User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 25

  1. #1
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

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

    I wanted to title this post:

    Is it Christmas or did Jordan Peterson just try to educate Sam Harris for a whole 2 hours (in philosophy).

    Sam Harris VS Jordan Peterson "What is True" 2017 - YouTube

    I'm still writing notes on what I would of interjected during this exchange (imagining myself to be party to it).

    I'm not entirely sure what I'll end up writing in response, but I guess others might also have opinions on this exchange.

    Jordan could of made a less vulgar analogy, or made a bigger show of relying on it as categorical mode of critique (which was even made patently obvious, later on), as Sam was essentially (and probably willfully) failing to see it as a metaphorical case of critique (which I'm happy to identify as nescience), that should of forced Sam to answer the morality inside/outside question about Science, which Sam totally obfuscated at its first suggestion, and later at its natural and proper introduction within the fray.

    current notes:
    53:38 Jordan has dismantled Scientism world-view. (when listening just before and up to 53:38)
    1:00:12 No Harris, it just subordinates Science.
    -----------
    1:03:36 (I haven't finished listening to this whole video, I'm listening up to around here, but--->) Sam, this counter argument example only works, because the scenario is patently absurd, and the reason why your using it, is because your seeking to reduce human affairs to arbitrary ideological preferences, which interrelate absurdly with a 'higher' facet of factual truth (where fact and truth are regarded as synonymous arbiters of 'real events', which are being processed unreliably by human interpretation, that should non-the-less, be held in special ideological reverence for the "scientific realm", because somehow beysenian statistical theories and models, are way better than philosophy: not to mention the insoluble aspects of the scientific endeavor: the infinite between the inexhaustible and the negation (falsification is a crude tool, useful for mechanical approximation, that is being presumed through use of the Scientific Method: treatment of time as fungible etc etc).
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-13-2017 at 03:05 PM.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.
    Likes Xann liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  3. #3
    Self sustaining supernova Zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    1,053

    Default

    I listened to that podcast when it came out, and honestly, it sounded as if they were speaking past each other because they couldn't agree on a solid definition of the word "truth". Dr. Harris seemed to be speaking more on the nature of facts, whereas Professor Peterson focused more on potentially subjective truths. Oddly enough, fans of Peterson keep calling Harris rigid and robotic in his thinking, and many lovers of Harris consider Peterson to be a religious person whose beliefs are getting in the way of academic discussion.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoom View Post
    I listened to that podcast when it came out, and honestly, it sounded as if they were speaking past each other because they couldn't agree on a solid definition of the word "truth". Dr. Harris seemed to be speaking more on the nature of facts, whereas Professor Peterson focused more on potentially subjective truths. Oddly enough, fans of Peterson keep calling Harris rigid and robotic in his thinking, and many lovers of Harris consider Peterson to be a religious person whose beliefs are getting in the way of academic discussion.
    if by "potentially subjective", you mean truth that is also available to the subjective framework, then I guess that might be an approximate-enough, feasible characterization, although I believe Peterson was rather describing: a "truth" framed and dependent upon the features of a moral consideration (or framed by a treatments of an ethos, defined by morality), is required to ground any notion with the hope of a potentially absolute reach (absolute reach being a standard for "truth"), without mere appearances coming to eventually subsume essential tenants of a claim's content;- facts, and even systems of facts, have a tendency to fall in on themselves, even the scientific paradigm itself has collapsed under itself, in its extension into the reliance on statistical (statistical, or read: interpreted) facts, in place of including those stipulations of interpretation, within the process that should have them joined with the vetted-hypothesis, that's seemingly being 'tested' "objectively"* (which would thereby make the tenuous nature of the entire enterprise, much more overt, and similarly tentative— just as any piece of artistic 'truth' is forced to confess nakedly to its audience... there is something of this similarly sketched out by Catherine Elgin- Catherine Z. Elgin – Nature’s Handmaiden, Art | London Aesthetics Forum, at the Institute of Philosophy | Podcast Chart ).

    *when later we learn that "objective" involves presumptions about time and other features of deterministic matrix's that have long since overstepped the boundary of conflating regularity with notions pertaining to "reality". Not the mention the theological proportion to which mathematical models, and statistical readings, have come to displace understanding- which has even been the reasoning behind favoring "scientific confidence" against 'the pitiful intelligence of an capriciously evolved sentience'. Its like a sci-fi horror novel, oh wait... this was already a comic book even, Krypton being destroyed by Brainiac (the metaphor to this philosophical contortionism for this betrayal to the human soul).
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Ok... I'm going to take another crack at this topic, since I've calmed down a bit since initially being exposed to it..

    Sam Harris does something very strange in this 'discussion', he echo's a part of what Jordan has mentioned to Sam, which was part of what Sam should've responded to, but Sam instead (decides to respond with reiterating the troublesome feature of the case being put to him by Jordan), is content to parrot-off an elaborated model of pragmatism (implying that he has already considered this topic, and put much thought into it), but then utterly fails to distinguish his own view in contrast to the pragmatists' position, or explain how he found an alternative account to the pragmatic line of thought.

