Page 188 of 188 FirstFirst ... 88138178186187188
Results 7,481 to 7,517 of 7517

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #7481
    in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, Jordan Peterson will remember 2018 as the year he peaked

  2. #7482
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Also, if we take for granted that no proof is possible without axioms, why is God the only axiom?
    What you just wrote is basically a concise summary of the intended meaning of my original post. He's basically affirming the consequent here.

  3. #7483
    Since he's reasoning backward from a mere example of an axiom: uh, yes, God's existence can be an axiom, but don't you think you might be forgetting that there might be some other axioms out there, Dr. Peterson? This is just embarrassing.

  4. #7484
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    This would be a charitable reading of what Peterson wrote, and, in fact, I don't think it really squares with his tweet at all. But he could be thinking of faith as some kind of intuitive (rather than discursive) form of super-rational knowing, which offers greater certainty and is more true than reason.
    Yeah, and it has a name: it's called bull****.

  5. #7485
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Iíll never understand why Americans allow themselves to know so little about the rest of the world. Iím not surprised by it anymore, I just donít understand why.

    University of Toronto is an excellent university, one of the best in the world, in one of the largest and most developed cities in the world. Jordan Peterson doesnít belong there.
    I always thought Toronto was like the cold San Francisco. In any case, Peterson only got in probably due to his wishy-washy anti-science humanities degree got him in.

  6. #7486
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    This would be a charitable reading of what Peterson wrote, and, in fact, I don't think it really squares with his tweet at all. But he could be thinking of faith as some kind of intuitive (rather than discursive) form of super-rational knowing, which offers greater certainty and is more true than reason.
    A more charitable reading of what he wrote:

    We can't get any systems complex enough to be interested without creation of axioms, so it's impossible for everything to be evidence based. Now here's a deductive reason I think God is the metaphysical force behind things.

  7. #7487
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Nobody knows what his tweet really means because it is an axiom, and requires faith. This is because its author was divinely inspired, and so by the transitive property of divinity, the tweet is true a priori.
    Axiom 1: If things exist, God exist.
    Axiom 2: Things exist.
    Proposition 1:

  8. #7488
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    I always thought Toronto was like the cold San Francisco. In any case, Peterson only got in probably due to his wishy-washy anti-science humanities degree got him in.
    oh no the humanities are evil and unserious waah

  9. #7489
    I think 30 Rock got Toronto right: it's like New York, except without all the stuff.

  10. #7490
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    5,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    oh no the humanities are evil and unserious waah
    I'm only joking, I actually think the humanities are deeply unappreciated, I have dedicated a good deal of my life to studying and understanding Nietzsche, and ~in fact~, I'm certain that's why Jordan Peterson is so popular. You see, Jordan Peterson is popular with a certain subset of the population who don't read. Moreover, if they do, they only read technical ****, things far removed from gay media like literature or philosophy. What are we, figure skaters? What Jordan Peterson does is open up a new world to these people in a safe space, where political ideas they have aren't confronted. He takes literature and philosophy, and works it into life narratives wherein, who knows the "truth" of it? It can be very insightful. So he exposes these people to humanities, and guess what, they really love it, but I guess they just.. won't go seek out that stuff unless it's spoonfed by a reactionary.

  11. #7491
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    What you just wrote is basically a concise summary of the intended meaning of my original post. He's basically affirming the consequent here.
    I think his argument hangs on the implicit assumption that God is more axiom-like than any other axiom. Here's what I mean by that. He's assuming that the defining feature of an axiom is that it is an underived truth. That is, an axiom is a premise that does not presuppose any other premise in order for it to be true. Rather, it is true by itself (i.e., it is self-evident). God more than any other first principle does not presuppose the existence of something else, whereas even the geometric definitions of Euclid, somehow, still presuppose God, even if only implicitly. (They are, therefore, less axiom-like than God.) So God, more than anything else, exhibits the defining trait of axioms.

    So if proof is possible (the assumption, of course, is that it is), all proof must rely on some axiom that does not presuppose any other axiom. Because God is the only axiom that meets that description, God must exist.
    Last edited by Eversor; 02-20-2018 at 01:22 PM.

  12. #7492
    That's still not quite right, because the purpose of the argument isn't to prove the existence of God. But it's closer.

  13. #7493
    It's Stuart, Martha Stuart
    Posts
    7,727
    Epistemological bootstrapping has always seemed a bit desperate to me. You can't really prove anything all the way down. May as well learn deal with it.

    I can't tell from just a tweet, but it seems like Peterson is referencing some enlightenment era discussions about whether certainty was possible in principal. There were some who argued that it was impossible barring some sort of revelation from a divine omniscient being. IIRC, those who proposed this did not believe in a divine omniscient being. I tend to agree with that position. Even in purely abstract cases, you can't have absolute certainty that your own mind is working correctly. If you have ever tried to do math in dreams, for example, you can end up with some pretty ridiculous stuff that seems completely straight forward.

    But even then, certainty from revelation isn't really rigorous certainty. I think of it more of a description of a state of confidence in a particular axiom, which if true, implies many other commonly held axioms.

    And of course, Peterson seems to have no idea what the incompleteness theorem is about, but that's twitter users for you. I expect he just heard some stuff fourth hand and sort of mushed it into a tweet.
    Last edited by Obi_Kwiet; 02-20-2018 at 12:49 PM.

  14. #7494
    It's Stuart, Martha Stuart
    Posts
    7,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    He grew up in rural northwest Alberta, in a village of 3000 people. He got his undergraduate degrees from my alma mater, and his graduate degree from McGill, the latter of which, at least, is another good institution. He teaches at UofT.

    And I gotta tell ya, growing up in remote small town Alberta in the sixties, studying political science and psychology during the eugenics program, at the university that ran it... I dunno, man. Albertaís had some bad times and bad folks, and Peterson is probably one of them. This province has changed a lot since he lived here, all for the better. Mostly because people of his cohort and prior have left, died, or have been diluted down to powerlessness. Old school Alberta would make Trump blush if he were still physiologically capable of it.

    Peterson might be an excellent psychology professor. The trouble is professors are frequently morons outside their fields, but somehow think that a PHD gives them expertise in general knowledge. Richard Dawkins writes embarrassingly ignorant things about religion and philosophy, and Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't all that great at history. Or hiring people to fact check his history. However, I'd listen to them talk about their respective fields.

  15. #7495
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    5,595
    Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't a particularly good astrophysicist, I'd rather listen to anyone else in the field really.

  16. #7496
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I think his argument hangs on the implicit assumption that God is more axiom-like than any other axiom. Here's what I mean by that. He's assuming that the defining feature of an axiom is that it is an underived truth. That is, an axiom is a premise that does not presuppose any other premise in order for it to be true. Rather, it is true by itself (i.e., it is self-evident). God more than any other first principle does not presuppose the existence of something else, whereas even the geometric definitions of Euclid, somehow, still presuppose God, even if only implicitly. (They are, therefore, less axiom-like than God.) So God, more than anything else, exhibits the defining trait of axioms.

    So if proof is possible (the assumption, of course, is that it is), all proof must rely on some axiom that does not presuppose any other axiom. Because God is the only axiom that meets that description, God must exist.
    This is just about as dumb as reasoning that scientists who call evolution a "theory" must be admitting that they don't have confidence that it's most likely true, and therefore any other competing "theory" is potentially just as valid.

    The only charitable explanation of Peterson's argument is that God is everywhere, not just in axioms, but everything else as well: the rock, the x-wing, your boner on the subway, etc. At which point the word God becomes completely meaningless, which is probably about as close to the truth these kind of discussions are going to get you anyway.

  17. #7497
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    The only charitable explanation of Peterson's argument is that God is everywhere, not just in axioms, but everything else as well: the rock, the x-wing, your boner on the subway, etc.
    That's not a ridiculous belief, though. Or, at least, it's no more ridiculous than what any religious person might believe about God. The omnipresence of God is a boilerplate religious doctrine.

  18. #7498
    Sure. But using the omnipresence of God as part of an argument in order to endow some earthly object with divine properties? We might as well be talking about holy water.

    If Peterson wants to argue that mathematics is divine, he wouldn't be the first. Not sure how this is an argument about anything, though.

  19. #7499
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Sure. But using the omnipresence of God as part of an argument in order to endow some earthly object with divine properties? We might as well be talking about holy water.
    wouldnt all the water be holy
    sniff

  20. #7500
    Pretty much. So then what's the point of talking about it if it applies to everything.

    All water is holy

    All axioms are divine

    All life is made of energy

    etc.

  21. #7501
    Generally because an intuitive experience of all things being divine is not our default mode of experience, and most spooky types want to have the experience of universal divinity/interconnectedness, and you won't ever know you want that unless someone explains the philosophy to you. Now, talking about it isn't particularly useful in generating those experiences, which is why these discussions are generally philosophy to back up some sort of practice. For example, stealing from the Aghori page on wikipedia:

    Quote Originally Posted by not a real source
    Aghoris base their beliefs on two principles common to broader Shaiva beliefs: that Shiva is perfect (having omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence) and that Shiva is responsible for everything that occurs – all conditions, causes and effects. Consequently, everything that exists must be perfect and to deny the perfection of anything would be to deny the sacredness of all life in its full manifestation, as well as to deny the Supreme Being.
    So they engage in all sorts of taboo breaking (living in charnel grounds, covering themselves in human ashes, drinking out of bowl made from skulls etc.) to try to bring their philosophy into their direct experience. Peterson is the worst kind of mystic/occultist though, which is to say he wants to talk **** about stuff like that without doing any of the fun stuff like self mutiliation or getting ****ing drunk and stoned in an open air cemetery.
    sniff

  22. #7502
    I would actually love to see him do those things though. I think that would resolve a lot of the pent up tension and anger that his videos seem to evoke.

  23. #7503
    I think it's kind of lame to use this 'spooky' stuff to make some asinine rhetorical point like he seems to be doing. Well maybe he doesn't see it that way, but to the rest of us it looks like a parody. I agree that the more comprehensive worldview you mentioned is probably totally different and wouldn't necessarily look so ridiculous.

  24. #7504
    At some point there needs to be a Jordan B Peterson parody twitter bot that generates fake Jordan B Peterson sounding quotes.

  25. #7505
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    15,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Why'd you study at University of Alberta, Jon?
    Because I used to live in Sherwood Park.

    It really doesnít matter where you get your undergraduate degree, fyi. The material isnít deep or sophisticated enough for researcher or university prestige to become relevant. A startup founded by a degree snob might pass on you, but Iíve never had an established company not call me for an interview if they got my resume. And you donít want to work for degree snobs anyway, for a lot of other reasons.

    To be clear, though, UofA has excellent academics. It punches well above its weight in many fields, including emerging high tech ones like games and deep learning. The problem with the UofA is toxic provincial politics and a corrupt and wasteful administration. I could go into more detail but itís not really the thread for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    This is just about as dumb as reasoning that scientists who call evolution a "theory" must be admitting that they don't have confidence that it's most likely true, and therefore any other competing "theory" is potentially just as valid.

    The only charitable explanation of Peterson's argument is that God is everywhere, not just in axioms, but everything else as well: the rock, the x-wing, your boner on the subway, etc. At which point the word God becomes completely meaningless, which is probably about as close to the truth these kind of discussions are going to get you anyway.
    The most charitable explanation I can think of is the belief in some form of irreducible fact about realty, some underlying truth, and therein lies God. Whether the Christian God, or the philosophic God.

    Someone else brought up Euclidís axioms. Which, of course, are wrong. We do not exist in a Euclidean space. We exist in a manifold, a small region of space time that locally resembles a Euclidean space, but is in fact curved. Euclidís axioms seemed true when they were invented, and for the purposes of useful geometry they might as well be, but in reality there is no such thing as a Euclidean plane.

    The danger of this kind of thinking is that, if one believes there is an irreducible fact somewhere, and that God is responsible for it, then we might stop looking when we find something that we canít obviously reduce. Even if our observation is false, or incomplete, or if there is a whole universe of complexity underlying it. This has happened again and again throughout our scientific history.

    In other words, this guy is a moron.

  26. #7506
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Sure. But using the omnipresence of God as part of an argument in order to endow some earthly object with divine properties? We might as well be talking about holy water.
    I don't think he's making that move.

    Agh, I'm don't like what I've become. The devil's advocate who tries to make Peterson's views more defensible than they are. Yikes.

  27. #7507
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    I think it's kind of lame to use this 'spooky' stuff to make some asinine rhetorical point like he seems to be doing. Well maybe he doesn't see it that way, but to the rest of us it looks like a parody. I agree that the more comprehensive worldview you mentioned is probably totally different and wouldn't necessarily look so ridiculous.
    It's definitely lame, and he is looking for anything he can get to give his half assed mysticism some weight. I really want some famous satanist to get famous and go on Oprah like Michael Aquino and quote all of Jordan Peterson's stupid individualist mumbo jumbo that sounds almost exactly like satanism but with a bunch of useless moralizing on top of it that ****s the whole thing up.
    sniff

  28. #7508
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I don't think he's making that move.

    Agh, I'm don't like what I've become. The devil's advocate who tries to make Peterson's views more defensible than they are. Yikes.
    Jon`C's post makes things incredibly clear in my mind.

    I would posit that there may be a Moron Uncertainty Principle, which makes it impossible to pin down a badly formulated idea. I've seen Peterson squirm a lot when asked to more precisely formulate just wtf he is saying in definite terms.

    In other words, Peterson needs to shut his trap and get off Twitter. Well actually maybe that's just where he belongs....

  29. #7509
    Actually, I would suggest that perhaps Peterson's own obsession with Jungian psychology and some kind of frontier into the apparently murky world of our inner psychology might simply be a result of his own confusion about life in general.

    Yes, there are a lot of things that we humans do a bad job at understanding, but maybe you are more confused than the rest of us.
    Last edited by Reverend Jones; 02-20-2018 at 05:26 PM.

  30. #7510
    That's definitely why I'm into this stuff.
    sniff

  31. #7511
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I don't think he's making that move.
    Don't worry, he's not, I'm just being a Reidtard and inferring it using logic and my own philosophical framework. Of course I feel like I'm justified in doing so, so.

  32. #7512
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    a Reidtard
    -___-

  33. #7513
    banned

  34. #7514
    I love you Reid

  35. #7515
    Upon further reflection, I have concluded that I should at least try not to be rude and obnoxious.

  36. #7516
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,400
    Ruderend Jones, more liek it

  37. #7517
    Thanks, I was trying to think of a self-deprecating mutation of my name to save face.

    Actually, I think it's high time for somebody to stick a custom title onto my account in order to remind people that I'm probably about to apologize for the content of my post, since I seem to be doing this so often.

    And it better not be about me being some kind of beta male.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •