Jordan B Peterson goes full retard

06-27-2018, 11:18 AM

-

#61

nzgs
who is john galt?

nzgs
who is john galt?

Join Date: Nov 2008

Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)

Posts: 14,238

Rep Power: 17400

Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩

There just isnt anything deep or profound about such statements.....they are merely the substance of definition. Definitions, themselves, are of course arbitrary, and are just games of words. Why there are people eating this stuff up boggles the mind.

There is a lot of babble out there in the subject of philosophy unfortunately.

I'm an atheist but what he posted isn't hard to understand. Peterson believes that the entirety of your behaviour and thinking (presumption, perception, action) is based on non-arbitrary personal values, these values are derived from evolutionary biology and he believes the origin of this is God. For example the value of fair play manifests in our presumptions, perceptions and actions. This value is older than even human life, it has evolved in our distant evolutionary ancestors, and he believes that the "mode of being" in valuing fair play is an expression of God rather than a modern social invention.

I cringe when people who can't understand simple statements like this meltdown into OMG RETARD LOLOLOL.

06-27-2018, 11:18 AM

-

#62

Actonspur
Registered User

Actonspur
Registered User

Join Date: May 2013

Age: 42

Posts: 3,057

Rep Power: 3043

Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩

IMO, he's not very good at explaining deep concepts to those that aren't on the same level. I've seen a lot of highly intelligent people fall into that trap and only a few that don't. It's almost painful to watch these people drone on to someone that isn't on their level for 10 minutes while the other person just stares at them like deer in the headlights.

I had the pleasure of working with a guy that was one of the smartest individuals (engineer/scientist) I've ever met. What amazed me most though was his ability to convey ideas to even the most ignorant and unlearned people.

One of the reasons i think Jesus/Christianity was so successful was that complex ideas were often made more palatable with parables and stories so that anyone could understand.

Largely agree. Feynman is a great example of that.

I think listening to Peterson live would be almost entirely useless. Whenever I listen to him speak I have to rewatch parts up to 3 times to try and grasp the nuances of what he is saying. Its surprising he has gained as much traction as he has, in light of how esoteric his explanations are. However make no mistake about it, he is saying some incredibly important/deep chit about the world/humanity and it is worth listening to, even if you have to rewind it 3 times.

06-27-2018, 11:25 AM

-

#63

Actonspur
Registered User

Actonspur
Registered User

Join Date: May 2013

Age: 42

Posts: 3,057

Rep Power: 3043

Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩

If you shut down and turn away just because the word "religious" or "spiritual" pops out ... then you're missing out big time on loads of great stuff and severely limiting yourself.

I'm not a huge fan of organized religion in general. But you can't deny that it was also instrumental in recording and passing down knowledge (monks & literacy & books & universities) throughout the ages. Heck, it was a catholic priest/scientist that came up with the "Big Bang" theory. Peterson is neither on one side or the other... he's just a seeker of knowledge/wisdom/truth.

It is one of the great misnomers of our time, that those that are religious, in any sense of the word, are idiots.

With the enlightenment came the West largely turning their backs on religion and this has become something of a misguided benchmark for determining intelligence in the modern world, i.e. if youre religious youre an idiot that believes in fairy stories. I at one time subscribed to that view and would internally pour scorn on those that were overtly religious.

While there is some truth to that view, it is infinitely more complex than that. I have found that as I have become more learned I have moved back towards some form of theism and the most intelligent people I know, at least respect the concept of religion and realise there is a lot more to it than whether you believe in an old man sitting on a cloud or not.

06-27-2018, 11:29 AM

-

#64

Aristotelian
Positive Mental Attitude

Aristotelian
Positive Mental Attitude

Join Date: Jun 2017

Posts: 12,849

Rep Power: 263689

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

'Done properly'.

That's the point that you will find massive amounts of disagreement on. I'm curious what you mean by that?

Disagreements have been raging for centuries upon centuries.

It's no coincidence that Aristotle provided one of the most important worksin historyon what the happiest human life consists of, and that he worked on mathematics and logic. I think there are a number of STEM minded persons out there who would take a giant chit on a lot of modern philosophy (including moral) for not 'being done right', because it represents intellectual masturbation far more than what it once was. Though this applies to quite a bit of modern academia.

06-27-2018, 11:29 AM

-

#65

UnclRuckus
No relation

UnclRuckus
No relation

Join Date: Apr 2015

Location: inb4 quote, Sweden

Age: 34

Posts: 3,871

Rep Power: 15862

Yeah, the tragedy of Peterson is that to really grasp his philosophy on religion and the importance of religious symbolism and narrative structures you basically have to read at leastan entire bookor sit through an entire lecture series, which amounts to like 10+ hours of work.

If you don't do that and only read quotes from his twitter rambles or listen to soundbytes you wont understand what he's saying at all. You will however understand the more straight-forward RP/'sort yourself out' stuff, that has nothing to do with his actual work, but is more easily digestible.

So people think JBP is just some guy that tells incels to clean their room, that men and women are different, and that's all there is and then they dismiss him and all his followers as bigots/racists/sexists/incels/people who can't clean their rooms/etc.

No bitch just because that's the only thing he said that you understood doesn't mean it's all there is to him. Tragic really but not a lot he can do, a lot of his ideas are much too sophisticated and nuanced to quickly grasp and thus won't ever appeal to the ADHD twitter/tumblr/outrage crowd. He should just get off twitter completely tbh.

Without the internet i feel like a small rock on the mountain.

I don't really want my posts on the internet tbh ... I'm just legit addicted to posting ... people become addicted to the internet look it up

06-27-2018, 11:42 AM

-

#66

Actonspur
Registered User

Actonspur
Registered User

Join Date: May 2013

Age: 42

Posts: 3,057

Rep Power: 3043

Originally Posted By midcoastking33⏩

he is the prototypical stupid man's smart person. like clockwork all you get is "you misappropriate his argument" "you take what he's saying out of context". here's a thought: there is no context, and there is no argument from his camp. ever. it's purposely vague word salad

I agree with the criticism of the way he formulates and verbalizes his arguments. They often come out as a stream of consciousness with very little evidence of cogent thought but I am of the opinion that that is just the idiosyncrasies of his brain. Not everyone thinks the same way and not everyone verbalizes their thoughts in a common manner. Some of the greatest minds have suffered from these problems. Does that mean Peterson is supremely intelligent, no. Does it mean hes an idiot, equally no.

I do totally disagree with the fact he has no argument. I think since he has come to prominence he has highlighted some absolutely key arguments that have served as a crucial lightning rod for others who have similar thoughts but havent been able to articulate them. Some of those arguments are but not limited to:

1) Language is incredibly important in a functioning Western democracy and while it is right for governments to force you to not use certain phrases in certain circumstances, it is a whole different ball game when governments try to force you TO USE certain phrases in certain circumstances.

2) The massive increase in far left, post modernist identity politics, most notably in the universities which we are seeing pervading the MSM now.

3) The absolute nonsense of the patriarchy and social constructivism.

4) The removal of the church as the glue which holds society together, which as Dostoevsky predicted, would lead to nihilism or tyranny, or both. Something which we ignore at our peril as the 20th century has shown us.

So while I agree his arguments are often enveloped in largely impenetrable language, to say he has no argument is just evidently incorrect.

06-27-2018, 11:48 AM

-

#67

CulturalDecay
Registered User

CulturalDecay
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2017

Age: 43

Posts: 3,737

Rep Power: 50713

Originally Posted By faxanadu⏩

I'm intelligent, love quotes, and love deep chit ... but what he posted is just a little too much. I prefer chit like:

"Solitude did increase my perception. But here’s the tricky thing—when I applied my increased perception to myself, I lost my identity. With no audience, no one to perform for, I was just there. There was no need to define myself; I became irrelevant. The moon was the minute hand, the seasons the hour hand. I didn’t even have a name. I never felt lonely. To put it romantically: I was completely free." - North Pond Hermit

"I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I am." - Cooley

Oh please, don't post wannabe hippy BS. Go watch recent interviews of Jim Carrey to see where this thought process will lead you.

06-27-2018, 11:53 AM

-

#68

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By Actonspur⏩

However make no mistake about it, he is saying some incredibly important/deep chit about the world/humanity and it is worth listening to, even if you have to rewind it 3 times.

Don't get me wrong... To each their own, but...

I've never been as impressed with Peterson as much as other people seem to be.

When I listened to him talk about the value and lessons of Myths and Religion, it just immediately reminded me of Joseph Campbell and Loyal Rue's analysis of myths and religion. (Albeit far more intellectually worded than those 2.)

His arguments against modern feminism, I've heard articulated before by people like Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers.

His views on postmodernism, seem to be a flat out bad interpretations, based on what I've heard (and the little I know about people like Foucault). IMO he seems to massively oversimplify postmodernism. He doesn't seem to be honest, and say that postmodernist philosophers confuse even postmodernists. Derrida is renowned for be incredibly difficult to decipher.

Peterson presents their ideas as easy; eg. they believe in and promote relativism.

As far as I can tell (at it's best) postmodernism was about analysis the presuppositions regarding notions of truth and power. Foucault seemed to argue that power wasn't just top down, nor could it be bottom up (eg. Marxism), but that power was a product of various interactions, institutions and presuppositions within a society.

He also seems to portray the end result of postmodernism of inevitably being Chaos or relativism, when in my case (and I'm sure others) it can lead philosophically to Pragmatism.

"Pragmatism considers thought as an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.[3] Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes. The philosophy of pragmatism "emphasizes the practical application of ideas by acting on them to actually test them in human experiences".[4] Pragmatism focuses on a "changing universe rather than an unchanging one as the Idealists, Realists and Thomists had claimed".[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

His views on 'cultural Marxism' I've concluded myself are oversimplified, based on being far left myself (though not a Marxist) and having taken the time to learn the basics of; Marxism, the History of Marxist thought, and the Frankfurt School.

I'm not saying he's bad, stupid or worthless. I'm honestly surprised at how peopleseem(I could be wrong) to think that all his perspectives are unique.

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 11:58 AM

-

#69

DrewDarden

DrewDarden

Join Date: Nov 2016

Posts: 23,018

Subscribers: 5

Rep Power: 508455

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

When I listened to him talk about the value and lessons of Myths and Religion, it just immediately reminded me of Joseph Campbell and Loyal Rue's analysis of myths and religion. (Albeit far more intellectually worded than those 2.)

I'm not very familiar with Loyal Rue, but I am quite familiar with Joseph Campbell. I read his bookThe Hero with a Thousand Faces.

I think much of the reason Peterson seems to echo Campbell so much is that they both had a fascination with Carl Jung, who wrote relentlessly on the topic of (the psychology of) mythology and religion. The same may be true of Rue, who I'm going to look into after this. I see he has a ton of video online I can view.

As far as whether or not most of the people who read Peterson's books think they're the first of their kinds, I can't speak to that.

Misc Lifting Crew (Team Lead)

06-27-2018, 12:01 PM

-

#70

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩

It's no coincidence that Aristotle provided one of the most important worksin historyon what the happiest human life consists of, and that he worked on mathematics and logic.I think there are a number of STEM minded persons out there who would take a giant chit on a lot of modern philosophy (including moral) for not 'being done right', because it represents intellectual masturbation far more than what it once was.

Have you seen this?

Pretty much what you are talking about was attempted by Scientists Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker in a debate with philosophers Simon Blackburn, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Singer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBUWmXZv6Xg

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 12:04 PM

-

#71

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By DrewDarden⏩

The same may be true of Rue, who I'm going to look into after this. I see he has a ton of video online I can view.

This was my intro to Loyal Rue...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH493NsM31Y

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 12:05 PM

-

#72

JUSA
No Agony, No Bragony

JUSA
No Agony, No Bragony

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Texas

Posts: 50,517

Rep Power: 458793

Originally Posted By midcoastking33⏩

there you go with the bad faith arguments again. when did i ever say i was for feminism or "identity politics", which is just a 4chan buzzword at this point. classic cookie cutter response that i was just talking about

To clarify, I never said you were against him because he was against those reddit-leaning things, I just said it'slikely.

However, I'm also someone who generally tries to be forthright and intellectually honest, so while I didn't outright say it was fact, it was implied heavily. If you are now saying you are neutral or against those things, that would eliminate them as reasons why you would also hold a grudge against Peterson and I would also address my earlier comments in a correct way.

To be clear, I'd back off you being a redditor crying, if you stated you're not a feminist or ally or into identity politics. The rest of my statements hold up, though. You stated things that I've seen to be untrue.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

06-27-2018, 12:13 PM

-

#73

Actonspur
Registered User

Actonspur
Registered User

Join Date: May 2013

Age: 42

Posts: 3,057

Rep Power: 3043

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

Don't get me wrong... To each their own, but...

I've never been as impressed with Peterson as much as other people seem to be.

When I listened to him talk about the value and lessons of Myths and Religion, it just immediately reminded me of Joseph Campbell and Loyal Rue's analysis of myths and religion. (Albeit far more intellectually worded than those 2.)

His arguments against modern feminism, I've heard articulated before by people like Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers.

His views on postmodernism, seem to be a flat out bad interpretations, based on what I've heard (and the little I know about people like Foucault). IMO he seems to massively oversimplify postmodernism. He doesn't seem to be honest, and say that postmodernist philosophers confuse even postmodernists. Derrida is renowned for be incredibly difficult to decipher.

Peterson presents their ideas as easy; eg. they believe in and promote relativism.

As far as I can tell (at it's best) postmodernism was about analysis the presuppositions regarding notions of truth and power. Foucault seemed to argue that power wasn't just top down, nor could it be bottom up (eg. Marxism), but that power was a product of various interactions, institutions and presuppositions within a society.

He also seems to portray the end result of postmodernism of inevitably being Chaos or relativism, when in my case (and I'm sure others) it can lead philosophically to Pragmatism.

"Pragmatism considers thought as an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality.[3] Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes. The philosophy of pragmatism "emphasizes the practical application of ideas by acting on them to actually test them in human experiences".[4] Pragmatism focuses on a "changing universe rather than an unchanging one as the Idealists, Realists and Thomists had claimed".[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

His views on 'cultural Marxism' I've concluded myself are oversimplified, based on being far left myself (though not a Marxist) and having taken the time to learn the basics of; Marxism, the History of Marxist thought, and the Frankfurt School.

I'm not saying he's bad, stupid or worthless. I'm honestly surprised at how peopleseem(I could be wrong) to think that all his perspectives are unique.

Interesting points.

The only conjecture I would offer is to your last point. I dont think anyone thinks that his perspectives are unique; lets be honest, no ones are. We all build on the shoulders of others. In Physics; Dirac built on Heisenburg, who built on Bohr, who built on Planck etc etc ad infinitum. And even that would be the most grossly oversimplified analysis.

I dont think anyone is saying Peterson's thoughts are unique but he brought them to the fore in a way that others simply have been unable to do. In my view the reason why is one of courage. While many may have had these thoughts they have been kowtowed by the rabid character assassinations of the left. Peterson was the first person to really stand up to that in full public view and say no, I dont care what insults you throw, I think I am right and I am sticking to it. It is easy for us to sit here and say that is nothing remarkable but imo that takes a quasi-super human level of courage.

06-27-2018, 12:23 PM

-

#74

DDSF1
Better than you

DDSF1
Better than you

Join Date: Dec 2016

Posts: 27,860

Rep Power: 260144

Originally Posted By wincel⏩

Philosophy done properly pretty much amounts to either math or some type of science.

absolute bullchit

it is not a coincidence that when the obsession with logic took over in philosophy, is when feminism and atheism entered. Today, most philosophy professors are very logical liberals. They have proof of how communism is correct, women are superior to men ("male" profs push this lol"), and it is more probable, or fact, that God does not exist.

06-27-2018, 12:25 PM

-

#75

numberguy12
Registered User

numberguy12
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2017

Posts: 6,938

Rep Power: 51915

Originally Posted By nzgs⏩

I'm an atheist but what he posted isn't hard to understand. Peterson believes that the entirety of your behaviour and thinking (presumption, perception, action) is based on non-arbitrary personal values, these values are derived from evolutionary biology and he believes the origin of this is God. For example the value of fair play manifests in our presumptions, perceptions and actions. This value is older than even human life, it has evolved in our distant evolutionary ancestors, and he believes that the "mode of being" in valuing fair play is an expression of God rather than a modern social invention.

I cringe when people who can't understand simple statements like this meltdown into OMG RETARD LOLOLOL.

Never said the quote was hard to understand, although the words he is using are rather imprecise ("being" is a word that's been argued about for a few thousand years and counting for example) . I'm saying it just doesn't have much substance at all (and remember, this is my opinion). Neither do the sentences in your post attempting to explain it. If anything, his quote here is an attempt at an arbitrary definition of the term God, which is has no real truth value. Contrast

"God is the mode of being you value the most as demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception and action."

with statements like

"there are 4 people in that room at this moment"
"the sun is bigger than the earth"
"every nonconstant, single variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root"
"the square root of 2 is an irrational number"

I think most would agree that the latter statements tend to have at least some truth value in a sense....you can look them say, "hey, that's true", or "hey, that's false" (even though the nature of the first two is very different than the last two...there is still that common element). Would anyone similarly look at Peterson's quote and say...hey, that's true? What would that even mean? Definitions dont have truth value.

It's like me defining a new term, lets just call it "kduirctje". I define it, as follows:

"kduirctje is anything that is 1)is an automobile, 2) has the color blue somewhere on its exterior 3) has CVT for transmission, and 4) has 2 doors"

The above is not meaningful, it is just an arbitrary definition. This is more or less what Peterson's quote on God is. There would, alternatively, be arguably some truth value to claims such as "there is at least one kduirctje in the world at this moment", or "my friend John drives a kduirctje", etc. Note the difference.

∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑

♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮

Nullius in verba

06-27-2018, 12:25 PM

-

#76

faxanadu
Registered User

faxanadu
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2009

Location: Texas, United States

Posts: 13,123

Rep Power: 54413

Originally Posted By CulturalDecay⏩

Oh please, don't post wannabe hippy BS. Go watch recent interviews of Jim Carrey to see where this thought process will lead you.

Congrats for cherry picking one conflicted person to represent two quotes entirely unrelated. Confirmation bias a bit?

"There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle." -Gym Jones
"The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

?start=(#seconds)

TAMU Corps
Skydiving
Great Divide Mountain Bike Route (Jasper AB to Juarez MX) 2014
Appalachian Trail 2013

06-27-2018, 12:33 PM

-

#77

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By Actonspur⏩

I dont think anyone is saying Peterson's thoughts are unique but he brought them to the fore in a way that others simply have been unable to do. In my view the reason why is one of courage. While many may have had these thoughts they have been kowtowed by the rabid character assassinations of the left. Peterson was the first person to really stand up to that in full public view and say no, I dont care what insults you throw, I think I am right and I am sticking to it. It is easy for us to sit here and say that is nothing remarkable but imo that takes a quasi-super human level of courage.

Yeah, I agree that his stance regarding a proposed 'pronoun bill' was what catapulted him into mainstream attention.

He (very cleverly) built his popularity from that, and began introducing his other ideas. Maps of meaning had been around since '99, but it was the controversy regarding the 'pronoun bill' that introduced his ideas to the masses.

It happens a lot recently IME, conservative media heavily promoting people who are willing to publicly present conservative views, eg: Candace Owens, Lindsey Shepard, and James Damore. Whilst those I just mentioned seem to continue to try to build their name around one issue, Peterson also presented his views on; Feminism, Myth, Religion, Christianity, Marxism, Postmodernism, Cultural Analysis, and Personal development.

I disagree that he was the first person to do it in public view, I just think it was good timing (ie. Transgenderism has been thrust into the spotlight these past few years), help from conservative media, and a good PR campaign.

For example: Warren Farrell has been publicly criticizing 3rd wave feminism since the 1980s. I think the difference is that he's liberal. So he's hated by conservatives, and by liberals - he's said that himself - because he doesn't agree with liberals regarding 3rd wave feminism.

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 12:49 PM

-

#78

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By DDSF1⏩

absolute bullchit

it is not a coincidence that when the obsession with logic took over in philosophy, is when feminism and atheism entered. Today, most philosophy professors are very logical liberals. They have proof of how communism is correct, women are superior to men ("male" profs push this lol"), and it is more probable, or fact, that God does not exist.

I think I see your point.

You can't make a purely logical argument to value tradition, or to have traditionalist values. Attachment to tradition is based on sentiment, not logic. At best, you can make an appeal to pragmatism, when trying to appeal to rationality.

You can't make a purely logical argument to value authority. Again at best, you can make an appeal to pragmatism.

Honestly IMO (and I'm a theist, who is an ex atheist) most of the logical arguments for God's existence can be credibly argued against, logically. I used to do it all the time.

I remember reading this from author Marc Macyoung: "Logic makes sure that an argument is consistent, not necessarily that it's true." I agree with him.

How you 'win' a debate using logic, is only if you use the person's premises or their values. However, if their own values and premises can't be directed towards your own conclusion, then you have to 'tricks' by blurring the inconsistency of your argument. (I've done it to people, and I watch people try to do it to me all the time.)IMO a very strict logical debate, pretty much reads like an academic philosophy text book... Inhuman.

Logic is only one facet of the scientific method. Observation and Experiment are crucial to forming conclusions, in the scientific method.

"Doctor Who: All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?

Davros: Perfectly.

Doctor Who: You know what a human would say to that?

Davros: What?

Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink.

Davros: Humans do not understand logic."

One of the most useful things I learned in my reading of western philosophy was the 'is-ought' problem, I realized that a lot of people were 'sneaky' in their arguments. That they were presupposing values, and encouraging me to agree with their values, in order to make their logical argument.

I also came to the conclusion that a person's values are changed non-rationally, even if they think it's due to 'logic'. Something which Fascists, Advertisers understand brilliantly.

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 12:52 PM

-

#79

bartosh
Registered Nerd

bartosh
Registered Nerd

Join Date: Apr 2010

Posts: 11,559

Rep Power: 77338

I'm not really a fan of how he redefines words to fit his belief system.

God is not some abstract concept. That's what he thinks it is sure but for 99.9999% of people that's not what God is defined as. He's more than welcome to create his own religion but he's not going to change what christianity is and has been since it's inspection just because he sees a deeper meaning in religion that all core religions share.

He also redefines truth as roughly "what is good for humanity/society". I can't wrap my head around that. Truth is what is factually correct(as far as we can tell) and him redefining what he thinks truth is doesn't make factually correct things untrue just because they're not good for humanity. He does this pretty often.

The dude is a better debater than me and a more intelligent psychologist (edit: whoops). obviously but I disagree pretty strongly with his "word re-defining to win argument" style.

Also, he dodges any actual challenging debaters/questions and spends most of his time destroying easy news anchors. He didn't answer a single actual challenging question on his reddit AMA[sure reddit sucks w/e but the point of an ama is to answeranything].

MS, Computer Science
Feel free to PM me CS questions

06-27-2018, 12:55 PM

-

#80

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By bartosh⏩

He also redefines truth as roughly "what is good for humanity/society". I can't wrap my head around that.

Sounds like Pragmatism. Richard Rorty is a good source for explaining the philosophy of pragmatism.

"Pragmatism considers thought as an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Sounds like... I doubt JP is a pragmatist, because then he would be too similar in perspective to a lot of the postmodernists that he seems to hate so much.

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 12:58 PM

-

#81

DrewDarden

DrewDarden

Join Date: Nov 2016

Posts: 23,018

Subscribers: 5

Rep Power: 508455

Originally Posted By bartosh⏩

He also redefines truth as roughly "what is good for humanity/society". I can't wrap my head around that. Truth is what is factually correct and him redefining what he things truth is doesn't make factually correct things untrue just because they're not good for humanity. He does this pretty often.

Actually his argument is that it was the people of the Enlightenment who re-defined what is truth. He would say that we have all been trained to be scientists who think in terms of the scientific method.

So to the modern man, the coffee cup is a concave, brown object made of glass with a round handle.

But to a man who lived before the Enlightenment, it was a nice place to store your liquid items.

Which one of those things are true? Why can't they both be true? Has one or the other "re-defined" truth?

Misc Lifting Crew (Team Lead)

06-27-2018, 12:58 PM

-

#82

Actonspur
Registered User

Actonspur
Registered User

Join Date: May 2013

Age: 42

Posts: 3,057

Rep Power: 3043

Originally Posted By bartosh⏩

I'm not really a fan of how he redefines words to fit his belief system.

God is not some abstract concept. That's what he thinks it is sure but for 99.9999% of people that's not what God is defined as. He's more than welcome to create his own religion but he's not going to change what christianity is and has been since it's inspection just because he sees a deeper meaning in religion that all core religions share.

He also redefines truth as roughly "what is good for humanity/society". I can't wrap my head around that. Truth is what is factually correct(as far as we can tell) and him redefining what he thinks truth is doesn't make factually correct things untrue just because they're not good for humanity. He does this pretty often.

The dude is a better debater than me and a more intelligent physiologist obviously but I disagree pretty strongly with his "word re-defining to win argument" style.

Also, he dodges any actual challenging debaters/questions and spends most of his time destroying easy news anchors. He didn't answer a single actual challenging question on his reddit AMA[sure reddit sucks w/e but the point of an ama is to answeranything].

Out of interest who would you consider a challenging debater from the left/liberal side.

06-27-2018, 12:59 PM

-

#83

wincel
Banned

wincel
Banned

Join Date: Aug 2016

Location: Chad

Posts: 64,937

Rep Power: 0

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

'Done properly'.

That's the point that you will find massive amounts of disagreement on. I'm curious what you mean by that?

Disagreements have been raging for centuries upon centuries.

By "done properly", I mean carefully defining terms and using logic or experimental evidence to make statements about the terms. For example, many philosophers often concern themselves with the question of objective reality, and whether a tree falls if nobody observes it. Well, quantum theory has an answer to that question depending on the interpretation. Philosophy can give an interpretation to some scientific theories, and it is here that it may have some value, but even then, it necessarily must not affect the outcome of any calculation. So, philosophy in these cases amounts to speculation about untestable things.

When philosophy is done properly, it becomes science or math. Everything else is an attempt to piece together what we observe and fathom. And most of the stuff beyond science and math will never make sense. After all, if it made logical sense, it would be math, and if it were empirically observed, it would be science.

This is not to say philosophy has no value. For example, we often turn to philosophy to inform our choices of ethics. However, most ethical questions can be recast within the framework of game theory, biology, and economics. I love philosophy. I just think most philosophers today talk themselves into absurdities.

Examples of garbage philosophy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Examples of good philosophy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riet...utnam_argument
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löwe...Skolem_theorem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göde...eness_theorems
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend

06-27-2018, 01:00 PM

-

#84

Aristotelian
Positive Mental Attitude

Aristotelian
Positive Mental Attitude

Join Date: Jun 2017

Posts: 12,849

Rep Power: 263689

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

Have you seen this?

Pretty much what you are talking about was attempted by Scientists Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker in a debate with philosophers Simon Blackburn, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Singer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBUWmXZv6Xg

You're talking past me. My username is derived from an admiration of Aristotle's particular contribution to philosophy in the classical sense - the love of knowledge. I call out modern philosophy for a simple fact - the average philosophy article is read about 3 times, including by the person(s) reviewing it for a journal. And when you consider how many timesFamine, Affluence and Moralityhas been read, that makes most modern 'contributions' to philosophy utterly useless.

And I'm actually a student of Mathematics that found something in Aristotle through classic logic...a side passion of mine. While I can admire the intellects of some contemporary philosophers, I'm still not willing to believe that their contributions are anything special. I realize how crass and dismissive that sounds, and Peter Singer is something of an exception, but...philosophy of language? Epistemology? I'm serious when I say intellectual masturbation.

Finally, having said all this, I wasn't trying to say that philosophy (where valuable) is entirely reducible to mathematics. I don't think that was wincel's intention either - I think the point is that the pursuit of philosophy as a rigorous intellectual exercise resembles mathematics, and vice versa. And that was my point when I said Aristotle worked on mathematics, physics, philosophy (including ethics) etc. because he was one of the most brilliant persons in human history, and I have no qualms comparing him to physicists or mathematicians either. None ofthemwould disrespect Aristotle's contributions, either.

06-27-2018, 01:06 PM

-

#85

bartosh
Registered Nerd

bartosh
Registered Nerd

Join Date: Apr 2010

Posts: 11,559

Rep Power: 77338

Originally Posted By Actonspur⏩

Out of interest who would you consider a challenging debater from the left/liberal side.

I have no idea because I don't spend much time in this...field(?). I just watched jordan peterson because initially he had some interesting ideas but after watching 20ish hours of his content, I started disagreeing with a lot of what he says.

I'd say a challenging debater just needs to fit the following criteria:
- doesn't fixate on peterson's statements regarding the canadian bill and try to cherrypick to make it look like he's saying something he wasn't. half of his interviews are asking if he hates transgender people.
- have actual arguments of their own and not just click-bait counters to peterson's popular points that try to paint him as a bigot/racist/sexist.
- address peterson's point without the use of fallacies.

I'm sure there's at least one person on the left that is capable of this but i have yet to see it. to me, it's far more likely that he cherry picks who he argues against rather than good debaters, well versed in psychology, don't exist on the left. I get it though. going against news anchors who typically have a meh journalism background and not decades of psych experience allow him to paint himself as god-tier knowledge holder with no holes in his arguments as well as give him more exposure through cable tv than a youtube debate video

MS, Computer Science
Feel free to PM me CS questions

06-27-2018, 01:07 PM

-

#86

DrewDarden

DrewDarden

Join Date: Nov 2016

Posts: 23,018

Subscribers: 5

Rep Power: 508455

Originally Posted By bartosh⏩

I have no idea because I don't spend much time in this...field(?)

I think everybody noticed when you called him a physiologist.

Misc Lifting Crew (Team Lead)

06-27-2018, 01:10 PM

-

#87

bartosh
Registered Nerd

bartosh
Registered Nerd

Join Date: Apr 2010

Posts: 11,559

Rep Power: 77338

Originally Posted By DrewDarden⏩

I think everybody noticed when you called him a physiologist.

I meant psychologist obviously. I mistyped and autocorrected it to the wrong term.

MS, Computer Science
Feel free to PM me CS questions

06-27-2018, 01:17 PM

-

#88

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By wincel⏩

By "done properly", I mean carefully defining terms and using logic or experimental evidence to make statements about the terms. For example, many philosophers often concern themselves with the question of objective reality, and whether a tree falls if nobody observes it. Well, quantum theory has an answer to that question depending on the interpretation. Philosophy can give an interpretation to some scientific theories, and it is here that it may have some value, but even then, it necessarily must not affect the outcome of any calculation. So, philosophy in these cases amounts to speculation about untestable things.

When philosophy is done properly, it becomes science or math.Everything else is an attempt to piece together what we observe and fathom. And most of the stuff beyond science and math will never make sense. After all, if it made logical sense, it would be math, and if it were empirically observed, it would be science.

Have you considered that some things are outside of the scope of the scientific method and logic?

This is not to say philosophy has no value. For example, we often turn to philosophy to inform our choices of ethics.However, most ethical questions can be recast within the framework of game theory, biology, and economics.

I take you agree with Sam Harris about developing a science of morality?

Regarding economics...

I really don't value that science that much, I'll tell you why.

In 07/08, there was a global economic meltdown. As you know, it almost brought a number of countries to it's knees, some countries are still suffering financially.

Out of the thousands of people with economics degrees, studying economics, or the hundreds of economics professors around the world...

(I checked) there approximately a dozen on public record predicting the meltdown before it happened.

The interesting thing... They were from conflicting schools of thought. Literally directly contradictory in some areas.

(I'll just present 3 that I'm most familiar with, as examples...)

Steve Keen - Monetary Circuit Theory/Hymen Minsky.

Nouriel Roubini - Neo Keynesian/Minsky.

Peter Schiff - Austrian Economics.

3 very different models of economics, and 3 economists who would strongly disagree with one another, all predicting the same thing accurately.

1) If economics was as solid as other fields of science, I would think that hundreds of Economists would be on record predicting the meltdown.

2) Contradictory models, were predictive.

3) Despite hundreds of economists, in each respective school of ecomomics (eg. Austrian economics, Closed circuit theory, etc) only 1, 2 or 3 people of the entire phuckin adherents of the school predicted it.

That is phuckin dismal IMO. And it's a reason why honestly, I don't take think that economists are the experts that they are presented to the public as.

If You Don't Like To Talk About Your Feelings, This Might Help...
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178926621

The Most Heartbreaking Thing That I've Learned About 'The Elite'.
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178536851

Bitcoin And 'The Elite' - Why Bitcoin Is Not Revolutionary
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179820783

06-27-2018, 01:23 PM

-

#89

wincel
Banned

wincel
Banned

Join Date: Aug 2016

Location: Chad

Posts: 64,937

Rep Power: 0

Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩

Never said the quote was hard to understand, although the words he is using are rather imprecise ("being" is a word that's been argued about for a few thousand years and counting for example) . I'm saying it just doesn't have much substance at all (and remember, this is my opinion). Neither do the sentences in your post attempting to explain it. If anything, his quote here is an attempt at an arbitrary definition of the term God, which is has no real truth value. Contrast

"God is the mode of being you value the most as demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception and action."

with statements like

"there are 4 people in that room at this moment"
"the sun is bigger than the earth"
"every nonconstant, single variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root"
"the square root of 2 is an irrational number"

I think most would agree that the latter statements tend to have at least some truth value in a sense....you can look them say, "hey, that's true", or "hey, that's false" (even though the nature of the first two is very different than the last two...there is still that common element). Would anyone similarly look at Peterson's quote and say...hey, that's true? What would that even mean? Definitions dont have truth value.

It's like me defining a new term, lets just call it "kduirctje". I define it, as follows:

"kduirctje is anything that is 1)is an automobile, 2) has the color blue somewhere on its exterior 3) has CVT for transmission, and 4) has 2 doors"

The above is not meaningful, it is just an arbitrary definition. This is more or less what Peterson's quote on God is. There would, alternatively, be arguably some truth value to claims such as "there is at least one kduirctje in the world at this moment", or "my friend John drives a kduirctje", etc. Note the difference.

Careful brah. The philosophers will sit there and insist that the truth value depends on your choice of axioms (they are right technically), and that ultimately nobody has any idea what they are talking about (and that's where they become trolls.).