Pragmatism vs Objective Facts: Jordan Peterson, Greg Salmieri, Yaron Brook

Jordan Peterson debates the ideas of the American Pragmatists with Objectivist philosophers Greg Salmieri and Yaron Brook, discussing specifically whether one relies on facts to discover truth or whether one relies on utility and results.

Video credit to The Rubin Report

[_VISION.]

Except neopragmatism isn't about what is true but what can be sufficiently justified aka hold up to scrutiny. It's not a relativism of truth but a relativism of justification

[seanoconnoressays]

I like the point that our psychological experience is very relevant to the degree to which we can process facts. Not that I believe this changes "reality" but it reinforces in my mind the question of just how objective a mind can be.

[paulwolinsky]

Science proceeds by objections to "stupid theories" and often creates newer and better realities, but of course only in accord with the universe of values, possibilities and opportunities.

[fr.hughmackenzie]

Contra Yaron Brook: The urge to discover more "facts" about 9/11 is based on present information/facts. Better facts are based upon current ones. The meaning of "Al Quaeda did this" is rooted in the prior experience of the Twin Towers falling, and other prior experiences. They are all subjective experiences of the objective, they are all, at root, value-laden invitations to act well. That's what facts are.

[fr.hughmackenzie]

Peterson and Yaron are both is wrong to separate subjective evaluation from "facts". Peterson is right that facts are not mind-independant. Yaron is right that they transcend mind - but only in their objective component. The proposition "my wife is betraying me" is indeed true or false, but its meaning is deeply rooted in its impact upon me.

[AllTenThousand]

Peterson presents the pragmatist position OK for the most part (with the notable exception of, both chronologically and direct reference, the implications of human biological evolution influencing the pragmatic view of developing beliefs and standards of truth as useful, not the other way around), but the supposed resolution of this discussion is just silly. Giving the Objectivists the last word in this clip doesn't make them right or even reasonable.

The example is the implication of discovering your partner betrayed you.

Peterson says there arises incomprehensible confusion in your individual body and former theories/ assumed set of "facts" getting "objected" by the world (there some Heideggerian baloney underlying this which is neither necessary or demonstrable, an assertion without a method, the opposite of pragmatism) and so only answer, he says without saying, is to bow to the Other as the greater party in this unnecessary and non-demonstrable dichotomy.

Even worse, One objectivist argues "the facts are what they are, its our job to discover them". The other presents a straw man argument that the pragmatists want the simplest feel-good theory of the hour without regard for long term, where as objectivists are in a better position to see "the truth, " "fix the problem", and form better theories in the future.

What a pragmatist would actually do, starting with James' old saw of reserving judgment on which way a squirrel and man running around a tree should be viewed, represents a method by which all possible available theories are held unless falsified, without becoming invested in them. In James' scenario, the man is running a circumferential path around the tree and squirrel, but in synch with the squirrel such that they are also running side by side. It is unreasonable to argue one view or the other on the relative motion is better, unless there is some meaningful difference to be had - some usefulness - in doing so. And you need some way to verify/falsify one over the other, or else your conclusion cannot be said to be "true".

Peterson's example of spousal betrayal is purposefully laden with extreme emotion to distract, but it still works, and as a therapist, he well knowns this. A patient feels his wife betrayed him, and therefore he thinks it. But what happened? Was the spouse raped? Was she so drunk she barely remembers sleeping with a stranger? Did she kiss the mailman when receiving a letter the daughter got into Stanford? Has she been regularly texting good night wishes with a kiss emoji to a college boyfriend she hasn't seen in twenty years? At the very least, there are identifiable objective "facts", there are issues of intent which are rarely simple enough to be considered objective or factual, and there are mostly unconscious tendencies and assumptions within the patient that must be addressed to make sense of his emotional landscape and to what extent progress can be made.

A pragmatist would never reduce this scenario to "objective facts", understanding this scenario requires a multi-layered analysis and that there may be no way to make progress towards better decisions. On the other hand, Peterson's extreme example serves the purpose of diverting the conversation from the position he is supposed to be representing - because he doesn't really believe it, just read his Maps of Meaning. His own thinking is a maelstrom of convolution, wheels within wheels, Adam and Eve living off the Ourobouros of the one and many or some sh*t. He is somewhat impressive in being able to present other positions fairly well for a moment before falling apart, and the first impression hides his sideways slide into something else.

[taniwhaokoata]

Richard Rorty would of been great in this dialogue, everyone on this stage would benefit from reading his works again.

"Truth is whatever your contemporaries let you get away with" - Rorty

[TerapiaCarrillo]

7:14 thats pure william james. according to james de biological cames firsts. Merleau Ponty says that inside the perception is always knowledge. According to Albert Ellis Emotion and Thought comes together.

[Synodalian]

The problem I'm finding with Jordan Peterson's position is that his stance towards pragmatism as a disavowal of critical events that totally defy our preconceptions of reality is correct, yet he immediately undermines his own position by appealing to biological knowledge as an explanation for our response to these very events.

That's an inconsistent position to hold. If these events _truly_ defy our perception of reality, then we can't _describe_ them in such reductive terms.

Truth _itself_ defies the notion of Survival.

[Annc]

Jordan P: the world of values VS the world of facts... really?! just co-existing? Honest introspection brings you to #objectivism in he end. We are observing a real world OUT there. Reasoning is work. But JP does give a powerful example!

[YoungMommy]

That was... somewhat "interesting". Well... "interesting" is almost certainly a giant exaggeration.
I did however appreciate seeing Jordan Peterson engage in a discourse that isn't explicitly in reference to "Policts and Society" and his "axiological values that he ascribes to the aforementioned.
There really wasn't anything " groundbreaking.
Indeed, when it comes the matter of "Truth", the proposition "is my wife cheating on me" is a "binary matter" (She is or she isn't).
But, we can (I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here) insist that claims Re/ "Truth" must require "Metaphysical Context". So... If the "wife is cheating", we qualify the "fact" according to various metrics (Axiomatic, Identity, Historical, Cultural, et. al).
Can we truly call it "Truth" if it's not contextualized according to "Metaphysical effect"?
Once again. I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate" for "fun". I wouldn't actually say this to a buddy who is "tearfully" divulging to me that his wife is cheating on him.
If I did that, I'd be a real douche.
And... strangely enough, I think THAT "fictitious anecdote" serves as a Testament as to why "Pragmatism" is important.

[pyb.]

Body language tells you everything about how confident they are in their own theory. It's like they already know who people will believe.

[optimusprimum]

I don’t care what people say about Ayn Rand...she was a God send.

[dregs]

I feel bad for the quiet guy on the left 😂

[pogchamp]

12:05 - He goes on to emphasize a DISEASE

[mr.c]

How condemnation is perceived and used is the crux of valid consciousness.
Not chaos or crisis....both are manifestations of condemnation. Say the word J.P.

[monk]

Jordan Peterson makes things more complicated than they have to be (through his way of speaking). For example, he says that the Pragmatists thought that "knowledge was a tool to advance being in the world" (and the succeeding words), when he could have just said that the Pragmatists believed (mostly, or only, William James I believe) that whatever is the most practical, or useful, is true. It's as simple as that.

[hangingthief]

Ummm pragmatism happened well after the origin of species was published. Peirce came up with pragmatic after reading darwin, , also read evolutionary love, and hie work on abduction. Peirce has an entire evolutionary cosmology that is well worth learning. Please stop name-dropping

[GumballEdits]

Jordan hints at men being too emotional when a big part of his appeal was that he openly showed his emotions. one of the most emotional public figures I’ve ever seen

[slambangwallop]

There were a few important psychological analyses missing from Peterson's Psychological Significance of the Bible Series- 1. Satan is known as "the accuser", the psychological significance of accusing 2. "Thou shalt not kill", how important it is for your prefrontal cortex perhaps?! 3. As cited via Sister Jean Prejean by Neurobiologist Prof. Robert Sapolsky " To err is human, to forgive, divine "- What our psychological evolution has to attenuate to with regard to forgiveness as a positive turnover of sorts, as a healthy psychological transition which can technically even reform a psychopath- see YouTube example of molested child turned psychopath (should have been described as " sociopath " in my opinion) who was retaught values technically via punishment/ reward system in her brain. Also amygdala retraining has a lot to say about that, via CBT too.