucking idiot. He creams his pants at the thought of secularism but constantly defends Judaism. Also he practices dzogchen. Sorry buddy meditation is not secular even if you really wamt it to be.
None of his arguments against islam convince any muslim with some understanding of their religion. He worships the state unquestioningly and defends its terrorism without batting an eye and then goes on to accuse the entire doctrine of islam of being extremist and anti humanity basically. No doubt there are problems with the islamic nations but the fact that he can't see that wahhabism is the problem and not islam as a whole shows how uneducated he is on the matter and how.superficially he views it.

>> No.11718222

>>11717948
He conflates all religion around the world and throughout history. He literally brought up Aztec human sacrifice as proof that modern religion should be abolished.

>> No.11718267

>>11715999
/thread

>> No.11718271

>>11716020
>Anybody who doesn't like my internet daddy is fedora

>> No.11718299

>>11715999
Based

>> No.11718304

>>11716144
>This is the person many christfags support and admire
Just let that sink in

>> No.11718342

>>11715969
If Only Terrance McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson were alive they would mop the floor with both Harris and Peterson.

>> No.11718352

>>11717108
>How dare you try to defend a dogmatic belief system with lobster and pinocchio analogies!
>HOW....DARE....YOU!