    Sam does unveil his own world-view as being utterly absurd, his concept of unknowable/untouchable/unfathomable realism that we must contend,— is somehow framing our subjective perspective of truth, as it also frames the monoliths of scientific prestige in this great city of bestowed value, bestowed from its exterior source, which might haphazardly donate some of its efficacy to be extracted for a "faith" in scientific-knowledge, being the only currency for a regularity (that's knowable to our form of life, making it the only pure kind of knowledge, and morality is but a mere subordinated magisterial sphere of intersecting concerns that should probably be fashioned from deep abstractions, to give it any semblance of co-ordinated order, because of its stark variety of material concerns, contrasted against immaterial inconsistencies in the "imperfectly evolved" creatures),— is just as much blind faith as any epistemic-absolutism forwarded by the ontological inclination of neo-paganism. The error of Sam's position is that he believes "the regularity" is the only reasonable thing to attach an epistemic worship to, being the only true representation of the residue from unknowable-realism, that JUST SO happens to let us extract some form of accessibility (whether the form of accessibility is real or not even irrelevant, since it's the only accessibility, and here skepticism becomes an inconvenient heresy, diverting energy away from the tautological mania of 'ordering the world' against an argument one can tangibly invest in promoting). The problem with Sam's position fundamentally, is that is it can only blindly presume that it isn't making a circular recourse to itself, while it claims to represent the superiority of the untouchable-'realism', suggesting all we can ever do, is get on the bandwagon. But what is more obvious, as Jordan has mentioned himself in the discussion, the blatant assumption by Harris, that the Scientific description, is the final authority of epistemic claim, which even within its own scant philosophical accounting for itself: can never be achieved (falsification is never verification). Of course, this makes Sam's position even more devotional in character, look how he suffers the burden of this never ending enterprise, to mimic the substantive qualities of his adopting overlord of superior-realism. My astonishment with this ideology, just as with the SJW's, is that if you quarrel with them, they will deflect the attack to their secular-idol-worship, while being charged for tarnishing the intrinsic value of Science, with the implication that you only dare to disagree with Science because your not willing to let go of your human privilege; to be taken in under the parentage of their sacred-idol, to share burden and spoils of its largess (be it in the name of science or justice).
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.
    Likes SearchingforPeace liked this post

  6. #6
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Ok... I'm going to take another crack at this topic, since I've calmed down a bit since initially being exposed to it..

    Sam Harris does something very strange in this 'discussion', he echo's a part of what Jordan has mentioned to Sam, which was part of what Sam should've responded to, but Sam instead (decides to respond with reiterating the troublesome feature of the case being put to him by Jordan), is content to parrot-off an elaborated model of pragmatism (implying that he has already considered this topic, and put much thought into it), but then utterly fails to distinguish his own view in contrast to the pragmatists' position, or explain how he found an alternative account to the pragmatic line of thought.

    Sam does unveil his own world-view as being utterly absurd, his concept of unknowable/untouchable/unfathomable realism that we must contend,— is somehow framing our subjective perspective of truth, as it also frames the monoliths of scientific prestige in this great city of bestowed value, bestowed from its exterior source, which might haphazardly donate some of its efficacy to be extracted for a "faith" in scientific-knowledge, being the only currency for a regularity (that's knowable to our form of life, making it the only pure kind of knowledge, and morality is but a mere subordinated magisterial sphere of intersecting concerns that should probably be fashioned from deep abstractions, to give it any semblance of co-ordinated order, because of its stark variety of material concerns, contrasted against immaterial inconsistencies in the "imperfectly evolved" creatures),— is just as much blind faith as any epistemic-absolutism forwarded by the ontological inclination of neo-paganism. The error of Sam's position is that he believes "the regularity" is the only reasonable thing to attach an epistemic worship to, being the only true representation of the residue from unknowable-realism, that JUST SO happens to let us extract some form of accessibility (whether the form of accessibility is real or not even irrelevant, since it's the only accessibility, and here skepticism becomes an inconvenient heresy, diverting energy away from the tautological mania of 'ordering the world' against an argument one can tangibly invest in promoting). The problem with Sam's position fundamentally, is that is it can only blindly presume that it isn't making a circular recourse to itself, while it claims to represent the superiority of the untouchable-'realism', suggesting all we can ever do, is get on the bandwagon. But what is more obvious, as Jordan has mentioned himself in the discussion, the blatant assumption by Harris, that the Scientific description, is the final authority of epistemic claim, which even within its own scant philosophical accounting for itself: can never be achieved (falsification is never verification). Of course, this makes Sam's position even more devotional in character, look how he suffers the burden of this never ending enterprise, to mimic the substantive qualities of his adopting overlord of superior-realism. My astonishment with this ideology, just as with the SJW's, is that if you quarrel with them, they will deflect the attack to their secular-idol-worship, while being charged for tarnishing the intrinsic value of Science, with the implication that you only dare to disagree with Science because your not willing to let go of your human privilege; to be taken in under the parentage of their sacred-idol, to share burden and spoils of its largess (be it in the name of science or justice).
    I know it's an old thread, but wth.
    I usually have a good instinct for intellectual poseurs, and while Sam Harris is certainly intelligent, he gives me the creeps intellectually speaking.
    He just doesn't seem geniune to me. Looking at his history he's basically a trust fund kid who decided he wanted to make 'being smart' into his career. I think it's more ego driven than truth driven.

    His views are nothing new. He adds absolutly nothing to the edifice. Peterson views might be objected to due to his use of very 'religious' verbiage, but he does so to convey additional meaning that cannot be properly conveyed by more neutral terms. I believe this can be misconstrued as religiousity or mysticism - but Peterson often talks about culture-wide and millenia spanning evolution of concepts in human societies where the use of more 'traditional' terms just translates better.

    Everything about Harris just seems like marketing to me, which he set up helped by daddy and mommy's money and relations.
    For someone who seems so attached to an objective, evidence based view of truth it's hilarious that Harris continuously uses his 'PHD in neurology' as a status / expertise indicator - the truth is that his PHD thesis is a joke. He got access to an MRI machine (again with mommy and daddy's money) and then misused it to confirm a faith-based thesis (brain and religiousity) of his. He didn't even run the experiments himself and had other people do it for him. And the results in themselves where within the margin of error of MRI machines anyway. The guy who gave him the thesis was also friendly with his family and if i recall properly the creator of MRI machines - therefore someone with a vested interest to see his creation publicized.

    So - in short - Sam Harris is about as much of a "brain scientist' as I am. Academically he's a joke, and if anyone bothered to dispute his PHD it should, in all fairness, be revoked.
    I very much doubt that Sam Harris would have amounted to anything in the public sphere without the very active help of his parents money, relationships and friends. Which in itself is not an issue to me, but it however completly discredit Harris' claim as someone who stands up on his own intellectual and academic merit.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE
    Likes Xann, SearchingforPeace liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    15,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    I usually have a good instinct for intellectual poseurs, and while Sam Harris is certainly intelligent, he gives me the creeps intellectually speaking.
    He just doesn't seem genuine to me.
    I just turned off one of his speeches for that very reason.
    Likes EcK liked this post

  8. #8
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I just turned off one of his speeches for that very reason.
    There are just way smarter / wiser people than him who do this stuff as well. Honestly I don't feel like there's anything I could learn looking through more of Harris' videos that's not already to be found in philosophy 101 courses.

    I had never really paid too much attention to that 'four horsemen of atheism' bit/meme. Apparently he's counted among their number..but I have a hard time taking him seriously along the likes of Dawkins or the late Hitchens.

    Furthermore his hyper intellectual approach to things just reminds me alot of 'intellectuals' I've met.. people devoid of real life experience or wisdom. Harris is certainly smarter than the average sample of that particular population but I still don't get what it is that he really brings to the table. His views are not novel in any way, he doesn't seem overly ethical (just intuition but I'm very rarely wrong there, though I'd have to go through more videos to confirm). And 'philosophy and reason' without application in ethics and 'real life' is just pointless mental masturbation or a hobby at most - not something to build a reputation on.

    Peterson - in my view - fully understands Harris' philosphy, but deems it insufficient to 'lead a good life' - as human beings are not beings of reason alone, and therefore pure objective reason cannot be the sole foundation to someone's personnal growth and understanding of the world.

    I've started listening to a youtube video of a debate between Harris and Peterson - first off I'm not a fan of the fact that he introduces the talk with his views first before playing a pre recorded debate. To me it's a transparent attempt to 'frame' the discussion. For example he says the talk is about 'scientific truth' when the talk is about 'truth' in general - implying that Peterson who doesn't have a view 'truth' as purely scientific is wrong by default. I could respect this type of biased intro if it came from someone who openly presents his own biases, but i find it distasteful from someone (Harris) who obviously presents himself as a creature of pure reason / neutral - which I can say he's not 60 seconds into his introduction.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  9. #9
    Fe negative Lib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    Peterson - in my view - fully understands Harris' philosphy, but deems it insufficient to 'lead a good life' - as human beings are not beings of reason alone, and therefore pure objective reason cannot be the sole foundation to someone's personnal growth and understanding of the world.
    Speak for yourself dear. Some of us are made of pure reason.

  10. #10
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lib View Post
    Speak for yourself dear. Some of us are made of pure reason.
    I hope it was in jest. In which case, Funny.

    otherwise:

    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 02-03-2015, 03:15 PM
  2. Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind by Jonathan Haidt
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events (Temporarily Closed)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-07-2014, 07:43 PM
  3. [NF] INFJ/P Confronting my depression for the first time and trying to reach out for help
    By fkdup in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 03:15 AM
  4. [NT] So.. if life's a bitch, then am I wrong for trying to enjoy the ride?
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
  5. [ENTP] ENTP: trying not to be too clever for oneself
    By Drezoryx in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-11-2010, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO