What did he mean by this?

File: 43 KB, 641x352, ontological roadblock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:20:47 2017 No.8982738 [Reply] [Original]

What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:25:06 2017 No.8982759 >>8982738 Did they have their do yesterday?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:27:24 2017 No.8982764 So is he going to have a second sit down or are they just breaking the discussion into two parts for that sweet sweet meundies $

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:31:31 2017 No.8982777 >>8982738 Peterson assume being as the fundamental element of existence while sam harris is a materialist positivist. Their discussion blocked at a point where these axioms weren't compatible to further discussion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:32:01 2017 No.8982778 >>8982738 oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit I'm hyped.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:32:26 2017 No.8982780 >>8982738 I hope he managed to find an ontological roadblock for his tear ducks lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:33:55 2017 No.8982785 File: 383 KB, 1024x768, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:35:14 2017 No.8982793 >meme pop philosophers pop philosophize together memely krill ore shelf

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:35:44 2017 No.8982797 >>8982738 l m a o m a o

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:37:22 2017 No.8982803

>>8982738
These nouveaux atheists diss religion, because they believe it's the source of all evil, but I absolutely cannot grasp how they think they got it all figured out. Let them be, but what I cannot stand is them wanting the rest of the world to join their little cult. Absolutely preposterous. You can't preach religion because it's like shoving a penis down someone's throat, but preaching atheism is apparently all the rage. The audacity. The arrogance. not even baiting

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:38:08 2017 No.8982806 >>8982785 holy kek

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:44:41 2017 No.8982837

>>8982738
Likely that Peterson and Harris have different stances on what essence, or a definition of essence ought to entail (or something of that kind/of that ontological ilk) and they spent a bunch of time trying to get a higher level conversation off the ground but couldn't because of this foundational difference

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:46:33 2017 No.8982855 >>8982803 Peterson isnt an atheist

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:48:57 2017 No.8982874 I know, I was referring to dawkins&co

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:52:30 2017 No.8982896

>>8982803
i dunno man, maybenthey're tired of the people beheading each other in the name of skydaddy and they really don't think the comfort of the ignorant is a worthy gain in exchange for the sacrifice of human life at the altar of religious fervour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:54:16 2017 No.8982905 >>8982896 yuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:54:59 2017 No.8982908 >>8982780 >tear ducks

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 16:55:57 2017 No.8982914 >>8982896 do you have an original thought in your head or do you just regurgitate reddit memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:04:50 2017 No.8982972 >>8982738 If dubs, Peterson destroyed him

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:07:09 2017 No.8982986 >>8982914 hey, i don't believe what they say anyway, i have gven my life to christ. but to pretend not to know why atheists push so hard is an act that makes you seem like a prick with no capacity for empathy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:09:23 2017 No.8982994 >>8982738 Fuck you Harris, release the damn thing already.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:09:38 2017 No.8982995

>>8982738
>Hit ontological roadblock.

This is what it always comes down to, isn't it? Those I am at odds with can and will never resolve things or convince the other of superiority because we're subscribing to different ontologies (well, except I always do win because mine works and doesn't lead to personal dissolution).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:10:12 2017 No.8982999 when will this be out? the episode

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:10:31 2017 No.8983001 >>8982738 he's really saying "I'm a sophist, ttyl"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:10:51 2017 No.8983003 File: 2 KB, 154x128, DuckTears.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982908

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:11:56 2017 No.8983007 >>8982999 checked Episode will be released probably next week. Also, why do the mods always delete Peterson threads?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:14:49 2017 No.8983022 File: 7 KB, 219x230, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780 >tear ducks

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:28:58 2017 No.8983084 >>8982803 jordan peterson is a christian

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:46:42 2017 No.8983151

>>8982777

How are those 2 mutually exclusive. and how the fck does that lead to the existence of God being true.

can someone explain to me how does Peterson prove God is real or whatever. I've watched all his recent videos and from what I've gathered he's not a Christian in the literal sense(he hinted at this on that video where he cries and the joe rogan podcast). JP is what some conservative people in the UK call themselves as atheist Christians, as in they don't actually believe in a supernatural entity, they just think Christianity shaped our society and the stories in the Bible are just allegories/metaphors for some philosophical or psychological idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:49:55 2017 No.8983164 >>8982896 its time to stop posting

