finally

who the hell is that

halloween costume right here.

succ

Notice anything? <:Sarthink:448914953483583499>

looks gay af

This book is not about heroes. English poetry is not yet fit to speak of them.

Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor anything about glory, honour, might, majesty, dominion, or power, except War.

Above all I am not concerned with Poetry.

My subject is War, and the pity of War.

The Poetry is in the pity.

a country full of those

that is one of the many legacies of two world wars

I've come to understand my greatest grievance/criticism of Jordan Peterson.

He claims truth has some Darwinian aspect to it, but adopts a worldview in which he places himself against the very force that he is most likely to be crushed/snuffed out by.

How does he reconcile these two things?

To my understanding, he would need to adopt some sort of quantum model of truth wherein the truth is only objective insofar as he defines it, but subjective/Darwinian outside of those definitions, which would be inherently a post-modernist assertion to make.

It's a damnable position to take up that I have to point out, because I can't justly reconcile his position on truth without challenging the misconception and flawed argument he engages in here. There is objectivity or there isn't. Truth can't exist in a quantum state.

part of the problem is p-np problem

which is shit

@Sétanta I'm not sure I follow... 🤔

Can you elaborate on your premises?
1) "He claims truth has some Darwinian aspect to it"
2) "but adopts a worldview in which he places himself against the very force that he is most likely to be crushed/snuffed out by."

If truth is Darwinian in nature, as he claims, why take up an ideological position wherein he objectively worsens the quality of his life/creates problems for himself and his family?

Regardless of the outcome, the truth will be the truth

again, I'm not sure I follow

I don't think I've ever heard him claim truth is *exclusively* "Darwinian in nature"

I've heard him say something to the effect of that if old concepts/stories/ideas survive for a long time, that indicates that there might be something to them, ***but*** ....

and this is a big **BUT**

The past (and those who formed it) is the realm of the *dead*, and it's *our* responsibility to mediate between today & yesterday by breathing new life into it & giving it sight

The past is **static** - it can't take in new information necessary to adapt to new circumstances that constantly come up