The sophist never defines things, thriving in the realm of ambiguity--seeming. The philosopher, in contrast, gets into definition of things, thriving in uncovering the truth--being.

>>24519860 (OP)
When people get angry if you ask them to define something you can tell their soul is a writhing bed of snakes

>>24519860 (OP)
Personally I think being a sophist is a good thing

>>24520074
Based. But J.P. is a perfect example of what a modern equivalent of a "Sophist" would be like. Always in your face, loves the spotlight of modern media (ancient equivalent would be discussions in the courts and public squares, I suppose). And doesn't actually know jack shit about philosophy. The first presupposition to any higher knowledge would be to control your emotions, but J.P. often appears as a blubbering baby. Could you imagine for example, Plato or Socrates in front of an audience, bawling their eyes out and snivelling like a toddler? Of course not, they've learned to rise above their emotions.

>>24520077
You just don't get his level of argumentation and dedication, bro. He's still making a point about humans and lobsters and he's gone through benzo addiction, compulsive penis "washing", Russian Orthodox rehab brainwashing, public humiliation and kike worship just so he could get emotional enough to turn into a lobster-human hybrid when certain triggers are used. He is making a point and he's dedicated his whole life to this one argument about lobsters.

>>24519873
Define every word in your statement. If each definition doesn't stand on it's own, a priori, please define all the terms in those sentences as well, until you reach an axiom.

>>24520077
>J.P. is a perfect example of what a modern equivalent of a "Sophist" would be like.
that's the point of OP you midtard

>>24520182
Okay? Why are you assuming that I disagree with OP

>>24519860 (OP)
>The philosopher, in contrast, gets into definition of things, thriving in uncovering the truth--being.
This isn't a valid criticism.
Peterson has never denied the existence such a definition in his personal life and has stated it before.
Peterson does not get "lost" in the myriad of possible definitions. Quite the contrary, in fact.
The goal of asking
>what do you mean by
during a debate, is to make the other party state his definition of the concept, thereby asserting a starting point through which he often leads to the statement that "belief", as defined by the other party, isn't a substitute for "blindly trust" but, in actuality, the set of ideas that drives their actions.
There is no confusion about what the definitions are.
He, quite literally, does what you stated that a philosopher does.

Not a single criticism itt is based on anything factual. It's rather an obvious display of a basic lack of understanding.

I am not saying that Peterson doesn't have any faults. I am saying that your particular criticism is obviously wrong.
The biggest criticism of Peterson is his lack of originality, but he has NEVER portrayed himself as a proponent of original ideas, or philosophical revolution, understood as the development of new, even if derivative, frameworks.

It's quite sad, and boring, how most public criticism of Dr. Peterson stays so shallow.

>The goal of asking
>>what do you mean by
>during a debate

It's clearly a stalling tactic employed by fake philosophers such as J.P. to make his debate opponent seem stupid while J.P. is thinking of something "smart sounding" to say.

Also I want to point out the important fact that real philosophers were never "professional" philosophers, they always had real jobs and philosophy was a side gig, the professional intellectual, or person who makes a living "philosophizing" is clearly a symptom of a decadent civilization (or at least of a cycle of decadence within a civilization).

>>what do you mean by
>when Socrates does it
OMG SOCRATES IS SO GENIUS
>when Peterson does it
Why is he filibustering?

>>24520209
>It's clearly a stalling tactic employed by fake philosophers such as J.P. to make his debate opponent seem stupid while J.P. is thinking of something "smart sounding" to say.
Projection at it's finest.
The goal of doing so is to:
>gets into definition of things, thriving in uncovering the truth
Given this truth is the real meaning behind the concept of "belief".

Cope and, seethe.

>>24520210
your modern philosophers not being able to live with his philosophizing doesn't determine what ought to be

>>24520217
I've read this post 3 times now and still don't get it. Please explain.

>>24520218
you know that philosopher kings aren't supposed to be those that are working an oil rig right?

>>24520215
>The goal of doing so is to:
>>gets into definition of things, thriving in uncovering the truth
>Given this truth is the real meaning behind the concept of "belief".

Word salad, not real philosophy. All you achieved with this post is to project that you are "coping" and also, for some reason "seething", for which I can only express my sincere pity.

>>24520221
The "philosopher king" was an abstraction, a perfect scenario and not something that we are expected to find in our histories. Also slight kek at the subtle implication that a Platonic "Philosopher King" would be anything like J.P., that's funny.

>>24520227
>The "philosopher king" was an abstraction, a perfect scenario and not something that we are expected to find in our histories.
and somehow philosophers are supposed to be based on how some 19th century philosopher are?

>>24520210
>Also I want to point out the important fact that real philosophers were never "professional" philosophers, they always had real jobs and philosophy was a side gig, the professional intellectual, or person who makes a living "philosophizing" is clearly a symptom of a decadent civilization (or at least of a cycle of decadence within a civilization).
Lmfao
Another clear mischaracterization.
First of all, a real philosopher understands that one never stops "philosophizing" as knowledge and the pursuit of truth is found in every single aspect of life.
>making a living
Taking into account the statement above, literally everyone makes a living philisophizing.
Actually, this is exactly what a "sphist" would do. You just misunderstood and twisted definitions in order to muddy the waters and furtber a poorly articulated point.

Furthermore, under your characterization of "philosophizing", it cannot be stated that Peterson makes a living this way. His career was that of a clinical psychologist, a professor, a self-help author and, now, a media personality (Daily-Wire).

>>24520222
>Word salad, not real philosophy. All you achieved with this post is to project that you are "coping" and also, for some reason "seething", for which I can only express my sincere pity.
Not a single argument posted here.
What is really deserving of pity is your lack of wit.

>>24519860 (OP)
Definitions, while aiming to clarify, often reduce the richness and complexity inherent in concepts. They impose artificial boundaries in pursuit of certainty and control, but in doing so, they risk distorting or flattening what the concept genuinely brings to thought. True understanding arises not from fixing meaning through rigid definitions, but from exploring the web of relations—the constellations—in which a concept lives. This approach respects the concept's autonomy and depth, acknowledging that meaning is not simply constructed or imposed, but encountered and interpreted. From this view, definitions are not useless, but they are limited—and sometimes even ethically suspect—when used to preempt thought rather than engage it. They should be treated with skepticism, especially when employed to sidestep the responsibility of grappling with the real, often ambiguous, substance of things.

>>24520256
>gpt em dash

>>24520256
I mean sure but that doesn't mean anything

>>24520256
This nigga never done math.
The true richness comes when you properly define things.
>manifold is like something that looks flat up close
What the fuck do I do with this? Can I work out any theorems or classifications? No, because this is the equivalent of sophistry in mathematics.
>a manifold is a topological space that is Hausdorff, second-countable, and locally homeomorphic to the Euclidean space
This is a precise definition that captures the original, vague description. I immediately know what to do with it because I can connect it to pre-established notions such as topology and Euclidean geometry and reason out conclusions from there on.

>>24520263
All that big dick math and you can't discern obvious AI. I called it in 2023. AI generated content will function as a reverse Turing test.

>>24520256
Is there anything else you would like me to clarify? Perhaps I could write a short poem about the trouble with definitions!

>>24520263
He actually described sophistry. Which is at the core of the post-modern idea of all interpretations being equally correct.
He said that "true definitions" are something akin to a collective, unconscious creation.
It's similar, but not the same, as the "world of ideas", in that, the truth encompases all different subspecies of itself, and yet, can never be observed - in It's purest form - in the real world. But instead, asserts that this "purest form" is ever-changing and eternal at the same time.

>>24519860 (OP)
Intellectualism in the vicious sense began when Socrates and Plato taught that what a thing really is, is told us by its definition. Ever since Socrates we have been taught that reality consists of essences, not of appearances, and that the essences of things are known whenever we know their definitions. So first we identify the thing with a concept and then we identify the concept with a definition, and only then, inasmuch as the thing is whatever the definition expresses, are we sure of apprehending the real essence of it or the full truth about it. The logician is often tempted, when he cannot extract a certain property from a definition, to deny that the concrete object to which the definition applies can possibly possess that property. The definition that fails to yield it must exclude or negate it. It is but the old story of a useful practice first becoming a method, then a habit, and finally a tyranny that defeats the end it was used for. Concepts, first employed to make things intelligible, are clung to even when they make them unintelligible.

>>24520269
>muh AI this muh AI that
you fags are tiresome

>>24520282
Sad!

>>24520275
Nonsense, categorization is in the nature of human behavior and pattern recognition.
We distinguish things from others by categorizing them, by simultaneously recognizing what they are and what they aren't.
Although, there's a relevant factor here to be highlighted. One could say that, creativity is the ability to recognize how a "thing" could also fall into one of the categories it was previously deemed to not be a part of.
However, you still don't pose any useful alternative. "Reality is determined by appearances" has obvious logical problems and contradictions. I am trying to not use the concept of "definitions" here, but appearances are infinite, as are interpretations. So, the only real way to recognize reality by appearances would be determined by consensus, which then leads back to the creation of "definitions".
As long as there exists language, definitions will be necessary.

Although, again, with creativity, one could argue for the value of the individual's perception (appearances), over the collective consensus when it comes to the metaphysical. Making it so consensus is simply used for policy in a utilitarian perspective. And still allowing for the meaningful existence of individual perceptions.

But then, things that are independent of perception also exist, do they not? Wait... do they? I can't think of any... Math, perhaps.
But, in the physical world, the uncertainty principle dictates that nothing actually exists independent of perception.

>>24520275
Hello William James

>>24520314
Is this like that scene in Good Will Hunting where the MC proves that this college faggot is simply reciting the views of the author he is currently reading?

>>24520294
>But then, things that are independent of perception also exist, do they not? Wait... do they? I can't think of any... Math, perhaps.
Kek. Hylic moment

>>24520331
I googled about the uncertainty principle, and Heisenberg said:
>...ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language
So kinda confirming that everything is math. I suck at math.

>>24520335
>So kinda confirming that everything is math
It really doesn't

Something something LOBSTER KING something something.

>>24520102
I'm not saying "x therefore y", I'm posing a problem, which is if something absurd like "a man once walked on water" is to be rejected unless proven by sufficient empirical evidence, why would you assume that the sun will rise tomorrow until proven otherwise? or better yet, why do you act as if the external world is even real and not a solipsistic dream of yours? Every action that assumes the existence of other minds is dogmatic.

Is it critical to believe the sun will rise tomorrow? It can be assumed anecdotally, "nobody has reported it happening otherwise", in other words the same degree of empirical evidence that a man once walked on water. Is there a reason the laws of physics won't change tonight?

>>24520294
NTA. This is how Aristotle reconciled platonic forms with what platonists actually believed. It does not change the fact that Socrates and company were decadents who denied the primacy of the sensible world. After Socrates ingested the hemlock, he told a friend to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius, implying that he was celebrating being healed from physical life.
The other anon is correct and you are not responding to what you think you are. >>24520314
It’s really Nietzsche’s criticism

>>24520825
>It does not change the fact that Socrates and company were decadents who denied the primacy of the sensible world.
You have to prove this. But I assume that's what William James does?

Anyway, if you read my statement, at the end, I imply that the sensible world is all there is, aside from the possibility of math being an exception.
The criticism you are talking about, I assume, is this "primacy of the sensible world over the metaphysical", however the criticism lacks the proposal of any alternative, as the problems posed by the infinity of interpretations are way worse than the ones posed by an objective world.

>>24519873
fpbp

>>24519860 (OP)
>t. antivital dissector bugman unburdened by inconveniences like the possession

>>24522457
>*of a soul

>>24522457
>unburdened
is that you kamala?

>>24520077
You forgot the defining feature of the sophist which Socrates is the most annoyed at: asking for payment to “teach”. Peterschwein holds a sales pitch at all lectures, he has his books but also special programs he tries to hawk, lecture series, videos, the man tried to sell a fucking rug. He’s more like some turkish bazaar than philosopher or psychologist. Best price for you friend, act fast! Unlock the secrets of the universe with my ayruvedic cow piss saar!

>>24522686
>asking for payment to “teach”
which you can watch on youtube?

>>24519860 (OP)
Several whole chapters of Maps of Meaning are dedicated to understanding how to define (and accept the definitions) of things.

Keep posting 100% emotion-motivated amygdala threads though.

