Yet, even the first premise of the argument can be objected as being false.

Okay so how do you apply that to Peterson’s argument

Well... if you want to apply that to Peterson's argument, just plug and chug lol

He makes several claims attempting to defend the truth of scripture, yet when he claims truth, he cannot rule out every objection to any premise of his argument as not being false.

For example, let's say that premise 1 has a probability of being 5% false. Well, so long as there is a probability of a premise being false, it by definition cannot be true because true premises are not possible to be false.

A probability of a thing is simply the margin of error that can be allowed, and as long as there is a margin of error, we cannot know if anything in an argument is true because the supposed truth value of a premise would need to be independent of any error margin.

In other words, to say that something is true is to suggest that there are no other possibilities for it to not be the case... yet if there is always the possibility for it to not be the case, then it is not independent of any and all margins of error.

Quite the paradox...

Peterson attempted to use field data found by Jane Goodall as a building block of a metaphysics, yet metaphysics is just as specious as epistemology, logic, and ethics.

Let me ask this of the metaphysicians... 1) why does metaphysics matter? 2) what exactly is supposed to be different when analyzing and comparing differing metaphysical theories?

With regards to my second question concerning the metaphysicians, I would also like to inquire into how exactly it is that there are differing metaphysics and what exactly is supposed to happen if I were to accept one over another?

For example, if I were to accept or believe Aristotle's hylomorphism compared to Cartesian Dualism or even a Materialism, all the while holding a cup in my hand, how does any of that change the cup?

If the cup is only able to be consistently constituted within a framework of hylomorphism because it "makes more sense" than if it were constituted under a framework of Cartesian Dualism, why does it matter, if the cup still looks the same, feels the same, and I can drink from it the same no matter what metaphysical label I decide to buy into while using it?

What exactly is supposed to change depending upon what metaphysical lens or label I decide to apply?

Just my thoughts lmao

@Ajay I honestly don't like what Peterson ever really says. He relies too much on an authoritative outlook of psychology and for that his arguments are weak, for any and all authority can be questioned.

Wow

I’m not sure I can respond to that lol but uh, nice philosophy lesson

I also think that he is too trad as well lmao

Don't worry about a response.

Yes, too trad

I'm tired anyway

It was good chatting with you, my dude.

Yeah for sure!

gtg

See ya later

check out my videos if you want to see more

YT?

yep

Gotcha

i only have 6 right now, but I will be back eventually

Okay will do 👍

👌

@Seven Of Swords ad victoriam

Dear brother's what is the mosr blue pilled country in the world?

England or Sweden

Definitely England

It's a very strange phenomenal that feminit groups support Islam