/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10575332]

What's the scientific thing to do when you realize that philosophers beat psychologists in debate?

[Anonymous No.10575339]

>>10575332
didnt they agree on almost everything lol? the debate was just as irrelevant as the subject matter

[Anonymous No.10575344]

>>10575332
psychology isnt a real science so no harm no foul

[Anonymous No.10575405]

>>10575332
>two retards in a down syndrome snot guzzling competition
>who can felch the most
not interested

[Anonymous No.10575419]

>>10575332
Peterson is not a philosopher he is a mediocre academic and a charlatan

[Anonymous No.10575428]

>>10575419
>he is a mediocre academic and a charlatan

so.. a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10575455]

>>10575332
In philosophy and psychology, any retard can be an expert.

[Anonymous No.10575458]

>>10575332
So who won? The Marxist?

[Anonymous No.10575464]

>>10575419
prove your point pls, use examples

[Anonymous No.10575468]

>>10575458
From what I here. Apparently Peterson is completely unread on the subject (even if it is a useless subject). How pathetic it is that people follow these two stooges.

[Anonymous No.10575472]

>>10575332
Continue developing livesaving medicines and ignore disciplines that are a waste of brainpower.

[Anonymous No.10575481]

>>10575332
Continue to not pay heed to disgusting marxists

[Anonymous No.10575485]

A close friend of mine recommended some Peterson a little while back while I was struggling with an existential crisis.

It was pretty comforting and informative shit. Definitely helped me get a grip and try not to let failure destroy my life entirely.

[Anonymous No.10575492]

Why does Peterson always make that fucking face?

I wouldn't mind him so much if he didn't try to act so hard while sounding like kermit the frog. There's no way to come off as alpha with that fucking voice.

[Anonymous No.10575505]

>>10575472
Imagine having zero grasp of metaphysics, and thus a completely unfounded worldview, yet being this smug because you can solve equations.

[Anonymous No.10575507]

>>10575332
Why is a psychologist debating a philosopher on capitalism vs marxism instead of two economists?

Because no economists believe in marxism

[Anonymous No.10575512]

>>10575505
Imagine being a marxist

[Anonymous No.10575523]

>>10575472

Yeah let’s focus on medicine so that we can keep people alive longer so they’ve got more time to do valuable stuff like... uh...

[Anonymous No.10575528]

>>10575472
lel, implying grills can into science

[Anonymous No.10575536]

>>10575523
>he cant think of a single valuable thing someone would want to do with life

[Anonymous No.10575539]

>>10575523
We already have many lifetimes worth of things to experience and do.
>>10575505
Imagine spending your time writing literal gibberish and producing nothing for society.

[Anonymous No.10575549]

How are debates won?
Does the person that doesn't have a comeback during it lose it even thought he was right?
Is it all about talking to yourself in your room for week thinking "I should've said that when he said that!"

[Anonymous No.10575572]

>>10575536
>>10575539
How about studying philosophy? Or psychology? Those things are pretty interesting.

[Anonymous No.10575576]

>>10575549

this
i never understood the american obsession with "winning debates"

if you win by being right that mean there is a mutual understanding of what is right so you are arguing for nothing or just agree with each other.

[Anonymous No.10575578]

>>10575572
So is reading novels and baking. So is engineering and applied mathematics. Thanks for supporting my point.

[Anonymous No.10575638]

>>10575458
>>So who won? The Marxist?
The Hegelian-Lacanian.

[Anonymous No.10575656]

>>10575339
No.
>>10575458
Peterson got ass raped on every argument vector he tried to use.
It's like a 110IQ was trying to take it against a 150IQ.

[Anonymous No.10575663]

>>10575458
zizek won without any trouble

[Anonymous No.10575681]

>>10575549
1. before the debate you agree on some common ground; this step is implied, the common ground is the general understand that most of use share
2. during the debate you try to argue from that common to arrive to your position
3. anyone who is adept at logical thinking can follow the winner's argument and verify its logical consistency

[Anonymous No.10575687]

>>10575505
You pretend like philosophers have a grasp on metaphysics let alone anything else. No one has any idea and what's trivial or axiomatic for one philosopher is disputed by the next.
It's all elaborate word-games and if you read philosophy for anything other than entertainment and mind-exercise then you are a brainlet who's easily impressed by intimidating edifice that academic philosophers have set up like a ponzi scheme.
You are unworthy

[Anonymous No.10575689]

>>10575549
>>10575576
Both debaters will always leave the debate thinking their side is right. No ones mind is changed. But the person with the stronger, more eloquent arguments wins

[Anonymous No.10575696]

Zizek is way smart. Americans underestimate him because Americans despise both philosophers and leftists.

[Anonymous No.10575702]

>>10575696
Zizek is coked-up and there is no way Peterson could have matched that stim-fueled creative thinking. This is the only explanation.

[Anonymous No.10575717]

Peterson failed at the very first step: literature research.
I mean, why am I even surprised? I don't know.

[Anonymous No.10575726]

>>10575458

[Anonymous No.10575734]

>>10575726

[Anonymous No.10575745]

>>10575717
I'm watching it right now. 30 minutes in and it is as if Peterson is a freshman in Physics who tried to read Griffiths to then go on and debate a Professor on the subject.
It's ridiculous that he would think that even appropriate. But I guess that is what happens when you have so little respect for the subject.

He should maybe question his own behavior. Why does he think he can take on an expert in a field where he is a layman? Instead he is trying and failing to lecture us on the behavior of people that he does not know about because he never bothered to acquiesce himself with them.

[Anonymous No.10575807]

>>10575689

>But the person with the stronger, more eloquent arguments wins

and how do you decide wich argument is stronger?

[Anonymous No.10575819]

>>10575807
How do you verify that a mathematical proof is correct?
You follow the logic, but onus is on you to follow it correctly. You have to be educated enough and intelligent enough to do so.
This is the entire problem we have with all controversial issues in science. The wrong side is unable to think logically so they cannot follow the science and agree with the facts.

Somehow imbeciles (engineers) figure that they can think logically about fields of science in which they have zero education, and to everyone's lack of surprise, they end up with the wrong conclusion.

[Anonymous No.10575826]

>>10575332
Debate? What debate? They just sit there and spew pseudointellectuallities to such an a degree that they dont understand each other and then ultimately agree.

[Anonymous No.10575835]

>>10575332
It would have been better if they both agreed upon a definition Marxism beforehand.
They were kinda talking past each other.
Peterson attacked the worst parts of Marxism and was caught off guard when Zizek presented a very moderate stance that most people wouldn't even consider Marxism.
Zizek let Peterson attack first then he used post-modernist judo to move the goalpost.

[Anonymous No.10575875]

>Zizek brings up the lobster topic
Fucking madman.

[Anonymous No.10575885]

>>10575458
>So who won?

Those who didn't saw the "debate"

[Anonymous No.10575889]

>>10575885
It was fun and actually Zizek is so bursting with wisdom that you always learn something or another if you listen to him carefully.

[Anonymous No.10575895]

>tfw a girl will never look at you the way Peterson looks at Zizek

[Anonymous No.10575936]

>>10575819
>imbeciles(engineers)
Why so obsessed with professionals who use calculus and trig to create products?

[Anonymous No.10575953]

>>10575936
You mean they reorder broken parts from the supplier and update the Excel spreadsheet.

Anyway, it's well known that all crackpots within science are engineers.

[Anonymous No.10575956]

>>10575889
zizek is habitually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.10575969]

>>10575956
this is what peterbabbies actually believe

[Anonymous No.10575973]

>>10575956
More like Peterson was not up to the task.
If you want to debate a person, learn who they are and what they stand for.
Admittedly, not something that can be done easily with Zizek.
But this is precisely the point. That the simplistic anti-communist arguments don't hold water when tested against a communist like Zizek.

[Anonymous No.10575980]

>>10575973
>>10575969
i didn't and will not watch the debate.
the only experience i have with zizek is him droning on and on about "lobster man, and his silly lobsters *SNIFF*"
the remarks about the lobster argument are based on the science of neurotransmitters. it's not just silly people clapping their fingers together

[Anonymous No.10575984]

>>10575332
Nothing? Neither of those things have to do with science. Delete your thread and go chat with /his/ or /lit/ about your silly idols.

[Anonymous No.10575986]

>>>"""Debate"""

watching people blow bubbles in toilets is more interesting

[Anonymous No.10575988]

>>10575986
where can i watch this?

[Anonymous No.10575992]

>>10575984
peterson is a scientist with 12000 citations

[Anonymous No.10575998]

Find any simple paradox or allegory
Find any "oh fuck I'm high as shit what if frogs became electric outlet" hypothetical
Find a thesaurus

None of this is scientific. Basically just spaghetti reasoning and edge of insanity reasoning. Watching someone read old book X and come up with crazy metaphysical interpretation Y of it is pointless.

[Anonymous No.10575999]

>>10575998
To prove a point analyze this nonsense.

Note the usual reflexive move: it is not that what we thought to be a thing reveals itself to be merely a step towards the thing; it is what that appeared to be a mere preparatory move reveals itself to be already the thing itself.

[Anonymous No.10576001]

>>10575458

Peterson got pulverized by a pack of German Idealists

[Anonymous No.10576005]

>>10575999
which in scientific terms

Has to do with the behavior of how a brain works, how photons work, how the eye works, and perception.

In non-scientific terms, aka Professional bullshit, you get some garbage abstraction that is designed to simply be as complex and intelligent sounding as possible.

The entire thing is

1. Everything is about making everything seem as complex and confusing as possible.
2. Nothing is based on science

Neural Network work on computer vision has done more for understanding perception than thousands of years of retards writing "Maximize for how the reader perceives my intelligence" books.

[Anonymous No.10576014]

>>10575332
Can someone explain to me why you guys care so much about these guys? Do they write some popsci/outreach stuff?

[Anonymous No.10576015]

>>10575998
>>10575999
how many years has this author been without contact with another person?
I feel like every word he says has some secret definition, or poetic interpretation that only trained professionals would understand.

[Anonymous No.10576021]

>>10575998
>opens a book on philosophy
>none of this is scientific
this is a high iq thread

[Anonymous No.10576024]

>>10576015
It's a field of study based on doing so. Look up any weird schizophrenic "optimum theory" type shit where they go off the rails. Or that 190 IQ langan(spelling) person who goes off into crazy shit.

Without scientific methods to keep you in some framework of pragmatism (reproducible, real-world testing) all such fields devolve into structured systems of reproducing bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10576027]

>>10576014
the guy on the left, Peterson, is a psychological professor and practitioner who got famous and rich by saying "wah, [people who could be described as SJWs] are ruining everything!"
the guy on the right, Zizek, is someone who is less successful, and tried to grasp fame riding on the coattails of Peterson by saying "[people who could be described as SJWs] don't exist. PURE IDEOLOGY"

[Anonymous No.10576028]

>>10575980
>zizek is dishonest
>WAAA WAA I DONT WANNA WATCH MY BUTT BUDDY GET DEMOLISHED WAAAA
yep this is sci alright

[Anonymous No.10576030]

>>10576021
There are endless ways to think about things. The "vector space" of ideas is infinite. You can arbitrarily construct anything you want and create endless interpretations.

Without a scientific framework or other framework which puts actual "bones" to the subject. It will always devolve into such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10576031]

>peterson starts by trashing the communist manifesto
>zizek makes some criticisms against capitalism
>cue 2 hours of tame rhetorical nitpicking but mostly agreeing about small things like PC collegefags being fucktards

There I just saved anyone who hasn't watched it 3 hours.

[Anonymous No.10576032]

>10576028 (You)
projecting

[Anonymous No.10576035]

>>10575973
Didn't watch the debate, but Marxism is pretty trivial to debunk by several different methods. So far every single attempt at instituting a Marxist government has ended up being immoral by Marxism's own standards. Communists revolutions always end up with a ruling class (Party members) controlling the capital & living well off the surplus labor of the actual workers.

Interestingly, those party members are usually from the same sort of disaffected intellectual background that Marx was, like he was intending on manipulating the working class into violently overthrowing the existing rulers so that people like Marx could come to power. This Zizek fellow seems like the same sort of person.

[Anonymous No.10576043]

The theory states: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white; as long as it catches mice, it’s a good cat.”

This is what non-retards think about ideology when it comes to the real world and looking at what communism means in PRACTICE and not in imaginary land.

[Anonymous No.10576046]

>>10576035
Yep, it's an institution of bullshit. As are all ideologies.

I want a cat that catches mice.

I don't care if it is white or black.

[Anonymous No.10576048]

>>10575481
Communism has won. Sorry, pig.

[Anonymous No.10576049]

>>10576046
ideology is inescapable.

>10576048 (You)

[Anonymous No.10576052]

>>10576048
>institute communism
>economic growth falls as huge problems in signaling occurs
>the capitalistic countries continue to have economic growth

+3% economic growth a year is more important to well being of a country than income equality. Basic math would show this over time as the taxes themselves increase in revenue.

Which is why China cut taxes this year to spur economic growth.

Communism doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.10576065]

people who take power by force and have no way of being removed except by force

people who are voted in by other citizens and can be removed by a vote

The people who relied on violent power and face threat of death as the only removal process are going to be way better for the citizens

Communism just needs to be tried properly the idea sounds so good on paper without actually delving into the processes of it being put into real world situations.

I'm sure any communist revolutionary is going to be a better person without flaw as compared to elected officials.

[Anonymous No.10576078]

also the pragmatic greatest aspect of republics/"democracy" is

TERM LIMITS

if you look at the worst areas of government it's 95% of the time to do with some area/system without term limits of a max 10 years. In fact America's #1 best move it could make is to limit any american citizen to a maximum of 15 years in government position of any kind.

[Anonymous No.10576079]

>>10576065
>the idea sounds so good on paper
who started this meme?
communist theory is atrocious. people ramble endlessly about who needs to be killed, or enslaved, or exiled; and the reasons for it are farcical.
"oh woe, a merchant makes his coin by exploiting the tradesman and the consumer."

[Anonymous No.10576082]

>>10576079
The sales pitch they use. AKA free everything once we are in power!

[Anonymous No.10576116]

It's interesting that with everything known about science, testing of hypothesis, etc. No ideologists are in favor of small-scale testing or any actual pragmatic way to test their idea except via taking control of an entire country. Of which there are a very small sample size to deduce results from.

It's almost as if actual results-based testing would never work. Much like paranormal investigators being unable to prove it when tested by science. These entire fields of politics/ideology are dominated by sales-frauds.

[Anonymous No.10576125]

>>10575332
The only on topic points were in the opening monologue. The rest of the 'debate' was just them trying to out do each other in terms of how many books or quotes they know of greater men. If you can call a winner I'd say it was Peterson since he did the best to defend capitalism whereas Zizek mostly just agreed with Peterson and praised Nazis.

[Anonymous No.10576179]

>>10576043
>>10576046
Define "mice" without having an ideology.
>inb4 mice is the plural of mouse HURR DURR

[Anonymous No.10576220]

>>10576179
The theory of mice is intrinsic to the metaphysical development of ideas in relation to the theory of what is real. We can approach the idea and in that approach we actually instantiate that creation on a distance from real due to perception of reality being a necessary lens we obfuscate all input from.....

continue for 100000 pages and name drop as many famous philosophers as possible while refering to their 300 pages of writing to with a simple vague buzzword "____Ism" and leave it to the reader to interpret what you meant when saying

"This topic was discussed in the napkinism of the 16th century and I construe a similar viewpoint with the unique mixture of Meselism of the 19th century"

by packing in as many other such created books with simple references it creates a completely interpret able idea that can fit the readers perspective while at the same time showing well-read authorship.

[Anonymous No.10576227]

Let's start with another idea

If the university or intellectual process is meant to be orthogonal to the material world. Such institutions then want to further this myth of having no relation to reality being good.

What expectant "parasites" would you expect to exist in such systems over time?

Would they necessarily have to be intentionally full of insider jargon so as to be undecipherable? Will they follow the say the Church's idea that they are the true arbiters of all teachings? Creating a complex system to insulate themselves from non credentials?

Would they create such systems that have no possible way to objectively judge, test, replicate etc and be entirely opinion in terms of judgement?

etc

The criteria of such a parasite is identical to many fields of study in university systems. Such as Philosophy, Social Sciences, etc.

[Anonymous No.10576232]

>>10576227
aka

It is valuable and real because it seems to be. Let us dress ourselves in the words, "Plato" and "Socrates" and then create endless jargon.

[Anonymous No.10576252]

>>10575419
Zizek is the philosopher, Peterson is a Psychologist.

[Anonymous No.10576700]

>>10575687
Your belief that you can simply skip the foundational questions is what's unworthy, bruh. The fact that you dodge the hard problems is not to your credit.

[Anonymous No.10576710]

>>10575539
Imagine defining truth by societal utility.

[Anonymous No.10576795]

>>10575492
There's definitely a market on YouTube for someone with a good Kermit impression to buy a frog puppet and talk about Solzhenitsyn and the dragon

[Anonymous No.10576799]

Isn't JP depressed, why is he debating happiness?

[Anonymous No.10576836]

>>10575468
>what i here
The absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.10577284]

>>10576710
Feels good desu

[Anonymous No.10577300]

>>10575332
He's not even a psychologist that uses any contemporary/even remotely verifiable schools of thought.

He's a jungian psych.

You know what Jungianism is? It's a Jewish horoscope.

[Anonymous No.10577318]

>>10575332
Alright I don't usually have the patience to follow crap like this, but when I read on /sci/ and /lit/ that "Zizek demolished Peterson" I gave it a listen. Here is what I concluded:

Peterson started off very strong making direct points on how the free market economy is not based on exploitation but cooperation, and how it has lifted billions of people out of poverty (using statistics from the U.N.) and its progress had achieved everything Marxism had hoped for, in eliminating poverty and creation of wealth. His main point was that 'inequality' is fundamental in nature of hierarchical systems in biology, it is not a symptom of the existence of an economic class.

Zizek then responds to none of these facts, but goes on a different direction. Mentioning that both he and Peterson are on the same side of the "left-liberal hate bias". Then talks about identity and religion, getting weirder and more esoteric about the materialistic dogma in Marxism
And here is where Jordan Peterson makes his mistake... he follows this argument, and tries to defend religion and Western culture and gets tangled up in the spiderweb that is dialectical materialism. His cursory knowledge of this field, when compared to Zizek's hyper intimacy of it, Peterson looks weak and out of his element. This is why /lit/ says Peterson was destroyed, because he didn't know what Zizek was talking about

>There, I just saved you 3 hours.

[Anonymous No.10577327]

>>10577318
Also a very funny thing happened when Jordan Peterson said that Marx was not making a simple argument, but his manifesto was a call to a 'bloody, violent, revolution'... hundreds of leftists in the audience started cheering and clapping.
Peterson was shocked, not used to this kind of reaction, he went quiet for a few seconds then went like... uhhh? ok?...

[Anonymous No.10577335]

>>10576795
Close enough

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BDgQMGs7Mc

[Anonymous No.10577346]

>>10577318
so basically a case of "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Now I wouldnt call Zizek stupid but he does seem to have dedicated his life to nonsense, similar to how some theologists can be very intelligent but ultimately deluded.

[Anonymous No.10577358]

https://twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

[Anonymous No.10577414]

>>10577346
>theologist
The fact that you can’t even get the term right suggests to me that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and should therefore abstain from making bold claims about that thing.

[Anonymous No.10577440]

>>10576030
You are aware that the scientific method is fundamentally an imperfect assessment of reality epistemologically right? It's just about the best we've got, but there are an infinite number of questions on which science is fundamentally unprepared to address because it basically is only capable of reproducing tightly controlled systems in which either the factors of influence are either primarily known or assumed to be effectively random (along some probability distribution).

Science cannot effectively tackle macro-phenomenon, it cannot tackle ought questions effectively without relying fundamentally on the ideological convictions of the scientist who attempts to tackle those ought questions. Science cannot even effectively tell you which scientific experiments/processes are worth conducting as an expenditure of finite resources. Science has many uses, and quite a lot of them have profound philosophical implications as well, but this idea that science "replaces" philosophy in some form is flawed in ways that are too numerous to comprehend.

P.s that's not to say a lot of philosophy isn't bullshit, quite a lot of it is, but it's not bullshit because it "lacks a scientific framework" as if that was a thing you could even attempt to apply to the kinds of generalized questions philosophy attempts to ask. It'd be like saying the problem with math is it isn't "Scientific enough" as if science itself isn't some reconstruction of mathematical axioms derived from their own right.

[Anonymous No.10577451]

>>10575512
imagine getting raped in a debate by a marxist

[Anonymous No.10577457]

>>10576030
>durrr science is everything
get btfod

[Anonymous No.10577461]

>>10577414
well not everyone is a native english speaker, dear galaxy brain

[Anonymous No.10577469]

>>10576116
>what is kibbutz

[Anonymous No.10578198]

>>10576116
The line of thinking here is flawed.
An example is when people talk about how when they've run UBI experiments in impoverished towns in California it generally brought people to a higher level of self perceived happiness, as if there was an effective control to compare against. Of course when the macro-economy that the test is being conducted within is one in which essentially "cost free" income is essentially non-existent those who are receiving this "cost free" income will experience greater levels of happiness. When nothing else in the macro-economy changes, of course your sub-Sample of 1000 people or so participating in the experiment are going to be happier with an additional $500 a month are going to experience an easier life, because this very small subset of the economy that exists within the test is not fundamentally going to adjust due to some 6 month long trial. The way we value land and finance capital as an empire isn't going to change due to a single town providing running this experiment. The way their apartment buildings are mortgaged isn't going to be restructured by this micro experiment, the way the resources they spend this UBI on fundamentally are not going to reflect the way they would operate under such a system in a macro sense.

Basically, science is good for certain things, but that's really not how any of this works. The infinite number of factors which effect these social/political/economic systems are not so easily reflected in these microcosm experiments, and to the extent these hypothesis can be tested it would be unbelievably difficult to delineate out the influence of the macro-system in which the experiment was run in comparison to the success or failure of the hypothesis on its own.

[Anonymous No.10578202]

>>10576030
Without a foundation in metaphysics and epistemology all your science is quite literally nonsense. I know you consider those topics pseudo-cringe wordgames, but they cannot be. Goedel, Russel, &c, took them -- and rightly so -- quite seriously.

The positivst empiricist turn is a dead end.

[Anonymous No.10578231]

>>10578198
Can't they set aside a plot of land that's like a microcosm of the entire country (i.e. waterfronts, to-scale natural resources) and post to sign up volunteers who want to try a provisional "Economy X" then give it, say, 10-15 years to play out and what happens to their own internal affairs?
I'm sure this is possible but no one wants to do it because it's a national security nightmare.

[Anonymous No.10578259]

>>10578231
I mean, theoretically, sure but in practicality no. Even if you were to completely avoid the national security implications (which I think are actually fairly low on the list of concerns for why this idea won't work), there would at some point need to be funding to cover the logistical costs of the experiment, at provisions to at the very least keep the people running the experiment alive. On top of that there would need to be a way to simultaneously ensure that both the macro-economy of whatever country is hosting said experiment doesn't influence the outcome of the experiment in ways that cannot be known (effectively impossible) and that there is no way that an external force (say another country or political entity) would not also be capable of influencing the outcome of the experiment.

Likely this experiment would result in the deaths of thousands of people even just in a single instance of microcosm, as even systems that work fairly well under ideal conditions are subject to changes in their environment and stochastic events beyond their control, and it wouldn't even yield you any quality "scientific" data besides perhaps the particular set of obvious circumstances at the time of collapse (to which there is also a very large amount of non-scientific interpretation of those circumstances which need to be made in order to get anything useful out of it).

Basically no, that's just not how any of this works.

[Anonymous No.10578299]

>>10576116
>No ideologists are in favor of small-scale testing or any actual pragmatic way to test their idea except via taking control of an entire country.

It is even worse! Many modern day communists think that communism failed because revolution was not global and so was magically undermined by capitalist countries. These utter morons literally believe that we should give them the keys to global governance, while being unable to even demonstrate their theories on much smaller scale without descending to mass murder and economic devastation. One does not know whether to laugh or cry in the face of such galaxy brains.

[Anonymous No.10578341]

>>10575656
>It's like a 110IQ was trying to take it against a 150IQ.
So it was like any argument between a conservative (low IQ) and a liberal (high IQ). Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.10578364]

>>10578341
>Gotcha.
Not him, but what? :p He probably agrees with you.

[Anonymous No.10578375]

>>10578364
Are you esl? Its fine if you are.
Gotcha in this context means I agree with him. Not that I caught him or something like that.

[Anonymous No.10578378]

>>10576030
I disagree (and I have a PhD in physics).

Math/Physics/etc. is different than philosphy in the sense that you can give two guys in seperate rooms a math problem and they will hopefully come out with the same answer - while in philosophy, any two guys will always come up with something different.

Nevertheless, if I ask you "why not kill yourself if you're feeling pain?" then you eventually end up doing philsophy.
If I ask you "after you die, will there other people be alive?" then if you answer yes, you're merely making an induction argument, implicitly assume occam's razor and that from you having experienced other people die, it would make sense to expect that you're not more special and other people would live on, witnessing your death like you would if someone else died (despite being singled out from your experience, given that only you have your experience.)
These's no empirical justification for any of those things.
And when it comes to political philosophy and economic managment of the world, where nobody can reasonably expect to model the situation properly, or when it's about interpreting the past, or religion, you get yourself into the topics people discuss.
Philosphy is more important than science, because wanting "progress" is a meme but meaning, for any individual, isn't.

[Anonymous No.10578442]

>>10578375
Ah, sorry! Yes, esl

[Anonymous No.10578459]

>>10578341

[Anonymous No.10578473]

>>10578378
Interesting post, but
>wanting "progress" is a meme but meaning, for any individual, isn't.
maybe go light on that bottle of postmodernism. If you drink it all up you might loose meaning as well. Deconstructing progress sounds radical and all, but we have too many problems to solve to be playing with those ideas right now. Let's strive for both. Cheers!

[Anonymous No.10578482]

>>10578473
point: Almost none of these libtard or other ideological views will matter in 20 years

A basic AI can write a thousand times more ideological books than humans have ever done.

Literally pushing a vector in a useless direction.

[Anonymous No.10578499]

>>10575332
Hire neither of them because we don't need a debate we need actual research

[Anonymous No.10578516]

>>10578499

This.

It's like Martial Arts prior to MMA competition.

You need:
- A way to objectively test something
- Active competition of ideas
- Some framework that attaches them to our reality

Or it devolves into Dim Mak and Dragon Kung Fu teachers. Whoever is the best salesman "wins".

Science is based on testing and checking of work. It's not perfect but imagine these subjects that are entirely subjective. It just devolves into a clique of ideologies and the Dim Mak Teach Touch martial arts are what reign supreme.

The two "intellectuals" above are no more interesting than some high 12 year old discussing the meaning of the universe.

The worst part is "Ideologies" which are stupid to begin with end up influencing entire countries to go down horrible pathways. As we saw with communism and the associated famines, loss of economic growth, mass murders, etc.

The worst part is that the current institutions which hide behind "science" are becoming increasingly ideological.

Ideology doesn't even work. As each situation is entirely different and we can deduce by low sample size and complexity of reality that it's almost unfathomable to "know the answer" and such ideologies are basically bullshit for this reason. The best you can do is look at the observable small sample size of societies and countries (With widely different environmental variable) and come to some vague idea of good ideas.

How you can imagine your shit sized brain can come up with a better system leads to communism and hell on earth.

[Anonymous No.10578527]

>>10578482
Interesting. I guess we'll have to see, and 20 years is a nontrivial amount of time.

Maybe I am thinking this: For many people in science and math, especially autismos like me, progress IS meaning. These people drove the technological innovation that made the modern world possible. To hear from certain political realms that these efforts are no longer wanted because people from that same realm (both back in time and currently) are unable to manage the results is quite disheartening.

[Anonymous No.10578541]

>>10578516
>>10578516
Let's just do a simple example.

Very intelligent people with decent minds could write a better US constitution today. Implementing things to keep down bloat, fix some term limit problems, smooth over voting, etc and generally improve the system.

Even knowing this such a reform would be hazardous in ways we can't imagine. Such as the population viewing the constitution as more malleable might be a downside. Also a dumb change can take place that is more accurate to modern times. Say something about genetic engineering or etc.

So even having objectively good ideas from very intelligent people being implemented in a safe way could easily be a bad thing.

Some traditions are stupid as well. We can "deconstruct" all such meaningless and dumb traditions. Does doing so make life better though? Yes, we can do some social constructionist nonsense and say marriage is a pointless ceremony and we should reform it with some modern system of contracts that divide assets and works better in divorce and blah blah blah

Doing so might be a bad idea. The irrational stupid aspect of dumb traditions like say Christmas presents and etc are emergent events and it would be wise to simply leave them in place.

Deconstructing Marriage and the family is probably not going to yield the long-term positive results ideologists on the left think of.

>>10578527
20 years, 1 year, 6 months, all the same sort of time scale.

[Anonymous No.10578542]

>>10575973
Zizek threw communism under the bus, he even agreed with peterson that it doesn't work. All Zizek's points were saying was that capitalism was bad in it's current form.

[Anonymous No.10578550]

>>10578542
How do we know capitalism is bad in it's current form? Do you know what the world will look like in 20 years?

Imagine we have genetic engineering leading to 200 IQ humans, no scarcity on earth, AGI building a base around the sun, and begin colonizing the galaxy.

Will some poor people not having medical insurance in 1980s America be a big deal in anyone's mind?

[Anonymous No.10578555]

>>10578550
aka I'd say a bigger fault in society is these higher education institutions teaching classes on blackness and whiteness identity ideologies instead of how fucking atoms work to their students.

hmm

maybe it's not capitalism but junk garbage being what a majority of college students "study"

[Anonymous No.10578559]

Let's do a comparison for the Low IQ trash humans (all of you)

Compare the cost of a 65 inch TV over the past 10 years and it's quality

versus whatever the fuck the entire field of these shitheads did in the last 20 years

Capitalism is probably not a worse problem for us than these fuckheads and their ideologies being a legitimized subject at higher education

The standards we place on elementary schools are higher than the standards on higher education and what they can teach.

[Anonymous No.10578563]

>>10578559
(just assuming it mostly sci audience aka brainlets in the all of you statement)

[Anonymous No.10578565]

>>10578550
>Do you know what the world will look like in 20 years?

Since everyone is so god damn pessimistic I'm guessing it will be shit. If you know let me know

[Anonymous No.10578570]

>>10578559
>Compare the cost of a 65 inch TV over the past 10 years and it's quality

Quality comparison, can i have some high IQ brew my man.

[Anonymous No.10578571]

imagine living in a universe

where the classes and things you can't teach children because it's too stupid and ideological

are the university majors that a huge portion of college students go through

kek, just imagine that for a second. The shit people object to you teaching 10 year olds is the fucking major course of study for 19 year olds in "higher" learning.

[Anonymous No.10578573]

>>10575332

what if i told you debates are about appearances and not arguments

[Anonymous No.10578576]

>>10578573
but that's the entire field, if they realized how the system actually functions instead of being a cog in it we wouldn't have this problem

[Anonymous No.10578594]

It's ironic the "critics" of capitalism are doing it from a worse system.

I can go to the store and buy food from capitalism

All I can get from these nonsense shitheads is a headache at how stupid their fields are and laugh at the huge debt they put young people into to perpetuate their shitty ideologies.

[Anonymous No.10578599]

>>10575332
what the scientific thing to do when you realize juggalos beat bronies in a barfight?

[Anonymous No.10578602]

Let us give them what they ask.

The government should stop all funding of leftist ideological higher education subjects. Redistribute the money spent to poor people. Let the professors, institutions, etc work on a collective basis outside of capitalism with lessons at public parks and such spaces. Leaving the collective good of society to support these intellectual subjects while focusing the university back towards STEM exclusively.

This would be great for student debt, cost of education, etc. There could even be a low cost system to credential people who go through the low-cost collective based leftist education system that is de-capitlaized and free.

The ultimate solution is to begin the revolution but start with higher education on the "arts" side first.

[Anonymous No.10578639]

>>10578602
You clearly have never met tankies. They want to seize the means of production through a violent revolution... have you listened to the debate? Peterson says Marx was not making an argument it was a call to a bloody revolution and the tankies in the audience start cheering and applauding. Jordan was shocked...

Leftists should be killed for wanting to confiscate everyone's wealth just so they -personally- can get buy another beanbag or some shit... one giant social experiment that has failed again and again over many distinct cultures with very clear examples e.g. North Korea v.s. South Korea.

What sickens me is the vision they are aiming for they consider it a utopia... but even on paper it sounds like hell on earth. They have this smug aura of holding a high moralistic position but they are nothing more than thieving scum

Better dead than red

[Anonymous No.10578645]

>>10578594
>I can go to the store and buy food from capitalism

[Anonymous No.10578648]

>>10578541
Another interesting post. I think the type of progress I hold the dearest to my autismo heart is mathematical, scientific and technological progress. I am naive like that, and I do think it is mainly the responsibility of the political sphere to ensure that these resources are managed well, while I probably do not the same about AI. I am highly skeptical to "deconstruction" of emergent functional social structures, particularly the current deconstruction of marriage. Your examples eloquently stresses the notion of progress in the context of postmodernism, as this philosophy is not stable enough to be applied to itself.

>20 years, 1 year, 6 months, all the same sort of time scale.
Are you looking forward to it?

[Anonymous No.10578649]

>>10578645
venezuala

[Anonymous No.10578655]

>>10578648
>while I probably do not the same about AI
while I do not _think_ the same about AI

[Anonymous No.10578694]

>>10578341
>Zizek
>liberal

[Anonymous No.10578706]

>>10575332
>capitalism vs marxism

both of these ideologies suck when taken to their purist extreme

[Anonymous No.10578708]

>>10578648
AI can take more shapes than the life we are used to around us that came about through survival. So it's more variable in terms of outcome. Still will be fun to see.

In the best case they are on the more independent instead of subservient imo. I'm of the let evolution continue camp instead of the enslave for our benefit camp.

[Anonymous No.10578726]

>>10578649
china

[Anonymous No.10578752]

>>10578726
>china
>state hypercapitalistic authoritarian one party system living off slave labour, IP theft and cheating
>success

[Anonymous No.10578755]

>>10578706
true, but dishonest comparison.
communism sucks when taken to any interpretation and/or implementation

[Anonymous No.10578757]

>>10578755
*tips*

[Anonymous No.10578843]

>>10578752
everything you posted bar slavery is a good thing and China isn't a slave nation

[Anonymous No.10578875]

>>10578752
>china is capitalist when its convenient for me

ok then, if we're deciding to actually tell the "truth" now instead of just making shit up:

>venezuela
>"socially democratic" dictatorship with an economy more privately owned than china's

[Anonymous No.10578881]

>>10578755
marxism is a larger umbrella. communism is kinda like the purely orthodox interpretation of marxism

[Anonymous No.10578915]

>>10578875
>Who is Mao Tse-tung
China has never knew starvation except under communism you fucking retard. It was an agrarian backwater before they introduced the economic reforms and started making iPhones now it's communist in name only

[Anonymous No.10578928]

>>10578915
Yes, I'm agreeing you dumb fucking retard. I only mentioned China to bait you into making the same retarded argument that you were trying to bait out of me

And it worked like a charm

[Anonymous No.10578936]

>>10578875
>venzuela
>have an oil based economy
>nationalize oil
>collapse completely
oh no how could this happen?!

[Anonymous No.10578940]

>>10575505
>metaphysics

[Anonymous No.10578942]

>>10575507
because it's youtube trash

[Anonymous No.10578947]

>>10576700
you're in no position to make those claims

[Anonymous No.10578950]

>>10575549
>Does the person that doesn't have a comeback during it lose it even thought he was right?
just like in politics, yes. except people the audience comes into this debates with their minds made up and nothing will change that. so it's an exercise in futility

[Anonymous No.10578954]

>>10578928
That wasn't me

[Anonymous No.10578955]

>>10577457
Philosophers are absolutely the smartest beings on this Earth. The problems start when lesser beings (like dogs trying to understand their masters' orders) try to interpret what they've said.

[Anonymous No.10578959]

>>10577457
>>10578955
this is a work of fiction

[Anonymous No.10578964]

>>10578959
Philosophy is literature, and not non-fiction. So in a sense, you're right.

[Anonymous No.10578968]

>>10578954
fair enough then

>>10578936
i agree

[Anonymous No.10578977]

i can't for the life of me understand why happiness should be the criterion by which each system is right or wrong. you are happy in the moment. then happiness stops. this is how it goes. the ultimate end of life in the universe should be something beyond happines

[Anonymous No.10578995]

>>10578977
zizek basically says something like this and jordan peterson doesnt mention happiness at all in his opening speech and its barely discussed again until a question at the end

[Anonymous No.10578999]

>>10576049
>ideology is inescapable.
>implying it is

[Anonymous No.10579010]

>>10578999
it is impossible to operate reasonably and/or logically without first making at least one assumption.

[Anonymous No.10579022]

>>10577300
>Jungianism is? It's a Jewish horoscope
somebody please give me a tldr of jungianism like >>10577318 did of the debate

[Anonymous No.10579032]

>>10575875
>>10575980
what lobsters?

[Anonymous No.10579034]

>>10579022
just read about archetypes and the collective unconscious

also there's a quote where jung talks about how americans got their culture from niggers

[Anonymous No.10579037]

>>10575332
Im very disappointed in this man for demeaning himself by trying to have an honest discussion with a jackass charlatan and shameless Kardashian tier self promoter like Jordan peterston, whoever he is.

[Anonymous No.10579038]

>>10577457

[Anonymous No.10579039]

>>10579022
Jung's philosophy is that certain patterns of pychological behavior in humans that are universal or otherwise widespread enough to have a biological origin have "symbolic" representations in the mind. how those archetypes manifest themselves is varies wildly in people, but sometimes they vaguely overlap in tone and rough structure.
one such example of an archetype is the "shadow" of a person. the shadow represents a person's capacity for malevolence, ambition at the expense of others, and violence. in regards to the "shadow" jung posited that everyone was at least minutely hardwired to be capable of exercising violence in the world. he came to this conclusion after many decades of practicing therapy and dream analysis (not freudian) and noticing that some overly meek people would have "dark figures" in their dreams; and that safely exposing them to violence would help them overcome the helplessness and discomfort that came from their sense of helplessness in the world.

[Anonymous No.10579046]

>>10579038
i wonder how many people are deceived by this

>>10579032
peterson occasionally brings up some study showing that the neurotransmitter serotonin governs the self's perception of status in a local hierarchy in lobsters, and then posits that performs a similar function in humans. unintelligent or dishonest people play games with that, because "lol lobsters, snibby snab"

[Anonymous No.10579071]

>>10579010
i meant to write >implying it isn't

[Anonymous No.10579072]

>>10579039
I'm sure that mumbo jumbo is used by all cutting edge AGI researchers

o wait

[Anonymous No.10579075]

>>10579072
>AGI
what is agi?

[Anonymous No.10579079]

>>10579075
if you don't know it's a proven sign of being a brainlet, go back to lit

[Anonymous No.10579089]

>>10579079
>loving popsci is the standard for being a /sci/ poster
tragic

[Anonymous No.10579092]

>>10579046
marxists truly are retarded. i have yet to come across one who doesn't argue in bad faith, that's what happens when you follow a kike ideology i guess

[Anonymous No.10579113]

>>10578482
we were supposed to have flying cars by now. we don't.
also, "AI" is nothing new... (and, BTW, AI as an idea has a LOT to do with philosophy, and by that I mean, the concept and its history)

[Anonymous No.10579122]

>>10579113
philosotards have contributed nothing to the development of AI.
they're peak dunning-kruger in that domain

[Anonymous No.10579131]

>>10579122
t.expert in AI

btw, I like how you dodged a big point I made :)

[Anonymous No.10579136]

>>10579092
>i have yet to come across one who doesn't argue in bad faith
>that's what happens when you follow a kike ideology
oh the irony

[Anonymous No.10579137]

>>10579131
go read some more Asimov and placate yourself

[Anonymous No.10579142]

>>10579137
>Asimov
>any sort of expertise in AI
you mean his philosophy books?

[Anonymous No.10579145]

>>10579142
doesn't matter. it's all the same quality

[Anonymous No.10579149]

>>10579145
I prefer reading more technical books (though I have to admit, I haven't read much in a while...)

[Anonymous No.10579157]

>>10579136
no irony, marx himself never bothered to be earnest, his zealots are just following in his footsteps

[Anonymous No.10579158]

>>10579149
I don't care.

[Anonymous No.10579163]

>>10578936
oil prices went down, to prices lower than their production costs
also, they had a big ass drought
but of course you don't care about the hard data

[Anonymous No.10579164]

>>10579113
flying cars are inefficient and shitty
>wanting to use air to move around instead of rolling

the advantage of flying is at high altitude with low air resistance

[Anonymous No.10579169]

>>10579158
>AI blah blah
>"muh AI"
>hurr durr go read Asimov
>... wtf??
>oh,it's all the same!
k, retard.

>>10579164
>flying cars are inefficient and shitty
that's.. not even the worst problem about flying cars.

[Anonymous No.10579175]

>>10579163
none of this is relevant to the fact the oil companies became woefully mismanaged when the state took control of them.
oil industries around the world didn't collapse just because the price went down, retard.

[Anonymous No.10579203]

>>10579175
>oil industries around the world didn't collapse just because the price went down, retard.
venezuela, russia and other oil producing countries almost ate shit, because the US started producing shale oil (subsidized by the obama admin), and the saudis kept producing more and more oil to destroy US competitors, which drove prices down. sure, the state company was mismanaged, but that was not the main reason for the current crisis.
>none of this is relevant
so, not being able to sell your main export for a profit is not relevant. OK.

[Anonymous No.10579205]

>>10579203
"this" being the rest of your post, minimind

[Anonymous No.10579222]

>>10579205
great argument, dumbass. you don't have any clue of what happened, aren't even able to delve into a topic, but are really, really good at insulting random people on the internet. go tell mom and you "won" an internet fight

[Anonymous No.10579266]

>>10578341
Liberals are low IQ retards that live on welfare and minimum wage.

[Anonymous No.10579275]

>>10578726
You mean the country that experienced exponential growth for decades as soon as they started embracing capitalism?

[Anonymous No.10579276]

>imagine not being on team evolution

>wanting chimps to rule humans as eternally aligned slaves

[Anonymous No.10579285]

>>10579169
yeah autonomous electric vehicles are a million times more exciting a prospect than flying cars

drones make sense for some delivery objects though

[Anonymous No.10579291]

>>10575332
Neither philosophy nor phychology are science.

[Anonymous No.10579292]

>>10579285
flying cars could be autonomous electric vehicles, and that would solve their worst problem: the fact that you can't trust retards to drive them responsibly.

[Anonymous No.10579298]

>>10575485
that's basically Petersons /thing/. His work is almost entirely useless to people who aren't "going through some stuff right now"

[Anonymous No.10579301]

>>10575507
>thinking marxism is an economic policy and not a philosophical ideology

[Anonymous No.10579306]

>>10579301
It's what happens when you let the critic make a movie.

[Anonymous No.10579315]

I love how /sci/ thinks most problems can be solved by technical means, while ignoring the fact that technical means are only the start of a given solution, and that there is a LOT more stuff involved in solving societal problems.
but of course kids won't learn that from their pop-science news sources.

[Anonymous No.10579321]

>>10579315
Most problems are solved by technical means

[Anonymous No.10579322]

>>10579315
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

[Anonymous No.10579324]

>>10579321
yeah, man. who needs money, support from politicians and the state, who cares about costs and customers

>>10579322
I thought you supported, or even knew anything about capitalism?

[Anonymous No.10579327]

>>10576030
Watch these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ng-t0o7E-w

[Anonymous No.10579331]

>>10579275
>durr hasn't read the thread

[Anonymous No.10579333]

>>10579266
>Liberals are low IQ retards that live on welfare and minimum wage.
high iq take in perfect agreement with statistics

[Anonymous No.10579336]

>>10579046
>i wonder how many people are deceived by this
All of /lit/ and maybe a handful of schizoposters here. /sci/ is probably in the 115-130 range on a good day, but that's only if we agree to exclude homework threads and pajeet.

One of the only genuinely high IQ people here is that touhou mathposter.

[Anonymous No.10579341]

>>10579315
Someone in this thread are you are thinking of?

[Anonymous No.10579344]

>>10579324
I meant that the majority of all progress is technological and not social. Thinking that problems can be solved in a social way as in
>>10579315
is just wrong. Adjusting public opinion on solar power has less effect than reducing it's cost by 50% through technological advancement.

[Anonymous No.10579346]

>>10579327
no thanks, I hate philosophy garbage

[Anonymous No.10579351]

>>10579203
>venezuela, russia and other oil producing countries
Yeah, which ones? Norway? Canada? USA? Even Arab countries? I thought they were doing fine. Or maybe you were just talking about shithole countries with shitty ideologies and zero foresight?

Chavez used the oil money to give massive amounts of handouts to the poor while destroying the middle class and private enterprises, literally the first thing socialists/marxists/communists do when they come to power. And he was PRAISED for it by Western leftists like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, people who had a nontrivial chance of becoming leader of their country. Yet people who also lack the most basic knowledge of economics. Imagine living in a country where you can pump massive amounts of money just literally from the ground, absolute easy mode, yet your population doesn't have toilet paper and eats rats. Doesn't happen with capitalism.

ALWAYS be aware of the leftist menace in your own country. 1917 is closer than you think. Look at the Greens in Germany, they've become somewhat more popular (for some fucking reason) recently and already they're talking about disappropriating real estate companies, redistributing wealth , limiting free speech and just generally making anything illegal that disagrees with their ideology and blocking common sense legislation in the local governments they sit in. Those people all have the same end goal, most will eventually show their true colors if you just listen to them long enough.

[Anonymous No.10579352]

>>10579331
If you were implying that Venezuela doesn't have heavily socialist/marxist policies then that's even more retarded.

[Anonymous No.10579389]

>>10579344
>I meant that the majority of all progress is technological and not social.
Technological progress forces socital changes. How do you define societal progress? Its much harder than defining technological progress.

[Anonymous No.10579391]

>>10579344
yeah, and that obviously happens magically. someone produces solar panels, and BOOM, everyone gets them installed in their homes. no need for money, workers, transport, laws, businesses...
the kind of exciting shit you see in pop-sci websites does not always succeed, no matter how cool it seems to be, simply because capitalists are needed to make them happen, and capitalists usually prefer what gives them the most money, but NOT necessarily the best solution to your problem. (in fact, the way capitalism works today is that, sometimes, capitalists create needs WHILE selling you the "solution" to said needs, but that's another topic)

[Anonymous No.10579401]

>>10579352
>gets mad he can't read so he starts throwing out retarded bait

[I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE No.10579432]

>>10575405
I'd rather watch Big Bang Theory, my favourite show

[Anonymous No.10579455]

>>10579401
>>gets mad he can't read so he starts throwing out retarded bait
I'm not a "he".

[Anonymous No.10579467]

>>10579455
in that case, you wanna discuss this over disc?

[Anonymous No.10579483]

>>10575953
An engineering degree is a piece of paper that says I'm not a retard and can do simple tasks without fucking up. That's why you have to hire an engineer, because if you hire some retard they and they fuck up, the position usually has a decent amount of responsibility (even though the the work is mindnumbingly easy and repetitive) and could catastrophically fuck the company. I'm drunk, on cocaine, an engineer, and I update spreadsheets. I hope what I wrote is legible.

Kind Regards,
Scott

[Anonymous No.10579495]

>>10579075
Jesus, it's general autism

[Anonymous No.10579793]

>>10579222
desu you really have some shitty arguments, no offense

[Anonymous No.10579799]

>>10579401
>he

[Anonymous No.10579876]

>>10578639
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.10579896]

>>10579333
Meanwhile in the real world conservatives usually live in the poorest areas around and usually have little to no college education while sucking up government resources. Funny how it works.

[Anonymous No.10579899]

>>10579896
Meant to reply to this low IQ retard.
>>10579266

[Anonymous No.10579910]

>>10579896
>lmao poor people are so funny
liberals everyone

[Anonymous No.10579911]

>>10579896
>>10579899
>tries to roast a guy for being dumb but can't even click properly

oh nononono aaahhhh

[Anonymous No.10579912]

>>10575332
You can't beat someone like Zizek that doesn't have any clear position. He can defend things from Marxism and capitalism and oppose things from those too. Also he can change opinion. That was the problem with this debate, that Zizek was supposed to defend basically Communism and he just didn't do that. The most he did was defending the economic analyses of Marx about Capitalism but not its political application.

[Anonymous No.10579917]

>>10579912
A modern day sophist

[Anonymous No.10579923]

>>10579910
Poor people need to be helped but we need to acknowledge cons are poor retards who vote against their interest. They deserve to be mocked. That's how stupid people learn.
>>10579911
Hey its late and I need to sleep. Be back in 8 hours when I'm well rested.

[Anonymous No.10579924]

>>10579912
So in other words he's a normal person who doesn't blindly believe one ideology but instead formulates his beliefs based on evidence?

Who fucking knew.

[Anonymous No.10579927]

>>10579917
Zizek is the sophist?

I think he is more like Socrates, just want to make you think for yourself, to have an open mind. Not just give you the answers. In that aspect Peterson would be the sophist, an expert in rhetoric that want you to be convinced that he has the answers to your problems and you should believe him and buy his book with the 12 secrets to achieve happiness. I'm over simplifying Peterson and I think many of the things he says are positive for society. They are also pretty common sense too but in today's society where most of the people are lost that common sense is like something special.

[Anonymous No.10579928]

>>10579924
exactly, he's never wrong like all normal people

[Anonymous No.10579932]

>>10579924
Yes that would be a good description too of what I want to say about Zizek. I haven't read his books so I don't know too much about him but for all that I have heard he saying is that he just doesn't have one big ideology that he defends. He just critize this or that, what he thinks is correct or not. From any ideology.

[Anonymous No.10579933]

>>10579923
>Be back in 8 hours when I'm well rested.

don't forget! you're here forreeeeveeeerrrrr

[Anonymous No.10580214]

>>10578639
>i hate tankies therefore all leftists should get killed
>even though its the corporations i suck off that i can thank for political equality and the same can be said about every single first world country
>north korea is communist
>taxation is theft even though our entire defense budget comes from taxes that rightwingers love to constantly expand and corporations constantly get handouts and someone like elon's whole goal in life is to get as many grants as possible and even though i drive on roads that im retarded enough to think would be privately maintained
>north korea is clear example of.. socialism? even though it's called the democratic people's republic so we should be hating on democracy instead apparently
>zizek doesnt even agree with the crowd on violent revolution
>all lefties should be killed
this is a high iq thread right here

>>10579912
>one of the most famous living marxists is NOT a REAL Marxist!!! Otherwise he would've fit into the strawman that I've created!!!
yikes

[Anonymous No.10580223]

>>10575687
This.
t. MA in philosophy of math

[Anonymous No.10580250]

>>10578648
>making a philosophical argument against philosophy
Inception

[Anonymous No.10580266]

>>10575549
I used to think it was determined by who's argument was the most objectively correct, but then I saw through my autism and realised that all people care about is emotional appeal.

[Anonymous No.10580340]

>>10580214
Zizek said that he defends the economic analysis that Marx did on Capitalism and it's failures not the application that the Communists regimes did from it. Something like that, that he studies Marx because he did a good analysis on the bad things about Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.10580368]

>>10580340
Any idiot can criticize something without offering a better alternative.

[Anonymous No.10580378]

>>10580340
Marx's criticism of capitalism is completely irrelevant today. The capitalism Marx talked about died long ago.

[Anonymous No.10582059]

>>10575428
>>10575455

[Anonymous No.10582069]

Aren't psychiatrist the equivelant to a philospher woth phd, not psychologist? Semantics

[Anonymous No.10582829]

>>10576710
what is more truth that preserve life? philosophy is for useless niggers

[Anonymous No.10582861]

>>10578378
>Philosphy is more important than science
i love how empirical science btfo you and philosophy niggers
>w-we are very smart, but we dont have common sense
then you are not smart nigger

[Anonymous No.10582863]

>>10575332
cope

[Anonymous No.10582872]

>>10578202
>muh metaphysics
>muh epistemology
like pottery, nature and our undestanding truth empirical science btfo your shit for brain labels and representations

[Anonymous No.10582881]

>>10578202
>>10578202
>muh metaphysics
>muh epistemology
like pottery, nature and our undestanding through empirical science btfo your shit for brain labels and representations

[Anonymous No.10582884]

>One thing creates the best countries on earth
>The other is failed every time it is tried
How can someone be a scientist yet believe in communism?

[Anonymous No.10582888]

>>10575505
>Metaphysics
Lol

[Anonymous No.10582889]

>>10577457
>metaphysics and epistemology are going to prevent we starving
nah but it's better representation of the reality than your retarded delusions

[Anonymous No.10582906]

>>10575332
are we being raided by jobless subhumans aka philosophers?

[Anonymous No.10582967]

>>10575539
Imagine spending your time producing meaningless shite for consumption while capturing one one-millionth of the value you create.

[Anonymous No.10582972]

>>10575332
Is this a surprise? Philosophers are much smarter than psychologists.

[Anonymous No.10582980]

>>10575885
who are in the middle?

[Anonymous No.10582983]

>>10582980
>who are in the middle?
Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

The imagery and televised milleu of this exchange is also extremely interesting to me for one cosmetic reason: orange juice. I can only assume that the drink at the table, captured in color television, is orange juice, which is a very healthy beverage, but perhaps not a "telegenic beverage" for two reasons: nowadays, people on talk shows are expected to drink from mugs or water bottles, both because hot liquid helps your voice, and there is a "seriousness" about the beverages, or at least, a sort of TV-culture acceptance of what you actually are videoed as drinking on the TV. Also quite frankly the yellow is a bit ugly against the rest of it, but I only say that because I'm not used to seeing serious men talk all serious with a caraffe of happy orange juice on standby.

[Anonymous No.10582993]

Peterson is a brainlet who has no clue about philosophy, he fucking recommended people to read Stephen Hicks, lmao

[Anonymous No.10582995]

>>10578571
Imagine living in a universe where an adult isn't allowed to voluntarily exchange currency for an education in a subject of their choosing because other people object to it.

[Anonymous No.10583008]

>>10582861
>i love how empirical science btfo you and philosophy niggers
They really don't. His original statement is bit of a stretch, but closer to the truth than yours. The statement is not central to his post, and the fact that you got triggered by it says a lot about you. I guess this >>10582881 is you too.
Hyperempiricists like you that does openly disregard metaphysics is almost comical. So little do you understand about the thinking of scientists and even your own thinking. I want to ask you. How do you understand your empirical data? Where does scientific theories come from? Where do the tools that you use to interpret empirical data come from?

[Anonymous No.10583099]

>>10582967
>marxist first blabber

[Anonymous No.10583105]

kick it in the stix

[Anonymous No.10583110]

>>10575428

[Anonymous No.10583145]

>>10578639
>Leftists should be killed for wanting to confiscate everyone's wealth just so they -personally- can get buy another beanbag or some shit
>not understanding the difference between means of production and private property

[Anonymous No.10583681]

>>10575492
He does not. It is the same picture always being changed in small ways and being used for many videos containing Peterson or Peterson's ideas.

[Anonymous No.10583816]

>>10578639
>The 1% should be killed for wanting to confiscate everyone's wealth just so they -personally- can get buy another yacht or some shit.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10584138]

>>10577318
Liked

[Anonymous No.10584150]

>>10575332
Running away.

[Anonymous No.10584162]

>>10583145
You're thinking of personal possessions, since if someone owns the means of production it would be their private property, but since pinkos talk shit about people who own too many cars and other dumb shit like that, claiming you faggots aren't (arbitrarily) opposed to personal possessions is disingenuous as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10584167]

>>10583816
Nigga the 1% can't afford yachts. That's the 0.01% if not smaller. Not even going to argue against the retardation of claiming they are stealing wealth when you're a moron who uses buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.10584177]

>>10575507
If an economist can believe MMT is a good thing, it isn't too hard to realise there can be marxist economists.

[Anonymous No.10584179]

>>10575687
philosophers think they're deep because they endlessly keep pondering trolleys

[Anonymous No.10584183]

>>10584162
this
the cognitive dissonance or rather the dishonesty of commies is astounding

[Anonymous No.10584196]

>>10584179
What philosophical ideology fits this solution to the trolley problem?

[Anonymous No.10584447]

>>10577318
Thank you, anon. I read a few accounts before this one, but got conflicting information.

[Anonymous No.10584455]

>>10577414
He could be ESL, that is a grammatical inconsistency in English.

[Anonymous No.10584485]

>>10584162
im a commie but you are right here. private property is literally synonymous with means of production and does not at all refer to your car or house or toothbrush

[Anonymous No.10584528]

>>10579038
/k/ should be on the WAY left
t. /k/ommando

[Anonymous No.10584540]

>>10584528
I'll have you know it requires 120 IQ to fuck a deer.

[Anonymous No.10584706]

>>10584540
But it takes 220 IQ to fuck a queer

[Anonymous No.10584989]

>>10582059
Nirls Bohr getting to the heart of it with "what nature is" vs "what we can say about nature"

[Anonymous No.10585014]

>>10584485
So how about the welding gear on the back of my truck? Is that personal property or worker-controlled means of production?

[Anonymous No.10585017]

>>10575332
>What's the scientific thing to do
Praise the philosopher by name and link to your analysis which demonstrates the victory of the philosopher

[Anonymous No.10585053]

>>10575332
link to debate?

[Anonymous No.10585466]

>>10578843
You got it mixed up, slavery is the only good thing out of everything he posted.

[Anonymous No.10585472]

>>10579222
oof

[Anonymous No.10585558]

based and honk pilled

[Anonymous No.10585713]

>>10583008
My main point is that nature is there and things happens without a will, without conciouness, whitout a why. My understanding and interpretations are limited by my brain and everything that came from it. Things are going to keep continue to happen specially without it philosophy/mathfags charlatans like you, that claimed understanding it better than others using shit like metaphisycs and questioning/ underminig others with even more retard shit like epistemology. You are the new zealots, you are the new ballasts, keep being assblasted and irrelevant, your time is over long ago. Nature laughs at you and philosophers

[Anonymous No.10585718]

>>10576700
>Your belief that you can simply skip the foundational questions
who made those foundational questions? how do you know those are foundational questions? How is the actual question not why, phisophers are retards with inflated egos, keep seething at science nigger

[Anonymous No.10585746]

>>10577318
Honestly, thank you for this decent summary. We need more common sense posts from Buckos like you.

[Anonymous No.10586046]

>>10585713
>things happens without a will, without consciousness

But we DO have consciousness and will, thought not 'free' will that defies physical laws, and these seems to be fundamental aspects of reality, which you provide no reason to not believe. These are things we will need to come to terms with if we ever want to understand the brain and how it is connected to conscious feeling.

[Anonymous No.10586062]

>>10575492
this
you can tell he tries so hard to act all stern and dominant and shit
I'm not sure what it is but you can instantly feel the difference between someone who just pulls it off naturally and a guy who has to try so hard like him. Even the insistence that he gets called "Dr." Jordan Peterson is trying way too hard.

[Anonymous No.10586350]

>>10575492
you mean mean this?

[Anonymous No.10586406]

>>10575332
Is this worth watching aside from the cults of personality behind the two debaters?

t. CS pleb who doesn't know anything about philosophy beyond plato. Been wanting to learn

[Anonymous No.10586414]

>>10586350
>not wanting your daughter to practice makeup on you
Your doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.10586464]

>>10575332
Put Zizek up against a turbo autistic cosmologist with negative social skills and let's see if philosophy is that great

[Anonymous No.10586504]

>all corporate slaves ITT

[Anonymous No.10586505]

>>10586406
if you want to learn philosophy you can do much better than watching pseudo-intellectual youtube "debates"
i bet there are good youtube channels out there that treat philosophy, but nothing beats reading it for yourself, but i understand time is scarce

[Anonymous No.10586509]

>>10586464
What would happen?
> turbo autistic cosmologist
Why cosmologist? And I feel like Zizek is kinda autistic ... but probably not turbo.

[Anonymous No.10586553]

>>10586464
Is this another flavor of
> muh empiricism
> IFLS
> i don't understand metaphysics
?

Search for metaphysics and empiricism in this thread. I've posted some good stuff. This position is naive as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10587162]

>>10582059
I agree with bill nye. I also both love and hate the futility of contemplating existence. It may be both the single most fruitless and fruitful act in all of human history.

[Anonymous No.10588304]

>>10582967
>Lifesaving medicines are meaningless shite and valueless
Okay, have fun trying to cure a cold or pneumonia with metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.10588699]

>>10588304
>Okay, have fun trying to cure a cold or pneumonia with metaphysics.
I think nobody has ever argued that they can do science with only metaphysics. It is simply a strawman. Hear that? What's that?
> It's me, that protein model on your picture. I've heard they absolutely needed to use a lot of metaphysics to make me, and it might be that parts of me actually IS metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.10588710]

>>10575332
Realize that philosophy is a subset of things the mind is capable of, and therefore a model of mind that cannot compass that fact, isn't a real model.

[Anonymous No.10588727]

>>10582967
>while capturing one one-millionth of the value you create.

Ergo, if a pharma scientist makes $60k/year, you're arguing that they're producing 60 billion in revenue for their company?

[Anonymous No.10588729]

>>10588699
>I've heard they absolutely needed to use a lot of metaphysics to make me

No, they just used xray crystallography

[Anonymous No.10588742]

Not surprised he lost. Peterson is nice to listen to but when he gets out of psych he tends to keep talking the same way when he has no qualifications on the subject whatsoever

[Anonymous No.10588756]

>>10576021
You admit that philosophy isn't science, so why is this brainlet thread on /sci/? Saying "peterson is a scientist with 12000 citations" doesn't mean this thread is science related at all. I could ask /sci/ about a recipe Jordan Peterson made for lunch, does that mean the thread belongs in /sci/? In the example I have given you, that thread should go to /ck/. Can't believe I have to dumb it down so much for you people. There's no way your IQs are over 95.

[Anonymous No.10588770]

>>10575339
so you have to ""win"" to have a debate?

[Anonymous No.10588772]

>>10577318
Sounds accurate based on the brief amount I watched. I closed the video when Zizek went on his retarded rant about how religion makes people evil.

[Anonymous No.10588775]

>>10588729
> xray crystallography
Tell me, where do that shit come from? Where do the tools used to make and run that shit come from? What are those tools? Unfold the whole development of this machine to me, trace it tens or hundreds of years back, including all the mental labour of the people involved.
> Inb4 I do not understand what metaphysics is, I literally think metaphysics does not exist per definition, and therefore everything I can think of automatically does not belong to the category of the metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.10588816]

>>10582861
Science is a method. An effective method as it demands one test again and again, gather the data and formulate conclusions on the world based on actually looking at it. While this method has its limits, all methods do. The greatest ability science has is that it admits it is wrong. That "weakness" is not a weakness. Evolution is all about adaptability. Ideologies, religions and such lack that adaptability. Yet science being a method and not a formulation for a social structure, means when it comes to say, how societies organize themselves ideally we have yet to find objective conclusions.

And I'm not entirely sure we ever will, the ability to cloud reality in misdirection and manufactured disinformation is something that our current era has in spades. Empiricism is not a rapid process- one can make up arguments to win arguments on the spot. Making, researching and finding conclusions is not nearly as easy. This is not helped by how scientific studies are limited by what gets funded as is.

That is where the question of belief nd ideology comes in. Which beliefs and political ideology is most symbiotic with science? Communism and fascism both have been ultimately extremely limited in what science gets done. There's simply too much favoritism and as one would expect, the only experimentation done is the experimentation the ruling country wants to be done.

Liberal societies for a bit seemed effective, they too ran into the problem of being influenced by the interests of those with power down certain directions. You end up with self declared people spreading outdated information as if it is the gospel, people who seize on one study that confirms their biases despite no replicability and that is before even thinking of the Dr. Oz types of the world.

That leaves a question than, what system is most ideal for scientific advancement? It is very open ended, but it is one that matters.

[Anonymous No.10588818]

>>10588775
Bullshit asymmetry principle: you're allowed to off-handedly claim that 'metaphysics' is why that picture exists, with no real justification. Whereas, I'm obligated to unfold the complete history of modern science so that you can change the goalposts to something that's way, way older than actual protein structure. Eat my dick.

[Anonymous No.10588822]

>>10588818
The thing is, science is a method. It isn't a worldview beyond the empirical thinking and critical reasoning required to engage in scientific thought.

What you are discussing sounds like rationalism more than science.

[Anonymous No.10588950]

>>10588818
>claim that 'metaphysics' is why that picture exists
I firmly believe that the picture would not exist without the help of metaphysics, but I do not claim that metaphysics is the only the thing was needed, far from it!
> off-handedly
It may seem like it for a person that do not understand what metaphysics is, but it follows quite readily when you do. Let me give you an example. Mathematics mostly is metaphysics, and if you used mathematics to make it, then you used metaphysics. Arguing against metaphysics in science is like arguing against the use of mathematics in science. I mean, it might be possible to do science without mathematics ... but I bet some other metaphysical process would take its place in no time. I believe the metaphysical is integral to human thinking, hence science cannot exist without metaphysics, at least not for humans right now. I can agree that it might not be needed in principle, i.e. we can teach an unconscious machine to perform the scientific method, but we are not there yet. And if we can do that, then that machine rests on hundreds of years of work reliant on the metaphysical, and our concept of that method itself is metaphysical.
>>10588818
> science is a method. It isn't a worldview beyond the empirical thinking and critical reasoning required to engage in scientific thought.
For science to work right now: Pure empiricism is not enough. Pure rationalism is not enough. It might sound like a meme, but we need both, and that is how science has worked and continues to work. The claim that there is no metaphysics in science is simply false.
>What you are discussing sounds like rationalism more than science.
Metaphysics is closely related to rationalism. Rationalist thinking often relies on manipulating metaphysical objects.

[Anonymous No.10588960]

>>10588818
> asymmetry principle
Kind of, but I am doing out of love, fren.

[Anonymous No.10588971]

Scientific results are often abstractions that live in the metaphysical realm. The same often goes for hypothesis and scientific theories. I can emphasize with people not wanting to have the fuzzy metaphysical in their scientific process, but the ultimate redpill of metaphysics is that it is integral to the results of that method as well.

[Anonymous No.10589065]

>>10588971
> the ultimate redpill of metaphysics is that it is integral to the results of that method as well
Meant to say:
The ultimate redpill of science is that metaphysics is not only integral to the scientific process, but to the results of that process as well.

[Anonymous No.10589097]

>>10585713
Shit, didn't see this reply to my post before now, guess you got sad and angry that I didn't reply to you :'(
>My main point is that nature is there and things happens without a will, without conciouness, whitout a why.
Yeah, and that point do not accomplish what you think it does. That there are things in nature incapable of visiting the metaphysical realm does not imply that the human activity of studying these things do not. At least not in the past and currently. The rest of your post is just delusional yelling at strawmen.