Truth Discussion Time - Page 35

Well first of all I havent read Derrida or Foucault, so I cant really go very deep into this obviously.

What basically the previous video critique does is not refute JP's logic but claim Postmodernism isnt what you say it is, and then it basically says we are all postmodernists after the nukes and JP also is a postmodernist (good point on him also believing the power of speech), which makes his usage of Kurk Kobains quote "postmodernism is whatever the fuck you want it to be" kind of ironic.

On this video JP does the same, he goes after the academics and socialist-types interpretations and actions based on postmodernist philosophy rather than the core ideas themselves, so unless these SJW's arent misinterpreting the philosophy to build their ideology, then I dont see JP attacking the philosophy.

thoughts?

I don't see it like that at all. From the beginning he has gone after the core ideas themselves. Just not all of them. If I remember correctly, the way he opposes post-modernism itself is in its simplest way something like, "They have identified the problem correctly -- that you can interpret things in an infinite amount of ways -- but have failed to come up with the right solution. Instead they advocate for the death of everything." He doesn't say it's just Derrida or Baudrillard or whatever. It's everyone who takes these texts seriously.

What I strongly dislike most about Peterson is that he is not a skeptic. He's a pragmatist who believes he has found the solutions (or as close as you can get to solutions) to intractable problems and he has this simplistic view that if you don't buy them, you're either uneducated or a Neo-Marxist/blanket Nihilist and people would do well to not waste their time talking with you. He's a competent psychologist but clearly not that well versed in philosophy. He often conflates the personal and the philosophical which is very much a psychologist's move. He also commits some logical fallacies frequently, like in that video I just linked there's an easy-to-spot fallacy of relative privation. Fair enough, it would be hard to be exceptional at both, so I'm not trying to shit on the guy and say he's lazy, far from it, but it seems to me that he has gone on for quite a while with unchallenged philosophical assumptions and built a foundation on shaky grounds in some places. Or maybe it's just that his religious convictions have been in the way. That's just my impression as of now, as for the postmodernism issue, I am not well-versed in it so I have to rely on the opinions of those who are and they're pretty much all highly critical of the way he interprets the literature.

You dislike him for being a pragmatist and I like him for that reason lol, I wish he were a skeptic, he would trim so much of the bullshit he believes in.

I dont think I've seen him not to waste your time talking with postmodernists or that he is willingly go unchallenged, I havent seen a postmodenist debate him, only some SJWs who are clearly idiots, is it because postmodernists are not fans or dialog or why do you think that is?

As it is with every important topic, the most competent people aren't the ones yelling it from the rooftops. JP would have to find those people (and not be suspicious of them) so it's partly a matter of the noise being too much in the way for that to happen. He's at the forefront of things and so he'll only find other people who wish they could be rather than serious thinkers who don't have the typical mass appeal of SJWs and polemicists. But if you were to somehow remove that, there's no reason for JP to give his platform to someone who has even a remote chance of swaying people to think differently. What would he gain from that? He's worked hard to gain the followers he has now and things have worked so well for him as it is.

You paint him like some shrewd guy who fought for a platform and wont let go the microphone, he is not Yiannopolous.

You said it yourself he is a pragmatist, his goal is to stop the insane SJW trend, fight for free speech and expose the dangerous ideology that has taken hold of the humanities in universities, and is not going to look for the wisest postmodernist hermit monk living in the mountain, but if he comes down and wants to debate he will most likely do it.

The more I talk about this the more I realize that this conversation is more about the differences in what we value.

I think you value a lot the "purity" of the thought, how well thought and complete an idea or set of ideas are, that's why I can almost feel the disgust when you write "pragmatist", while I am more than willing to see past the flaws and inconsistencies of his ideas and admire the the will and courage of action and cause.

I've always considered myself intellectually purist, but I guess you take it one step further than I do.

I guess that's fairly accurate. But I would say it's not so much an aversion to philosophical pragmatism itself (like Jamesian pragmatism) which I'm not too knowledgeable about and might have sympathies for, but indeed my disgust grows the more I detect how self-serving a set of beliefs is for the person holding them. That's the basis of New Age thought and pop psychology which I despise. It's all about thinking to feel good. I value ideas that have the potential to disturb a person. People grow when they're troubled, not when they're satisfied. If someone is only willing to investigate a subject until it personally affects them negatively, then they're just not thorough and don't have valuable things to say. It's the opposite of bravery to protect your illusions and your ego.

Your comment on philosophical purity reminds me of something I thought about yesterday after watching an incredibly sloppy and biased video on YT. I thought, is this the best this person can do? Surely not. How different would it be if your life was on the line every single time you have to make a video on YouTube criticizing something. And by that, I imagined that there would be some kind of committee of unbiased masterminds who would judge the extent of the bias and laziness behind every single argument someone makes and could punish the person accordingly. (Or, in the far future, an advanced computer program would do it). And obviously nearly no one would take the risk and make videos if that were the case and it was up to them, but say you were forced at gunpoint to make whatever video you wanted to make and now you have to treat the subject carefully and be fair to the other person's position. How fucking great that would be. But then the cesspool that is YouTube video making for ad money would be dead and a lot of people would be sad they can't turn to that for entertainment. I thought of it as a practical exercise, like a visualization that everyone should make before making videos, imagining that they are in a situation like that. Basically, always playing devil's advocate and being as objective as possible. It would require a kind of detachment that most people are simply incapable of.

I definitely didn't intend to paint him as a guy who won't let go of the microphone. All I'm saying is, if I had a platform, I wouldn't give it to a white nationalist. They're just not worth engaging and giving a platform to, and I think that's how he feels about postmodernists. According to JP they are snakes and their ideas are dangerous and he can do a far better job at preventing people from being sold this philosophy through his lectures and speeches than through a debate. Maybe I'm wrong, but the only way I could see JB taking this risk is if many of his Patreon supporters insisted they want to see it.

Also, I used to be obsessed with Jung and the only career I seriously considered after quitting poker was becoming a Jungian psychologist. Then I read a biography of him and became disillusioned. It was clear to me how self-serving some of his beliefs were and how much wishful thinking was involved in the creation of his theories. He also didn't live his life very virtuously and so that was quite disappointing to me at the time where I was thinking of him as a kind of hero, very much like many people think of JP these days.

What if Peterson's highest good is to reduce suffering? He has mentioned that many times as something to be aimed for. We will never know. He has said he gets the most traction out of speaking about responsibility. Everyone gets perked up and keyed in. He has spoke about how Hitler was smart and latched on to what the crowd wanted. He has spoke about himself doing the same things. It is really impossible to tell how virtuous or greedy JP is. I don't think he is particularly malevolent but he is certainly not a saint. JP is definitely not a skeptic which is frustrating. I think it is a fact of teaching men aged say 20-40 how to be a man basically. A definition of being a man in the current culture. A culture that was created by dead men but still the culture that is reality on this earth at this time. So, he could be having a great effect on the existential suffering of these men. He could also be profiting greatly from reducing the existential suffering of these men. I like what Baal says in that JP does not have to get everything right in order to make a positive difference. I like what Loco says in that JP may be so harsh on alternate views as it effects the legitimacy of what he is peddling but the buyers buy anyways. JP with some of his stuff is almost bordering on con man for his inability to show any sort of skepticism. What do you do about a con man peddling mostly positive rhetoric? "But it is peddled rhetoric!" some will cry. I will say his points on meaning in life and responsibility make a lot of sense. I have no arguments against until he starts going into archetypes and Christianity as the end all be all. It's like anything else I suppose: Buyer beware.

On June 06 2017 15:33 Loco wrote: Also, I used to be obsessed with Jung and the only career I seriously considered after quitting poker was becoming a Jungian psychologist. Then I read a biography of him and became disillusioned. It was clear to me how self-serving some of his beliefs were and how much wishful thinking was involved in the creation of his theories. He also didn't live his life very virtuously and so that was quite disappointing to me at the time where I was thinking of him as a kind of hero, very much like many people think of JP these days.

That is a good analogy. I guess we have to watch out for these psychologists. A field wrought with poor science and bullshit.

In my view he's hypocritical when he talks about the highest goal being the reducing unnecessary suffering. On the surface that's very much in line with my thinking and yet we could not disagree more about how to live with this in mind. First he eats a terrible meat-centric "paleo" diet that his daughter sold him into, so his concern is entirely humancentric, whereas mine is always sentiocentric. Secondly, even his humancentric concern is heavily inconsistent with that goal in mind. He only values the reduction of human suffering after his Christian values have been satisfied, one of which is to be "fruitful and multiply". So he encourages people to create suffering-- perpetuate the tragedy as it is-- before alleviating it. Make a mess, then become a good janitor. He justifies this by giving us a logical fallacy, the fallacy of relative privation. "This is the best world we've ever had! So, it follows that it's good enough to keep it going." He would also say that someone with my views is severely harmed by them, kind of like how Nietzsche reacted to Schopenhauer after he abandoned him. Like I couldn't be productive because I'm too gloomy. My friend talks about it in the video below at around 10-11 mins. This is simply unfounded and it comes from the fact that he conflates the philosophical and the personal. Anyway, whatever. Take the good he offers and leave the bad, I guess.

Peterson would tell his students to run far far away from you with a look of disgust. BEING A GOOD JANITOR IS A MEANINGFUL LIFE! I agree with all your points.

12:16

I like his thought here. JP always talks about taking on more and more responsibility as if it will always equal meaning. I have been in positions where I took on more and more responsibility until my life sucked. It was like my life was great and got greater and greater with a certain amount of responsibility until it got old or it went over the line and became dreadful. JP would have us believe that anyone who does not have children is an idiot. He speaks about this as if it is the gospel. I think part of this is I would guess Peterson is a high conscientious, low agreeable person who always thinks more responsibility, more kids, more of everything that is deemed worthy in this dead man's culture. Just keep everything the same and let me kick ass. That's what people like JP think.

15:28

I would like to talk about this couch potato position... I don't think the couch potato is better off. I have been the couch potato. I smoked weed all day and lived on my friend's couch. In the short term it was great. I played Metal Gear Solid. I watched HBO. I was high on some really good shit. I even went out and did fun stuff. I partied. I had some money at the time. I guess it wasn't all bad but it was hindering me. The light at the end of the tunnel of that route was despair and existential angst. When I got sober and alone all of the lacking in my life hit me like a freight train. There were so many times I went against my conscience and felt like shit for it. Responsibility will help. I started hitting the gym and reading the humanities. I got a job. A good job. I got my own apartment. When responsibilities got to be too much at work I drank. I guess it is complicated because I had undiagnosed bipolar. I would be out on the balcony in the mornings contemplating whether or not I wanted to jump. I exaggerated on my resume. That was coming back to bite me. I think these last sentences are a case for the responsibilities being too much for me. I did overcome them and it made me a stronger person. Nepotism is bad and perhaps I should have never been doing what I was doing. So, out on my balcony contemplating jumping every day for a week is definitely not better than sitting on my friends couch high playing Metal Gear Solid. Hitting the gym and reading all the greats definitely was. Looking back at it the biggest stressors from that job were due to me lying about my qualifications. Pretty much one line on my resume that my dad wrote for me and it came back to cause me that much trouble. I think even given all of that I was better off than on the couch smoking vaporized chronic. Who knows. If the money wouldn't run out smoking great weed on a great couch playing great video games might be my equilibrium. Nah, I know better these days. I need just enough responsibility and not an ounce more.

So before reading your post and possibly replying to it, I just want to put something out there that I think is pretty cool. I was listening to a Sam Harris talk completely unrelated to JP and after reading a comment where someone requested that Sam invites someone to his podcast because he is "the most logical person on YouTube", something in my brain told me to research the terms "hero syndrome". I'm not sure why, I was thinking that some people want to be established as heroes and others want to live vicariously through them, but something about those words felt like it could explain something to me. I've never heard this term before, but I was formulating some idea in my mind and I thought I'd give it that name if it didn't exist. Turns out there is a very short wiki that already exists on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_syndrome

I thought it was very interesting in the context of this discussion. The "firefighter arson" link at the bottom is especially beautiful and relevant. The idea that a firefighter can start a fire out of boredom so that they have a problem to resolve and feel heroic about . . . Ain't that fucking life in a nutshell right there for the vast majority of people who have families? Yeah...

On June 07 2017 01:21 RiKD wrote: I would like to talk about this couch potato position... I don't think the couch potato is better off. I have been the couch potato. I smoked weed all day and lived on my friend's couch. In the short term it was great. I played Metal Gear Solid. I watched HBO. I was high on some really good shit. I even went out and did fun stuff. I partied. I had some money at the time. I guess it wasn't all bad but it was hindering me. The light at the end of the tunnel of that route was despair and existential angst. When I got sober and alone all of the lacking in my life hit me like a freight train. There were so many times I went against my conscience and felt like shit for it. Responsibility will help. I started hitting the gym and reading the humanities. I got a job. A good job. I got my own apartment. When responsibilities got to be too much at work I drank. I guess it is complicated because I had undiagnosed bipolar. I would be out on the balcony in the mornings contemplating whether or not I wanted to jump. I exaggerated on my resume. That was coming back to bite me. I think these last sentences are a case for the responsibilities being too much for me. I did overcome them and it made me a stronger person. Nepotism is bad and perhaps I should have never been doing what I was doing. So, out on my balcony contemplating jumping every day for a week is definitely not better than sitting on my friends couch high playing Metal Gear Solid. Hitting the gym and reading all the greats definitely was. Looking back at it the biggest stressors from that job were due to me lying about my qualifications. Pretty much one line on my resume that my dad wrote for me and it came back to cause me that much trouble. I think even given all of that I was better off than on the couch smoking vaporized chronic. Who knows. If the money wouldn't run out smoking great weed on a great couch playing great video games might be my equilibrium. Nah, I know better these days. I need just enough responsibility and not an ounce more.

That's completely different from the point my friend was making though. He was saying (it's implied if you know him, he's a very stable guy) that once you've got your basic needs and responsibilities covered, being a couch potato ain't a bad thing if that's how you enjoy living based on your personality type. Not everyone will be happy as a go-getter. It's pretty clear that your life was a mess and you were just delaying the inevitable and that's why being a couch potato was definitely not a good thing for you, but you might also have the personality type of someone ambitious who could never be happy this way. He also didn't mean the strict definition of couch potato, as in a TV binging, potato chips eating, weed smoking couch potato. He more broadly meant someone who is satisfied being on his own, not constantly worrying and working on some project or another, just satisfied being mostly idle with a few activities. (And yeah, if that involves some real couch potatoing, that's ok too if you're satisfied with little and you're not completely ruining your health in the process through addictive behavior.) I'm basically that kind of a couch potato most of the time, but I don't do the drugs, I don't have a cable sub, I don't do the junk food and I go to the gym 3 days a week to make sure I can sustain my couch potatoing without ruining my health (and because lifting is fun).

On June 07 2017 01:38 Loco wrote: So before reading your post and possibly replying to it, I just want to put something out there that I think is pretty cool. I was listening to a Sam Harris talk completely unrelated to JP and after reading a comment where someone requested that Sam invites someone to his podcast because he is "the most logical person on YouTube", something in my brain told me to research the terms "hero syndrome". I'm not sure why, I was thinking that some people want to be established as heroes and others want to live vicariously through them, but something about those words felt like it could explain something to me. I've never heard this term before, but I was formulating some idea in my mind and I thought I'd give it that name if it didn't exist. Turns out there is a very short wiki that already exists on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_syndrome I thought it was very interesting in the context of this discussion. The "firefighter arson" link at the bottom is especially beautiful and relevant. The idea that a firefighter can start a fire out of boredom so that they have a problem to resolve and feel heroic about . . . Ain't that fucking life in a nutshell right there for the vast majority of people who have families? Yeah...

And from my experiences they are going to feel very heroic about it. Haven't you heard it's the most important project someone can take on? Everyone started the fire. It wasn't burning until the motherly yearning.

That might get me going on JP's idea that anti-natalists are bad people or against humanity. "Run far," he would say. It is baffling that he holds such an opinion. I went to a Catholic Monastery for my 5th step which basically means I went over my life, my resentments, my fears. It was basically confession for 4 hours. One of the first things the priest said after we were sort of wrapping it up was "well, you know what you have to do now don't you? Find a wife and have a beautiful family." Really? I just told you how much of a mess my life is and that is paramount? At least JP says to clean my room first. To be completely honest I wonder what I am going to be doing from 40-60. That is the new age range of booming male suicide. I probably have to watch out for that. I don't really think having a kid can save me although if I met the right women I could be persuaded I'm sure. To completely dismiss the anti-natalist viewpoint though is hubristic or delusional or both. It is the same with determinism, atheism and I'm sure post-modernism.

On June 07 2017 01:54 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2017 01:21 RiKD wrote: I would like to talk about this couch potato position... I don't think the couch potato is better off. I have been the couch potato. I smoked weed all day and lived on my friend's couch. In the short term it was great. I played Metal Gear Solid. I watched HBO. I was high on some really good shit. I even went out and did fun stuff. I partied. I had some money at the time. I guess it wasn't all bad but it was hindering me. The light at the end of the tunnel of that route was despair and existential angst. When I got sober and alone all of the lacking in my life hit me like a freight train. There were so many times I went against my conscience and felt like shit for it. Responsibility will help. I started hitting the gym and reading the humanities. I got a job. A good job. I got my own apartment. When responsibilities got to be too much at work I drank. I guess it is complicated because I had undiagnosed bipolar. I would be out on the balcony in the mornings contemplating whether or not I wanted to jump. I exaggerated on my resume. That was coming back to bite me. I think these last sentences are a case for the responsibilities being too much for me. I did overcome them and it made me a stronger person. Nepotism is bad and perhaps I should have never been doing what I was doing. So, out on my balcony contemplating jumping every day for a week is definitely not better than sitting on my friends couch high playing Metal Gear Solid. Hitting the gym and reading all the greats definitely was. Looking back at it the biggest stressors from that job were due to me lying about my qualifications. Pretty much one line on my resume that my dad wrote for me and it came back to cause me that much trouble. I think even given all of that I was better off than on the couch smoking vaporized chronic. Who knows. If the money wouldn't run out smoking great weed on a great couch playing great video games might be my equilibrium. Nah, I know better these days. I need just enough responsibility and not an ounce more. That's completely different from the point my friend was making though. He was saying (it's implied if you know him, he's a very stable guy) that once you've got your basic needs and responsibilities covered, being a couch potato ain't a bad thing if that's how you enjoy living based on your personality type. Not everyone will be happy as a go-getter. It's pretty clear that your life was a mess and you were just delaying the inevitable and that's why being a couch potato was definitely not a good thing for you, but you might also have the personality type of someone ambitious who could never be happy this way. He also didn't mean the strict definition of couch potato, as in a TV binging, potato chips eating, weed smoking couch potato. He more broadly meant someone who is satisfied being on his own, not constantly worrying and working on some project or another, just satisfied being mostly idle with a few activities. (And yeah, if that involves some real couch potatoing, that's ok too if you're satisfied with little and you're not completely ruining your health in the process through addictive behavior.) I'm basically that kind of a couch potato most of the time, but I don't do the drugs, I don't have a cable sub, I don't do the junk food and I go to the gym 3 days a week to make sure I can sustain my couch potatoing without ruining my health (and because lifting is fun).

Yeah, JP basically advocates to burden oneself with responsibility. He does not talk often about what happens when the responsibilities go beyond tolerance. I think in some cases it can enlarge someone's life and make them stronger. It can also be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Your friend chilling on the couch is probably doing alright. So many ways to live are valid. My brother is a JP wet dream but I look at a lot of it from a different perspective. So, he has the loving partner. That is great. I can't say anything negative about that. He bought the big house. Now, he has to fill it with stuff and take care of it. He has to do the lawn. He has to do the garden. All of these things are things to do. Is it really adding meaning? Is that really meaningful to him? Only he can say. I rather rent a 1 bedroom w/ 0 maintenance. I am very open to experience and extraverted so that is where I find most of my meaning. People can be different but when asked how the baby was going my brother responded "Babies are great if you want to have less money, time, and sleep!" But, he loves that baby and it is a project, an adventure, all these things. It is adding meaning to his life. I mean... he's living life. What can you really say? It seems like it works for a lot of people. I certainly do not condemn that way of living. I just want nothing to do with it. I don't even resent it. I am just glad I did not get trapped in it. My openness and my extraversion drive me to do stuff so I am not just happy on the couch but it is a cool sentiment.

On June 07 2017 01:38 Loco wrote: The idea that a firefighter can start a fire out of boredom so that they have a problem to resolve and feel heroic about . . . Ain't that fucking life in a nutshell right there for the vast majority of people who have families? Yeah...

lolol your contempt for breeders is funny (in a good way) :D

I absolutely agree on that point about peope not putting their absolute best effort in arguments, but I'm not sure if you are implying that they are cynically doing it for ad-revenue, I think its just intellectually lazy, they let themselves go,its far more easy and fun than all the massive effort being objective takes, I do it aaaall the time, you should try it once in a while

Well, I was specifically talking about those people who earn a living from doing YouTube commentary. Their living is basically predicated on being super biased and lazy, picking easy targets they are comfortable critiquing and pandering to an audience of people who are the same and seek an echo chamber. I never use that word but it seems to be the best one for this: it's cancerous. I'd just love to live in a world where, for one day, people are interested in arguments rather than taking down straw men and furthering an agenda at all cost. I don't think I should make less efforts, instead I shouldn't be paying attention to those people at all but it's a weakness of mine.

On June 07 2017 04:23 RiKD wrote: [QUOTE]On June 07 2017 01:54 Loco wrote: [QUOTE]On June 07 2017 01:21 RiKD wrote: People can be different but when asked how the baby was going my brother responded "Babies are great if you want to have less money, time, and sleep!" But, he loves that baby and it is a project, an adventure, all these things. It is adding meaning to his life. I mean... he's living life. What can you really say? It seems like it works for a lot of people. I certainly do not condemn that way of living. I just want nothing to do with it. I don't even resent it. I am just glad I did not get trapped in it. My openness and my extraversion drive me to do stuff so I am not just happy on the couch but it is a cool sentiment.

Don't have to be an antinatalist to be aware of the fact that people who have children on average are less satisfied with life despite what they actually say. The science is pretty clearly on the side of the childfree.




Despite my philosophical musings, I also don't resent people who just fall into that kind of life and live it simply and as best as they can without arguing for it. They're just pretty rare in my experience, having children seems to come with a plague of post hoc reasoning and justifying. But I'm aware that I've learned a lot from people who've had children and well, their children were a part of who they became, so that's something I can't discount. There's a lot you can do to have a positive impact in the world despite having children, so it can't be all about that. But I resent the hypocrites who claim to really care about suffering but have no qualms perpetuating it to add meaning to their lives and then they go on encouraging others to do the same as the default position.

It reminds me, on the subject of having children, post hoc rationalizions and self-deception, I had this thing with a girl for a while many years back, she was a typical Montreal hippie: hardcore environmentalist who was into Buddhism and psychedelics, focused on enlightenment and all that. She was completely into that and selling that image. But she also had a couple biology degrees so she must have understood life better than most. Well, clearly not. She ended up going to a retreat and when she came back she announced she was pregnant with some random guy who didn't want the kid. She kept the kid because "the universe wanted it this way" or some such thing -- now she has the typical life of a single mother (and gave up her veganism too). No money for her causes, no time for her Buddhism, and well, more attachments, more suffering. She still sees herself the same way as before though, but now she actually thinks she's more enlightened because she gave life.