>>24520678
>Every action that assumes the existence of other minds is dogmatic.
You can make inferences with varying levels of confidence about the existence of other minds while acknowledging you can't know their existence for certain. I believe it is possible to construct a worldview without dogma, or, at the very least, where the only dogma you have is to carefully avoid committing to dogma (but I think that if you want to call that, itself, a dogma you're being more cheeky than fair).

>>24520077

Peterson will touch a nerve by simply pointing out something that is blatantly ignored in the way an ideological group frames an issue. He exposes ideological blind spots in a simple and straightforward way; this leads to the fellow travelers of whichever idea is being discussed having a breakdown and exposing themselves. He's valuable as a media personality if even for that reason alone.

>Peterson: it would be productive to involve men in the conversation about violence against women in a way that doesn't label masculinity as inherently negative
>Libtard: so you're saying in order to make men care about rape women have to be returned to the status of men's property
>Peterson: the rise of identitarianism is linked to reactionary politics that sublimate personal resentment into collectivistic extremism
>Chud: so you're saying white people don't have group interests and therefore shouldn't exist
>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused and open to mental pathologies via social contagion--we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors
>Tranny: so you're literal nazi saying we're a disease and we should be exterminated like one
>Peterson: anonymity increases the likelihood of pathological behavior so perhaps one way to alleviate the negative repercussions of its overall influence would be to segregate accounts on these specific widely used social media websites--it's definitely better than secret and selective control of the public narrative as it exists now
>/pol/tard: so you're saying you want everyone everywhere to be tied to whatever they say and do at all times...I'm a freedom fighter [goes to another thread to post about AOC's asshole while writing "nig*er" 50 times]

>>24522692
No, private stuff

>>24525315
The vast majority of what the guy produces is free to access and if someone wants to spend their money on whatever merch he offers there's no harm in it. You sound like a retard parroting the "grifter" meme because a media figure made you big mad by pointing out cutting off your dick won't magically turn you into a woman.

>>24519860 (OP)
>The sophist never defines things
my daughter isn't sure what she should do, obviously i know best- anyway what's you're issue, you can't drive a car?

>>24519860 (OP)

No one has ever said anything 'smart' on jubilee, and I am officially sick of this thread.

>>24525397
That blonde girl challenging a faggot to define gay sex as an act of love given the fact it leads to fecal incontinence was hilarious.

>>24520263
If you want to compare philosophy to math, someone who imposes excessively rigid definitions on multi-layered philosophical concepts is like someone who was told by his middle school math teacher that pi = 3.14, and he kept this false belief his whole life, never realizing that 3.14 is merely a rounded simplification, and the assumption "pi = 3.14" will lead to very incorrect results with profound negative effects when you operate on a large enough scale, such as rocket guidance. Similarly, strict definitions may work for philosophy 101 courses but misses the big picture for higher level discussions.

>>24525303
If you unironically use language like "chud" and "poltard" then you are mentally buckbroken and not worth paying attention to. There's a reason why no one speaks like this in the real world, it's a mental illness that propagates on the internet

>>24525406

Well I didn't say it couldn't be entertaining

There’s nothing wrong with semantic clarity, Peterson is just bad at it. For example in the recent Jubilee video:
>Claim: all atheists worship something even if they don’t realize it
>defines worship as attending to, prioritizing, and sacrificing for something
but has Peterson ever met a single person who claims not to attend to or prioritize anything? I can’t believe no one called him out on this, since his definition is so vague that his claim becomes completely banal

>>24520211
Nobody on this board likes Socrates.

>>24526088
>his definition is so vague that his claim becomes completely banal
That's his whole schtick though, hairsplit things down to where their definitions are incredibly vague and its impossible to reach conclusions. He does this for a living you know, he doesn't want to solve problems, if the problems go away he loses his source of income

>>24520218
It's very poorly written, but what he means is that we can't determine that philosophers ought not be professional philosiphers from the fact that modern philosophers can't sustain themselves through philosophy (which isn't true lol).

>>24526125
perma banned but not forgotten

>>24520263
Culture isn't mathematical. You're awkwardly trying to cram one thing into the set of standards required for something totally different.

>>24526156
Failing to understand a universal deduction from a particular example is a sign of low intelligence.