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

No, not at all, no one is right about everything, including Peterson. I'm pretty sure Sam Harris had his number in the original conversation. But it does lead to an interesting point- too many times we imply that the smarter person is right, which is a theme we see on this forum all the time, it's probably the most common ad hom on here.

 

So it is semantics that you have an issue with in regards to what to call the underlying concepts? Or is it that you do not agree that there can be truth contained within the above subject matter?

If it is semantics, which word would you prefer?

 

So why would you raise the point that Peterson is smarter than everyone here when the question at hand isn't even his expertise? And Sam Harris, a nueroscience Phd thinks Trump is a moron.

The arguments should be what convinces, not the messenger. I think you agree, which makes your post strange.

 

It hasn't been demonstrated, is what the issue is. Peterson should sit down, and actually formulate a set of axioms and from those create some theorems. What the semantics of that framework will be, is up to him to define. If he defines them badly, the resulting work will be poor.

 

I like you too...

 

Pretty sure he has already done that. I do recall him talking about that very thing, and I recall him saying very similar things to what you are saying in terms of a methodology.

I am still not sure what hasn't been demonstrated though. I see two seperate things:

1) acknowledgement of the existence of truth contained within story, mythology, archetypes, etc, at least conceptually
2) the methodology around distilling it

Would you say that you agree with 1, but you just haven't seen 2 demonstrated and thus are skeptical about it?

 

How would we setup a set of axioms in conjunction with morality when we dont know what consequence may arise out of the endless aggregations? We can only define them as they present themselves worthy of measure.

 

In terms of 1), the framework he has developed (?) should answer the following:

- What does existence mean?
- What does truth mean?
- What are stories, mythologies, archetypes, etc., and how are they semantically represented?
- What binary operations are performable on these, and what results do they yield?
- Can he demonstrate consistency?
- Can he demonstrate completeness?
- What other frameworks is his incompatible with?

 

He seems to have approached what you're alludng to in his book maps of meaning. You should read it Mr Brothir.

 

It's funny, I think Peterson would agree with everything you are saying, and that I suspect you would agree with much of what he is saying also, after diving deeper into all of these things and going through his reasoning, which takes time. He takes a rather scientifically minded approach to the subjects which aren't really thought of as scientific ones (such as mythology)

You are pretty aware that seemingly simple questions can't always be answered with 'yes' or 'no' because it depends on so many variables.

 

That's exactly what logic is about: deducing consequences of axioms. The smarter we are about it, the more we can deduce.

For instance, consider the following axiom:

- Every human being has a right to vote where they have citizenship.

This in and of itself is not complete at all: what is and is not a human being? What is it to vote? How is citizenship defined? Yet it is still clear that adoption of this axiom entails an incompatibility with absolute monarchy as a form of government, for instance.

So then, what other forms of government will the adoption of that axiom exclude? Can we precisely formulate a set that contains all of them? Do the members of this have any other properties other than the aforementioned incompatibility? Can we make subsets of that set based on those?

Hard questions. I can't really say I have any satisfying answers, but that's the sort of thing I think about.

 

Based on every summary I've seen, that is not the case. I'm going to need a couple of pretty hard-hitting paragraphs quoted before I'm dignifying him with my money.

 

The answers you are looking for are fleshed out by the sapien through his videos and books. You must explore my beautiful tight flesh. I love people that are tight but the contrast in texture and softness of their platicity is what allows for us to percoeve the perfect taste in one another.

 

No. Peterson has essentially gone out of his way to discredit himself in my eyes. I will not go out of my way to redeem him.

 

Now with all those aggregations you mentioned how would you then go about finding the ones with the best moral outcome and how would you go about measuring it?

 

I pointed out that it's amusing that people are pretending to be more intelligent than Peterson, or conversely, that Peterson is of average intelligence. That doesn't mean the point they are arguing is wrong, which is the point- you don't need to attack Peterson personally, which is what many posters have done ITT from the very beginning.

 

Of course i understand this, how do you approach broken humans with sets of algorithm to solve their problems? A psychoanalyst deals with this chaos of humanity which is not always logical.

 

That's okay my tight flesh. Perhaps further down the road we shall figure out if you are indeed right in that math is the answer to all.

 

The abstracted answer is that it will require further axioms to define moral outcomes and what it means for them to be good and bad. Measuring, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that word. "Evaluating" is better. I'd take inspiration from groups, ZFC, and probably quite a few other parts of mathematics, and basically try to reify the previously mentioned aspects into mathematical objects that can be subject to binary operations and mappings. Moral questions would then behave much like sets, and asking moral questions would be done through unions and disjunctions of sets.

I don't think I'd actually be able to do that, though. Again, I'm not worshipping my own intellect. The best I realistically could do is to create some abstracted lists of axioms that are engineered to justify certain aspects of modern human society that I find good (democracy, constitutional rights, equality) and make some basic observations about what they imply and what they eliminate.