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:51:03 2017 No.8983167 >>8983007 because we aren't discussing Maps of Meaning enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:53:05 2017 No.8983172 >>8983164 >i sincerely don't understand that non-religious people dislike people getting their heads cut off by religious nuts, and would like for it to stop

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:53:50 2017 No.8983174 >>8983151 No. The whole point of Faith is that it does not require proof.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:57:59 2017 No.8983188 >>8983172 In the case of Islam I'm totally ok with them cutting each other's heads off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:58:06 2017 No.8983189 >>8982793 sure. but it's unfair to peterson to put harris on his level.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:59:56 2017 No.8983197 >>8983174 Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people. Still doesn't change the fact that I think that JP is actualy a atheist Christian, not an actual Christian

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:00:02 2017 No.8983198

>>8983172
Jesus you're retarded. Do you actually think that if we got rid of religion all the worlds problems would go away? You're clearly underage so let me just offer some advice. Stop going on r/atheism and preaching about it like you're some kind of new age genius because you don't believe in God. Get off 4chan. Read some books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:06:03 2017 No.8983217 >>8983197 >Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people. Cool belief. Do you have proof to support it?

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:08:10 2017 No.8983223

>>8983198
>implying i'm not religious
>insinuating that my point is to convince some argumentative faggot on /lit/ that god doesn't exist

you're wasting your time. all i was doing was responding to someone who didn't seem to understand the underlying reasons that drive an atheist. they think religion is bad, son. they don't like badness. they see religious acts at worst as atrocities in the name of something that doesn't exist, and at best, silliness that comes at the cost of these atrocities as a whole. whether or not you can deal with atheistic views is of no consequence to me, but to pretend as though atheism, when viewed from the aspect of saving people from say, being blown up in the name of Allah, for example, or having their genitals mutilated in the name of the covenant, is not somehow at least noble in its love for the fellow man, is fucking idiotic and stubborn at best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:08:11 2017 No.8983224 >>8983197 Exactly the opposite. Like, exactly

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:15:37 2017 No.8983260 >>8983217 shit on lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:16:30 2017 No.8983273 >>8983189 >retarded 4chan neet thinks he's smarter than college professor

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:35:14 2017 No.8983378

>>8983151
Not sure how it is exclusive of each other, but that was just a guess based on what I know of these two without having seen the video. While Peterson is a christian, I'm not sure he believes in a personified God or redemption in the sense that you soul is saved and live eternally. In one of his video where he talks about christian redemption he doesn't seem to believe in God but seems to force his Jungian interpretation unto the new testament... so I think you're right about him being an atheist christian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:48:10 2017 No.8983442 File: 55 KB, 673x522, 1478280735894.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780 >tear ducks

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:50:29 2017 No.8983451 >>8983217 >opinions are the same as belief regarding what is factual

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:54:42 2017 No.8983468

>>8983151
I may be horribly wrong but what I get from passively listening to a few of his lectures is that he has this idea that certain universal truths are embeddened in our unconscious and expressed in the bible and other world religions and stories and that these truths come from God

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:55:12 2017 No.8983470 File: 44 KB, 500x500, atheists getting railed tbh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8983197 >>Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people. Pic related is you

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:58:10 2017 No.8983484 >>8983451 Do you have proof you aren't dreaming right now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:59:42 2017 No.8983490 >>8983468 I think he thinks the truths come from a Darwinian drive to survive and propagate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:01:42 2017 No.8983497 >>8982803 Peterson want to resurrect the Father, dumb dumb

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:02:34 2017 No.8983499 >>8983490 Perhaps the Darwinian drive comes from God

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:02:35 2017 No.8983500

>>8983151
>how the fck does that lead to the existence of God being true
That is not his objective. He does not believe in a personal god or anything of that nature. He views religion as an importance to that contains universal truths about humanity. He likes Christianity due to its cultural contributions to the West. In one video, he states that he is not an atheist anymore but he does not like at the world with a materialist point of view. He has meta-belief, he embodies Christianity as if it were true but does not believe it is real in the materialist sense.

