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

All of that means next to nothing. It doesn't prove that the Truth is Darwinian, in part or in whole, it simply proves that Darwinian forces are at work and that life is beholden to them.

It's a lazy and round-about way of addressing the nature of truth in regards to objectivity vs subjectivity and doesn't get into the meat of the problem in the way that it should be rightly addressed.

here: https://youtu.be/F7gCa5UYDA0

I don't need to listen to more Peterson, I've heard him speak for hours upon hours

Let alone listen to him monologue

"All of that means next to nothing. It doesn't prove that the Truth is Darwinian"
Did you not read a damn thing I just typed? 🤦

I did, yes, I also listened to him argue with Sam Harris about this for hours

Where do you get the idea that he claimed truth was *exclusively* Darwinian? Show me, pls

"but adopts a worldview in which he places himself against the very force that he is most likely to be crushed/snuffed out by."
I have no idea wtf this is supposed to even mean

He's never claimed it is *exclusively* Darwinian, but that it has a Darwinian element, which I pointed out in my very first comment, and then continued on under the premise that we both understood I wasn't making an absolute statement about it

I'm *trying* to be respectful here, but when I pointed out you were going off of a *fragment* of JBP's thoughts w/o considering *concept*, you threw it back in my face.

Mechanic: "Your car needs windshield wiper fluid"
"Pfft, everyone knows cars don't run on windshield wiper fluid, you're a crap mechanic 🙄 "
Mechanic: "Whoa there buddy, where did I say that was *all* it needed?"

No, I didn't.

"All of that means next to nothing. It doesn't prove that the Truth is Darwinian, in part or in whole, it simply proves that Darwinian forces are at work and that life is beholden to them. "

***IN PART*** *OR IN WHOLE*

"He claims truth has some Darwinian aspect to it,"

"All of that means next to nothing."
It seemed to me you simply dismissed everything I said *after* the Darwinian part about mediating b/w the past & present w/o stating an argument

Hang on