Jordan Peterson tries to educate Sam Harris for 2 hours in philosophy

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Because most of your brain doesn't compute data that way. So it's silly to state that one is a creature of pure reason when that's obviously not the case. Your Amygdala is not 'purely rational', your limbic system is not 'purely rational' etc. Instincts are evolutionarily 'useful' but in no way a product of reason etc.
So ... if you say that sort of hyperfalsifiable shit from the premise of your argument while talking down to people expect to be called on it when you're not necessarily the smartest person in a tiny room? Ya know?

Something about the cortex being slave to the limbic system. That the cortex is forever trying to please our limbic system. Elon Musk said it so it must be true.
~11:08

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

So what part of a human being is not a part of the objective world?

I'm not sure it's possible to answer this.

 

[Lib]

I'm not sure it's possible to answer this.

And I'm sure that it is. There are certain patterns among people that are pretty evident.

What do we call objective reality anyway? Was there quantum reality before we discovered it? Everything that influences reality is part of it whether we know how it works of not.

 

[Lib]

OK, I've listened to only the first half of the debate but I find some of JP's logical outcomes contradictory and reportedly wrong on one point in particular. He says that science should only be used as a tool... But does that mean that science can't be used as a tool to influence morality of ignorance with facts? Most of the insane 'spiritual' or other beliefs have been debunked by science. For example, the nature and behavior of planets and the sun, the evolution of species, the existence of subconsciousness and ego. Recently, it was the reversible mechanisms of epigenetics, 'learned' and inheritable genetic expression, which are also involved in how we experience the world around us and respond to it. Similarly, identifying the anthropogenic factors for climate change. Also, the discoveries that some people may have sexual identity, which doesn't correspond to their genitals, and it's somehow engraved in their brain without compromising their mental health by itself. These are observations, some of them aren't fully explained, since there are many other factors but what they really show is that our convictions on certain matters, i.e. cultural relativism (in its sense that culture is more than adaptation to the environment based on rigid or flexible background) or sexual identity and preferences, should be much more relaxed. This merely gives us a tool to avoid unnecessary conflicts or negative consequences, and free our minds from pointless stereotypes and expectations. Yet, Peterson pointed out that (and I assume he referred to one of the above mentioned) scientific findings could be as harmful as a hydrogen bomb. While I don't disagree with him that western society today is getting too oppressive when trying to push forwards certain (otherwise fair imo) perspectives, I completely disagree on the notion that science should not be a decent regulator of people's morality. I think, it should be the main regulator because it's the only field which mission is to be intellectually honest in its take on reality.

I also am completely against his assumption that evolution is due to random mutations. That'd be thermodynamically impossible because even when we approach molecular thermodynamics statistically, we could still, potentially, be able to derive predictable distribution of mutations. It is worth mentioning, that my perspective is not widely accepted in science due to some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Yet, how can we prove that something is random just by not being able to find its causal connection to other events? Ironically, JP mentioned something that I find very true in this aspect. He said that the problem with science is that it leaves out what it doesn't know. Causal determinism puts everything together without excluding any part, even the ones that we have no knowledge about by assuming logical relation between all events in the universe. Some find this dangerous because they believe it ultimately exempts from guilt and responsibility but since the latter exist, they must have a causal meaning in the chain of events. Upon understanding this 'meaning', we could adjust our perspective in a way that we could live better - it's the causal purpose of consciousness. From deterministic point of view, JP's support of subjectivism is valid, except for the part where he still leaves room to true free will or chaos somewhere in his equation, and I think it's more dangerous than determinism itself.

 

[antfmcmanz]

I have observed Peterson very closely for a long time and I've come away with two observations: he is a critic of postmodernism but also endorses one of its central tenets, that is, the fact that truth is relative from context to context. Secondly, he is a morally questionable individual whose words cannot be trusted because there is so much variation on what he says, depending on the audience he is talking to. For instance, he once claimed to be a Liberal, and still be a Liberal, and not long afterwards, preach to a conservative think tank that 'conservatives need to start being proud to be conservatives'. Moreover, he claimed to be against mobbing and for the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty', the probing of people's moral character online -- 'witch hunts' -- and then tweeted something very out of character about Brett Kavanaugh. Peterson is like a chameleon, he changes his views according to his audience.


There was a period when Peterson and crackpot Stephan Molyneux were both being labelled 'alt-right', and as the poor souls both felt victimised, they reached out to each other. I know that guilt by association is fallacious, but you certainly would expect that he, in his capacity as a credible academic and clinical psychologist, should have done his homework, to find out who he was dealing with; or perhaps he didn't care, which is equally bad. He says that he despises ideologues, because he has spent his entire career researching them, so it's ironic to find that Peterson, too, is an ideologue. He does what he does because he gets a kick out of, and makes lots of money from, people listening to him speak. This is not the behaviour of someone who is motivated by the search for truth and justice in the world, but rather, a person who is motivated by greed. Don't let the Petersonites tell you otherwise, and I am not criticising conservatives here (separate issue), but Peterson is deeply conservative. I agree that the postmodern left's rhetoric is detrimental, some of it I've witnessed here, but I fear that many of my fellow travellers on the left are being sucked in by his ideas. One of the implicit assumptions in his last book, which I found quite concerning in places, is that we shouldn't 'lay our problems at the feet of capitalism', and he doesn't provide us any insight into how things should progress, or the degree to which we should perhaps lay our problems at the feet of capitalism. That's akin to sending the message 'don't breach this topic', stay at home, clean your room, make something of yourself. All well and good I suppose, but his idea of progress is elusive. He has been found to have favoured the science behind climate change in one discussion, and have rejected it not long after. All the evidence can be found on YouTube.


So I find it funny that we're comparing Peterson, a charlatan ideologue, to Sam Harris, who values reasoned argument and debate -- despite being often wrong himself. Harris, whatever you think about his personality, is always reasoned and methodical in his arguments, he doesn't make an effort to get people to like him, only for them to listen. Maybe because of Peterson's constantly shifting views, we may never know what he thinks on these matters, but we can suspect that Peterson's attitude to the truth is unstable and uninformative. Whenever he is asked if he is a Christian, he cannot give a straight answer, because his rationale for bringing Christianity back into the fray is a pragmatic one, he seems to be ambivalent about the truth or falsity of God, only that the concept will bring about the restoration of order. He shows complete indifference towards the truth in that case, and it's further proof that he's an arrogant ideologue whose views carry little weight. His magnum opus was a vacuous mixture of truism and nonsense veiled under esoteric jargon, it read a lot like a Judith Butler book, who he ironically but rightly accuses of charlatanism.