This belief probably comes from Joseph Campbell's writings on belief and religion. Honestly he should read post modern theology and have a more defined system for his belief in Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:14:29 2017 No.8983557 >>8983500 so he actualy is an "Atheist Christian"

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:22:19 2017 No.8983583
File: 73 KB, 380x303, 1376913843725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8982995

>(well, except I always do win because mine works and doesn't lead to personal dissolution).

lmao.

it's always both parties telling themselves the exact same thing at the end. don't you get this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:26:50 2017 No.8983601 File: 83 KB, 600x800, 1376847423418.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8983197 >Believing in something without prof is for weak minded people. Young declarative /lit/ posters are the worst.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:30:24 2017 No.8983608 >>8983601 this meme has gone so far that I think everyone here is an atheist pretending to be an edgy christian

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:34:03 2017 No.8983616 >>8983608 >he can't tell when the zeitgeist is changing

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:49:37 2017 No.8983680

>>8983557
Depends on how you define God. JP defines God in a way where he believes it.

This is the reason for the roadblock. Harris attacks the traditional notions of God but JP does not adhere to them. He does not consider himself to be an atheist. Harris, due to his belief that religion is evil, wants to tear apart his belief in God but can only do so with the orthodox notions of God. Therefore, he refuses to entertain JP's metaphysical axioms but JP can only explain his beliefs as he believes them. In the end, the two podcast will be shit because they have very different ideas of God and when Harris attacks a notion of God, JP probably will deny that notion of God and down the rabbit hole the debate goes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:52:16 2017 No.8983695 >>8983601 tee-he~

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:57:29 2017 No.8983714 >>8983680 So JP wins because Harris refuses to accept new ideas? Or Harris wins because JP is "not even wrong"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:00:54 2017 No.8983723 >>8982896 Like blaming guns

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:00:59 2017 No.8983724

>>8983714
As bad as Harris is, his attack on god is on the socially accepted notion of god, not Peterson's personal one. As bad as it is to say this, Harris wins because someone is more of an autist than he is.

This is not what I wanted lads, where did it all go so wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:05:41 2017 No.8983743 >>8983724 Peterson neves talks about God in the sense of an actual entity, while that view of God is certainly what most atheists criticize. Peterson's refusal to dicuss this supertitious point of view is one of his flaws imo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:20:22 2017 No.8983812 >>8983724 Autism is the next stage in human evolution. Peterson is quite literally the Übermensch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:22:13 2017 No.8983821 >>8982738 he means he believes blindly in God and no intelligent discussion could therefore be had

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:31:37 2017 No.8983856 >>8983174 >>8983197 "proof" is based on faith in axioms

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:35:07 2017 No.8983876 >>8983724 What does Harris have to say about God? All of the other New Atheists are laughably bad from what I've seen them say. They literally got memed out of relevancy.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:37:28 2017 No.8983889

>>8983876
>>8983724
This is the problem with all of these New Atheists. Literally the only religion they have a problem with is Semitic religion so that's all they attack is the Semitic God but when they talk to people who believe in metaphysics that don't come from a Jewish book then they have no argument

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:01:31 2017 No.8983988

>>8983714
If JP offers a coherent, well defined metaphysical system for his belief in his own definition of God, I believe Harris will look like a stubborn fedora and JP will "win" the debate. However, the new atheists will probably sperg out and say that there was JP's version of God isn't really God and thus, no point for the debate. Also they will probably say that he is just clinging onto religion which is evil in their opinion. If JP is unable to make a coherent system, he will look very confused and just beating around the bush.

The debate does not make sense to me. Harris wants to attack JP's "superstitious" beliefs but they are not, at least like in the way he presents himself. A good debate between them would be about the role of religion for an individual and for society as opposed to atheism.
>>8983743
I think it is because he prefers a society with the traditional beliefs of Christianity over one with Atheism. He does not want to become part of the new atheist movement as well. However, I think deep down he is an agnostic on the "superstitious" part of Christianity, maybe hoping it is all really true.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:11:07 2017 No.8984035

>>8983988
What I'm saying is that what many atheists criticize religion for is demagogues exploiting the ignorant masses (which is a fair point) and Peterson never discussed that aspect of religion afaik.

Still, I agree with a society with traditional christian beliefs being preferable to an atheist society. I was already a christian sympathizer (if there is such a thing) before I discovered Peterson and he only strengthened my respect for religious wisdom.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:14:59 2017 No.8984061 >>8984035 >a society with traditional christian beliefs being preferable to an atheist society lol what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:15:31 2017 No.8984063 >>8984061 tips fedora

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:16:24 2017 No.8984070 >>8984035 >What I'm saying is that what many atheists criticize religion for is demagogues exploiting the ignorant masses I see, thank for the calification. I agree too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:16:36 2017 No.8984071 No interest in checking this out. You know that it's quickly going to become a conversation that's indistinguishable from two schizophrenics arguing with each other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:17:24 2017 No.8984075 >>8982780 I fucking love this post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:17:26 2017 No.8984076 >>8984070 *clarification

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:21:36 2017 No.8984107 >>8982780 L M A O M A O

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:28:41 2017 No.8984138 >>8984061 Can you give an example of a good society with traditional Christian values? Because traditional Christian values include killing Jews and heretics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:29:43 2017 No.8984147 >>8984138 Meant for >>8984035

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:29:44 2017 No.8984149
File: 116 KB, 1920x1080, maxresdefault.jpg .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW

NEW Jordan Peterson podcast with my boy Duncan Trussell. enjoy!

http://podbay.fm/show/350580455/e/1484363040?autostart=1

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:31:19 2017 No.8984153 >>8984149 >Duncan Trussell More like Duncan Truffle dude shrooms lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:35:38 2017 No.8984182 >>8983988 I mean, if you go making new definitions of God, can you really say that you are a Christian. If you don't believe in a personal God, like the bible tells you,then you are closer to a pantheist than a theist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:35:53 2017 No.8984183 >>8982738 He means they fucked

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:36:18 2017 No.8984184 File: 58 KB, 720x757, IMG_0630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780 This

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:38:26 2017 No.8984197 >>8983484 I do not. So?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:39:16 2017 No.8984201 >>8984197 WAKE UP

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:48:40 2017 No.8984238

>>8984182
>if you go making new definitions of God, can you really say that you are a Christian
Well, there are Christian atheists. You don't have be a believer in the orthodox way to consider/label yourself Christian. He wants to embody the message, virtues and teachings of Christianity while not literally believing in the mythological aspects. JP is, if anything, a weak pantheist with Christian attachment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:49:06 2017 No.8984241 >>8984183 only possible explanation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 21:51:22 2017 No.8984253 File: 645 KB, 602x710, youretearingme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 22:01:09 2017 No.8984283

>>8983470
So what's stopping me from setting up a similar wheel that goes like this:

>Assume religion is true
>Study religion under previous assumption
>Sounds true to me lol

>>8984035
>atheist society
Yeah sure because all atheists want a society that "enforces atheism", you little tear duck.

A SECULAR society isn't the same as an ATHEIST society, and I sincerely hope you don't have a problem with the former.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 22:01:49 2017 No.8984286 File: 1.42 MB, 500x282, VOZaZZi.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8982780 >funniest post in a long time >not sure if bait or actually dumb

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 22:59:54 2017 No.8984507 >>8984138 >Can you give an example of a good society with traditional Atheist values? FTFY By the way, doesn't exist. >inb4 current western society Literally built on Christian values (what you would perhaps consider liberal values).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 23:46:10 2017 No.8984710 >>8984253 subtle kek

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 00:02:55 2017 No.8984769

>>8982777

I want to add some pedantic clarifications:

Peterson takes 'being' as constitutive of experience, which is the only 'access' we have to reality. It is the particular constitution of human being that determines the horizons of our possible understanding. This is thr starting point of scientific inquiry. It is fundamentally phenomenological and pragmatic.

Harris is a vulgar materialist that takes the 'world' as a given object that stands in opposition to the subject. It is simply there to be analyzed, that we stand against rather, than something we come into and interpret. This is positivistic and radically empiricist.

This is the road block.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 00:13:04 2017 No.8984799 File: 91 KB, 640x1136, IMG_2184.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 00:16:15 2017 No.8984812 >>8983468 >20 videos from now >Peterson reveals himself as a Schuonian perennialist >transforms into his werefrog form on camera >smashes down his apartment wall and hops off into the night to contemplate the Jungo-Platonic forms of pure Being

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 00:24:52 2017 No.8984832 >>8983743 In one of his videos, Peterson states that the God Dawkins criticizes is the God that any smart 13 year old has problems with. I think that he doesn't discuss this because he wants to get beyond it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 00:34:33 2017 No.8984859 >>8984799 >>8984769 To add: Peterson sees our evolutionary baggage as part of our existential make-up. We engage with the world as evolved organisms, not as pure subjects.

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 03:58:23 2017 No.8985251
File: 120 KB, 1012x712, pf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This debate is literally the Jouissance or rather, Zeitgeist of the modern era.

The Biological Determinist Atheist verses the Archetypal Phenomenological Christian.

This is going to be so shit and good, god, I literally can't wait! This podcast shall be the defining moment of our era, not to say either side is right, rather, that both sides exemplify our time more than anything.

I cannot wait.

This is literally the turning point. The summation of 20th century scientific development comes to this, RIGHT NOW, in an age of the EM-Drive which shall soon rebalance our Scientific Structures and form a new Revolution.

GOD! The young male intensity of battling between science and culture, axioms vs belief. What comes first? Consciousness or matter? ETC. ETC.

THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT! I CANNOT WAIT!

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh, can't wait to see!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 11:58:53 2017 No.8986349 >>8985251 >axioms vs belief Axioms are based off belief though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:07:28 2017 No.8986374 >>8986349 axioms are the foundation of belief

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:14:27 2017 No.8986395 >>8986374 Then what're axioms based on?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:23:11 2017 No.8986417 >>8985251 > matter or consciousness > what comes first??? pathetic

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:24:46 2017 No.8986424 >>8986395 Nothing, that's the entire point of an axiom.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:26:44 2017 No.8986428 >>8986395 Axiom: a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:34:43 2017 No.8986461 >>8984283 >So what's stopping me from setting up a similar wheel that goes like this: The fact that religious people don't attack the concept and value of faith.

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 12:37:58 2017 No.8986471

>>8986428
>>8986424
hey guys i'm dumb and recently had my first babby thought about philosophy, is it correct that philosophy is largely based on axioms and are thus not reliant on any direct proof?

also, how would you justify certain believes if they are based on those axioms?
is it just polemics?

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 16:35:10 2017 No.8987321

>>8986471

>is it correct that philosophy is largely based on axioms and are thus not reliant on any direct proof?

Philosophy is largely non-empirical and deductive in its operations, though it may take 'facts' into account. A great deal of philosophy is working through abstract conceptual problems, rather than an attempt to get a handle on 'how things are'.

>how would you justify certain believes if they are based on those axioms?

Consider Euclidean geometry, which moves deductively from a handful of axioms to all sorts of non-controversial conclusions about spatial figures,--so long as the axioms and definitions are accepted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 16:37:47 2017 No.8987331 >>8987321 yeah right, i was thinking about that too considering i've just read a bit about the ancients in mathematics, thanks for the answer bud :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 16:39:58 2017 No.8987341 >>8986417 >being a physicalist Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 16:48:45 2017 No.8987373 >>8982738 that he and sam harris are both mentally retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 17:07:24 2017 No.8987458 >>8982803 Peterson is a christian apologist m8o

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 17:24:27 2017 No.8987519 >>8982780 Jp fucking btfo ayyyyy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 17:31:09 2017 No.8987542 File: 173 KB, 500x758, titus_get_the_cross.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8984138 >killing Jews and heretics. >not a good society

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 17:33:27 2017 No.8987552 >>8987341 >believing in ghosts

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 17:58:29 2017 No.8987691

>>8984507
>current western society
>Literally built on Christian values (what you would perhaps consider liberal values).
Well, maybe they are built on some of the values espoused by Christ, but certainly not traditional Christian values as practiced in medieval Europe.

It took the enlightenment and secular thought to make Christian values what they are today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 00:14:30 2017 No.8989024 >>8984812 What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 00:30:51 2017 No.8989062 >>8982738 Why does philosophy even exist in 2017? It's useless.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 00:33:05 2017 No.8989066 >>8989062 Has "professionalism" ruined "motherhood" ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 00:36:02 2017 No.8989070 >>8982738 It means that Harris is an autistic kike and Peterson is a white man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 02:10:42 2017 No.8989298 >>8986461 Faith has no value save for whatever people put their faith into.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 07:10:31 2017 No.8989806 >>8982738 I have to see this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 10:38:33 2017 No.8990301 >>8983167 underrated

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 11:08:31 2017 No.8990394 >>8986461 You're coming at if from the position that faith is correct though. Atheism is the lack of the belief you're the one with a belief in something

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 16:18:05 2017 No.8991747 >>8982780 >I hope he managed to find an ontological roadblock for his tear ducks lmao I'm going to be posting this for awhile.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 18 17:39:27 2017 No.8992032 File: 486 KB, 257x202, upvote.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8984153

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature