Is Jordan B Peterson's new website idea an atrocious one or reasonable one?

[senri]

This is one thing that really annoys me about you. You seem to insist on there being a lack of clarity on the issue (and you've done this in the past as well) on my part. This literally is not a conundrum to me. The entire 13 minutes of that discussion is entirely trivial to me. I skipped to the very end after I made the last post (12:16), and heard Weinstein say "(...) how is it not, by just the virtue of the fact that it does something nothing else does (...)" and paused right there. From that fragment of his sentence, I know exactly what his point was, exactly what he was going to say later and that neither Peterson nor Pageau would be able to summon any counter to that.

That entire discussion may as well have been about whether or not water is wet. It really is that simple to me. There is nothing that can confound me, there is nothing that any of those three can teach me about the subject matter, and that's simply it. I am quite well trained in mathematics, computer science and logic, and through that education I have transcended this entire subject matter. That's how, even though I've never heard the term "performative contradiction", when Pageau said that I immediately knew exactly why that argument was false. There is nothing anyone can throw at me regarding this, that I cannot immediately dissect.

That's interesting Mr Brothir. You seem unwilling to entertain anything that is not predicated just on the objective truth. It's okay, nothing wrong with that. You most definitely orship your own intellect.

 

[senri]

I also think the "we're more holistic about it" argument is blatantly dumb. For instance, I can very easily form a holistic view regarding the science/ethics dichotomy. The analytical power of mathematics makes it very easy to establish a set of axioms that cleanly solves the point about the KGB scientist developing a deadly chemical weapon that Peterson brought up. Like I mentioned in my original post, that being a pursuit of science and that being an ethical pursuit of science are orthogonal. Pick one.

When you have, it's easy to backtrack from there into a set of axioms that justifies the one you picked. Obviously, Sam Harris and people who hold similar positions to him are not truly confused about it, but many of them lack the training in formal logic that gives them the tools to do just that. Thenceforth arrives the slightly confused "science can justify itself and will solve everything" position. I don't suffer from that limitation, and so I propose a more clear variant: "It is entirely possible, and quite easy, to form a set of axioms wherein scientific pursuit is well defined and constrained by ethical considerations, and a subset of those same axioms can also be used to decisively answer a whole range of moral questions regardless of whether or not they pertain to science specifically". Without internal contradictions, of course.

So what you're saying here is mathematics can construct a moral framework where one can operate in?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The short essay Up From Liberalism (1959) by Richard Weaver is what turned me away from leftism:

You can read it for free here: http://www.unz.org/Pub/ModernAge-1959q1-00021

Read the link. Cuts off before the end, but I don't see how it turns you away from "leftism." Right-wingers in the 1920s were nicer folks than Marxists and there's more to life than commerce, and rationality isn't enough either. OK. First one sounds believable and the other two are right.

If you read the WR, you see how today's American right is driven primarily by hatred--for what amounts to a vast majority of Americans and for America itself, plus the rest of the world. The GOP as an institution cares exclusively about upward redistribution of wealth, and stokes the fires of hatred by rubes to get the political power necessary to enact that unpopular goal. There's no talk of community, moral uplift, support for the life of mind, or anything like that in rhetoric or action. Read Breitbart or Fox, listen to talk radio, and look at legislation the GOP proposes and opposes if you doubt me. Today, if you value honesty, community, art, learning for its own sake, and freedom, you're forced to the left, at least politically (that is, you might harbor hope for a non-existent right and orient yourself that way, but you can't support the party of Moore, Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and generally of ugly appeals to tribalism and smearing of good people with lies).

 

[brothir]

That's interesting Mr Brothir. You seem unwilling to entertain anything that is not predicated just on the objective truth. It's okay, nothing wrong with that. You most definitely orship your own intellect.

I'm unwilling to entertain attempts at obfuscating the core matter, truth, which is what Peterson is ultimately doing. "Objective truth" is a misnomer in my book: for instance, classical logic assumes the axiom of the excluded middle, whereas intuitionist logic (don't get the wrong idea from the name, it's entirely rigorous and not at all based on what any one person arbitrarily considers intuitive) does not. They are both entirely compatible with one another: there is no theorem in intuitionist logic that is false in classical logic, but there's a whole host of theorems in classical logic that are undecidable in intuitionist logic. So, which of these two systems is "the objective truth"?

It's clearly a pointless axis to measure things against. Define truth in some way, and then be straightforward with what theorems can be derived from them (and prove them). Peterson is just waffling on about "Oh, I think you mixed metaphorical truth with pragmatic truth there" and such, and never actually gets on with the real work which is to prove how his proposed system actually functions. Mathematicians, logicians and computer scientists actually do this, and produce hundreds of thousands of theorems every year. Peterson does not, and his way of operating is not conducive towards that kind of effort at all.

That's why I'm dismissive.

And as a final note, you're kind of being an asshole with the "you certainly worship your own intellect". No, I don't. None of what I said implies that. There's two options: either I'm gloating about how much smarter I am, or I'm just confused why we have some 40 year old dudes having a public debate about really obvious stuff that is high school level at best. The latter option is the correct one: none of this is intellectually difficult at all, so I'm surprised why people find it worthwhile to bang on about it. Some really basic reading about the modern foundations of mathematics would render all this incredibly trivial.

So what you're saying here is mathematics can construct a moral framework where one can operate in?

Yes, and what is more, pretty much any serious work in doing this will be mathematics.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Read the link. Cuts off before the end, but I don't see how it turns you away from "leftism." Right-wingers in the 1920s were nicer folks than Marxists and there's more to life than commerce, and rationality isn't enough either. OK. First one sounds believable and the other two are right.

If you read the WR, you see how today's American right is driven primarily by hatred--for what amounts to a vast majority of Americans and for America itself, plus the rest of the world. The GOP as an institution cares exclusively about upward redistribution of wealth, and stokes the fires of hatred by rubes to get the political power necessary to enact that unpopular goal. There's no talk of community, moral uplift, support for the life of mind, or anything like that in rhetoric or action. Read Breitbart or Fox, listen to talk radio, and look at legislation the GOP proposes and opposes if you doubt me. Today, if you value honesty, community, art, learning for its own sake, and freedom, you're forced to the left, at least politically (that is, you might harbor hope for a non-existent right and orient yourself that way, but you can't support the party of Moore, Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and generally of ugly appeals to tribalism and smearing of good people with lies).

I did not realize it cuts off . Here is another link with the complete essay if you are interested (Page 8 of the PDF "Russell Kirk calls affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life...” is where the other link ended): http://www.mmisi.org/ma/03_01/weaver.pdf

I am harboring hope for a non-existent Right. It is what Roger Scruton refers to as Scrutopia because it is something that does not exist and likely never will.


"I am of the opinion that our knowledge of the nature and spirit of man is decreasing, and this not relatively but absolutely. No one can study Greek philosophy or medieval Christianity or
the other great religions of the world without realizing that these saw man as a creature fearfully and wonderfully made, and that each tried to lead him with appropriate imagination and subtlety.
Today, living under the shadow of this demonic technological omnipotence, we are trying to get along by supposing such crudities as economic man, “naturally good” man, and so on. Of course they do not work, and the more they are tried in our context, the nearer we are to catastrophe."
-Richard Weaver

 

[senri]

I'm unwilling to entertain attempts at obfuscating the core matter, truth, which is what Peterson is ultimately doing. "Objective truth" is a misnomer in my book: for instance, classical logic assumes the axiom of the excluded middle, whereas intuitionist logic (don't get the wrong idea from the name, it's entirely rigorous and not at all based on what any one person arbitrarily considers intuitive) does not. They are both entirely compatible with one another: there is no theorem in intuitionist logic that is false in classical logic, but there's a whole host of theorems in classical logic that are undecidable in intuitionist logic. So, which of these two systems is "the objective truth"?

It's clearly a pointless axis to measure things against. Define truth in some way, and then be straightforward with what theorems can be derived from them (and prove them). Peterson is just waffling on about "Oh, I think you mixed metaphorical truth with pragmatic truth there" and such, and never actually gets on with the real work which is to prove how his proposed system actually functions. Mathematicians, logicians and computer scientists actually do this, and produce hundreds of thousands of theorems every year. Peterson does not, and his way of operating is not conducive towards that kind of effort at all.

That's why I'm dismissive.

And as a final note, you're kind of being an asshole with the "you certainly worship your own intellect". No, I don't. None of what I said implies that. There's two options: either I'm gloating about how much smarter I am, or I'm just confused why we have some 40 year old dudes having a public debate about really obvious stuff that is high school level at best. The latter option is the correct one: none of this is intellectually difficult at all, so I'm surprised why people find it worthwhile to bang on about it. Some really basic reading about the modern foundations of mathematics would render all this incredibly trivial.



Yes, and what is more, pretty much any serious work in doing this will be mathematics.

Settle down Mr Brothir no need to throb. Seek the eloquence when penetrating, we need you to be beautiful.

I very much like your point of view. There is an aroma to your essence worth exploring.

Where others are approaching this topic more in lines with philosophy you are of the notion that math can solve all of our problems, interesting...

 

[IDL]

I'm unwilling to entertain attempts at obfuscating the core matter, truth, which is what Peterson is ultimately doing. "Objective truth" is a misnomer in my book: for instance, classical logic assumes the axiom of the excluded middle, whereas intuitionist logic (don't get the wrong idea from the name, it's entirely rigorous and not at all based on what any one person arbitrarily considers intuitive) does not. They are both entirely compatible with one another: there is no theorem in intuitionist logic that is false in classical logic, but there's a whole host of theorems in classical logic that are undecidable in intuitionist logic. So, which of these two systems is "the objective truth"?

It's clearly a pointless axis to measure things against. Define truth in some way, and then be straightforward with what theorems can be derived from them (and prove them). Peterson is just waffling on about "Oh, I think you mixed metaphorical truth with pragmatic truth there" and such, and never actually gets on with the real work which is to prove how his proposed system actually functions. Mathematicians, logicians and computer scientists actually do this, and produce hundreds of thousands of theorems every year. Peterson does not, and his way of operating is not conducive towards that kind of effort at all.

That's why I'm dismissive.

And as a final note, you're kind of being an asshole with the "you certainly worship your own intellect". No, I don't. None of what I said implies that. There's two options: either I'm gloating about how much smarter I am, or I'm just confused why we have some 40 year old dudes having a public debate about really obvious stuff that is high school level at best. The latter option is the correct one: none of this is intellectually difficult at all, so I'm surprised why people find it worthwhile to bang on about it. Some really basic reading about the modern foundations of mathematics would render all this incredibly trivial.



Yes, and what is more, pretty much any serious work in doing this will be mathematics.

Peterson has separated different types of truth for the sake of clarity. He uses the term meta-truth to refer to things like truths contained within stories, mythology, archetypes, etc. Which is not the same as 2+2=4.

It makes sense that the two are different, and it gets confusing when trying to define 'truth' as containing both types because they are thought about in different ways

He's also gone into more detail about how 'meta-truth' is determined and has clearly spent a lot of energy in that domain, so it's not like he just throws it out there. Obviously it is not a simple thing to distill what is 'meta-true', per say.

 

[brothir]

Peterson has separated different types of truth for the sake of clarity. He uses the term meta-truth to refer to things like truths contained within stories, mythology, archetypes, etc. Which is not the same as 2+2=4.

That's exactly what I mean, though. Mathematics already has the concept of meta-truth, which is used for theorems that are about logical systems themselves. Peterson trying to redefine this into something that isn't about truth at all, is obfuscation to a T.

 

[IDL]

That's exactly what I mean, though. Mathematics already has the concept of meta-truth, which is used for theorems that are about logical systems themselves. Peterson trying to redefine this into something that isn't about truth at all, is obfuscation to a T.

I'm not sure what he is trying to obfuscate. I think he is trying to clarify what he means.

Maybe there is a better word to use to convey the truth he is referring to? At the end of the day I think it comes down to what is the best language to use to convey the desired meaning.

 

[brothir]

I'm not sure what he is trying to obfuscate. I think he is trying to clarify what he means.

Maybe there is a better word to use to convey the truth he is referring to?

Pleasing, grokkable, beautiful, wholesome, symmetric, etc. These are notions of aesthetics, which corresponds to human works of art.

He's trying to inject an inferior concept into the sphere of intellectualism. That, or he's just too uneducated to realize.

 

[IDL]

Pleasing, grokkable, beautiful, wholesome, symmetric, etc. These are notions of aesthetics, which corresponds to human works of art.

He's trying to inject an inferior concept into the sphere of intellectualism. That, or he's just too uneducated to realize.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Adjectives to describe aesthetics of art isn't what I was referring to and I don't think Peterson is referring to that either.

 

[brothir]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Adjectives to describe aesthetics of art isn't what I was referring to and I don't think Peterson is referring to that either.

That's probably owing to you having been a successful victim of his obfuscation. There's no rigor in Peterson's framework, nothing that's well defined. Truth is then precluded, and he's left with aesthetics.

 

[dontsnitch]

Seeing random Sherbros pretending to be more intelligent and educated than Ph.D professors who taught at Harvard because of a 5 minute clip on philosophy is something else. Never change, Sherdog.

 

[IDL]

That's probably owing to you having been a successful victim of his obfuscation. There's no rigor in Peterson's framework, nothing that's well defined. Truth is then precluded, and he's left with aesthetics.

I think we are just talking about different things and that there is a disconnect here. I do appreciate your passive little insult there though. I won't bother speculating on why you felt compelled to do that.

I was referring to this such thing: "He uses the term meta-truth to refer to things like truths contained within stories, mythology, archetypes, etc". So you could say 'passed down wisdom, lessons, truths about nature and humanity, and that type of thing. So not a literal truth, per say. I'm not sure if you accept that there can be truth in that form conceptually, but I certainly do.

You may not have been referring to that, which is fine.

 

[senri]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Adjectives to describe aesthetics of art isn't what I was referring to and I don't think Peterson is referring to that either.

You are not, he is on another sequence of dendritic formation. Do not worry Mr IDL his perception of mathmatics can solve the moral framework and cure humanity of it's flawed condition. I enjoy hearing his cortex, we must give Mr @brothir sometime to gape.

As for meta-truth he decided to use wisdom as a better choice of words.

 

[senri]

Seeing random Sherbros pretending to be more intelligent and educated than Ph.D professors who taught at Harvard because of a 5 minute clip on philosophy is something else. Never change, Sherdog.

Let them throb, it's how we can taste their secretions Mr Snitch.

 

[dontsnitch]

Let them throb, it's how we can taste their secretions Mr Snitch.

I like your unique style.

 

[IDL]

You are not, he is on another sequence of dendritic formation. Do not worry Mr IDL his perception of mathmatics can solve the moral framework and cure humanity of it's flawed condition. I enjoy hearing his cortex, we must give Mr @brothir sometime to gape.

As for meta-truth he decided to use wisdom as a better choice of words.

To ponder the question: Can there be a form of truth contained within wisdom? If so, what kind of truth is it and how do you identify it?

It's not an easy thing to distill, but I think we can often times detect its presence

Still, it is funny thing to squabble about, for philosophical musings.

 

[kpt018]

Seeing random Sherbros pretending to be more intelligent and educated than Ph.D professors who taught at Harvard because of a 5 minute clip on philosophy is something else. Never change, Sherdog.

Sure, but lets not pretend that folks with Phds that taught at Harvard are right about everything.

 

[brothir]

I think we are just talking about different things and that there is a disconnect here. I do appreciate your passive little insult there though. I won't bother speculating on why you felt compelled to do that.

I was referring to this such thing: "He uses the term meta-truth to refer to things like truths contained within stories, mythology, archetypes, etc". So you could say 'passed down wisdom, lessons, truths about nature and humanity, and that type of thing. So not a literal truth, per say. I'm not sure if you accept that there can be truth in that form conceptually, but I certainly do.

You may not have been referring to that, which is fine.

The reason is quite simple: I'm tired of people insisting that I'm not getting it, when that's not the case at all.

Your quote there is exactly as meaningful as, say, "vegetables, meat, and aircraft hangars". Those are all things that exist, and that's pretty much it. You've even basically recognized the discord in what Peterson is doing here yourself in your original post to me. Saying "Oh, we've got this type of truth, and this type of truth, and then there is also that other type of truth" is obfuscation, plain and simple. When speaking about orthogonal things, choose orthogonal words.

The deciding factor of whether or not I accept that there is truth there is contingent on exactly one thing: the theorems derived from Peterson's framework. As far as I know, there aren't any, and as far as I know, he's simply not educated enough in matters of logic to even recognize the meaningfulness of such an endeavor.

That's what I'm referring to.