Philosophies emphasis should be about logic. — Philosophim

This is the only thing an Analytical Philosopher can say, but it is false, Philosophy's emphasis should not be idealism, although this is probably what most thinkers on this forum unconsciously practice.

Personally, I detest building or theorizing about a socio-economic system or a government based on some theory of human nature that's reducible to a specific state of mind or biologically-based interaction. — Maw

Not just detest, but this is positively dangerous. It literally creates a negative society. However, this is pretty much the structure of the American system, and most certainly the atmosphere of its politics. Thinkers and Humanists are frighteningly outnumbered. When I meet theorists like yourself I am always interested to know, what you think needs to happen in society, in order to move it in an intelligent direction?

It means we are all to some degree God. — tim wood

I get the point, not my articulation, but man's ethics do come from man, he is not submitting or looking to God, (even when he deceives himself that he is, this is only his deception, and in truth he is still within the domain of man speaking to man). It was the greatest rhetorical device when one figured out that they could claim to speak for God, which essentially means human psychological culture produced dupes that were invulnerable to authoritarianism. Of course, sometimes even the speakers believed it. This truly is the functioning of a backward, primitive species.

And to my way of thinking, that means we're all more or less a part of God. — tim wood

???

Of the person or the core? — tim wood

The ethical core. Anyhow, instead of doing this dialectically I will just get to the point. Once we establish that this core is not complete but can be developed, then the question arises as to whether or not God is necessary to its development? The point is that if one "sees an ethical core" in Christianity one has not seen it because of Christianity. One does not need to reference God in order to develop it. This makes the reference of God both useless and unnecessary.

I hold there is an ethical core to Christianity, perhaps oft neglected (for sure oft neglected), that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or being — tim wood

Is this core complete or is there room for growth?

Peterson doesn't use this language himself. It's already psychologizing Peterson to say he "fears reality". — boethius

Thank you for your detailed contribution and clarity. I agree with many things you said.

I'm not exactly sure what language you are specifically referring to? (But please note), I don't think an exchange on this is really worth it. Further, I am not merely psychologizing the man, and even if that's all it was, just so long as it was accurate, the fact that I was doing it, would neither be a refutation or prohibition, it would merely be a statement of fact premised in the negative. One does not need to come out and say they are a Nihilist in order to be charged with Nihilism, one merely needs to condemn the positivity of existence, either through radical skepticism or some kind of imaginary Other that gives them the leverage to overcome positivity. One does not need to use a specific language to be guilty of specific content.

Once it's firmly established that Peterson simply doesn't engage with any of the critical issues, and rather is simply bailing straw into the furnaces of his own locamotive (i.e. Asi conmigo enfrente ella se hace la gata en celo contigo, te cotorrea el oído pa tenerte en alta. Ella muere por ti, tu por mi es que matas. Sigo tranquila como una paloma de equina: mientras ella se pasa en su [BLM] - Cicero), — boethius

This seems quite pretentious to me. Why give a Spanish citation of Cicero?

at best, we can only construct an apologetic for Peterson's conservative apologetics; which maybe interesting to explore why such an apologetic of an apologetic is unsatisfactory — boethius

This is your own assertion.

Peterson doesn't have some comprehensive program. The guy is a conformist and back-seat Christian. His entire polemic is founded on the idea that myth resides at the base of all human psychology. He is so impressed with this premise, because he feels like it provides the philosophical grounds of justification for all his conservative views, that he has gone out into the world to preach it. It's the kind of thing people hear and think, "wow, that's amazing, I've never heard anything like this before" [enter intuition] "yeah, that makes a lot of sense." The listener affirms the premise and never gives it a second thought. Now they credit Peterson with enlightenment.

Tragically, Peterson isn't even a believer in his own ideology, it didn't work for him, his life fell into shambles and his will power failed. I saw him complaining, traveling around the world to find doctors that would tell him what he wanted to hear so he didn't have to face the truth. Most addicts don't have the luxury of doing this, they have to detox in abject poverty crushed by guilt and shame. His myth beliefs have not delivered him from the hard bite of being (a hardness which results from the unnecessary tyranny of a backward system). He knows this, he is still searching, and that is why he can neither be an example or a guide. I see nothing more than a frightened man clinging to a shallow notion of God. Contained within his confession of myth, behind it is the ultimate negation of reality, the very Nihilism of which Nietzsche spoke, is the false presupposition that humans need delusion in order to survive and thrive. For Peterson unconscious myth is the foundation of order, when in reality, this virtue belongs to intelligence.

How about a christian who does not so believe? My point being that whatever a christian is, is not so easy to define. — tim wood

Well then, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that you belong to the tradition, which is certainly a futile exchange you will not be having with me.

This is a remarkable admission and confirms my hunch that you’re here not to learn or to discuss but to propagandize and exchange fallacies with your comrades. — whollyrolling

What in God's name, how on earth did you arrive at this from David Mo's confession of substance? I'm dumbfounded. One assumes too much, that those who contribute to this forum, are suited to the very task to which they aspire. This is clearly not the case. It is sadly obvious that some participants exempt themselves from intelligent discourse, thereby making it necessary to ignore them.

This is exactly the kind of gibberish you have been complaining about others posting — Monitor

Hard to know for sure from memory recall, but I don't think I have ever used the term "gibberish" on this forum, not that I'm opposed to it, I just don't think I've expressed myself this way. More to the point, what was it specifically in my reply that led you to classify it as "gibberish," aside from the obvious and emotional fact that you disagree with it?

Don't get angry. — Frank Apisa

??? :cool:

How exactly would anyone know (if they were)? — tim wood

Question can easily be rephrased, is there anyone on here who considers themselves a Christian, believes exclusively in the Christian God?

The fact that he considers it part of the basic structure — JohnRB

I think this is where you are going too far. If it's part of the basic structure, that doesn't necessarily mean Rawls is trying to advocate for it conservatively, it's just part of what you find in our culture. Also, that it provides privileges should not be read as Rawls giving it an exclusive endorsement. He's just making a statement of fact regarding its utility.

Finally, I'll reiterate that it's possible that my entire project here is naively off-track since there's an obvious principle or thing Rawls says which renders my argument irrelevant or answered. I've gone through the trouble of writing the above simply on the assumption that I'm on the right track. — JohnRB

You have my respect. You come to a public forum to test the cogency of your ideas against other critical minds. This is quite intelligent.

You are essentially saying "A fictional character is a fictional character." — Frank Apisa

That is not the argument, the argument is that there is no concretion to the substance, and the idea is itself entirely contingent (and proceeds from) man's symbolic structure, the same cannot be said about the matter you ate for breakfast.

to cure homosexuality — BitconnectCarlos

I wasn't aware that it was a disease. Why not cure heterosexuality, after all, it is merely an assertion that the species should propagate itself. Perhaps intelligence lies in the other direction? Life always assigns itself a value regardless of justification.

I apologise for my comments, I said there was no argument but I think I was being self-serving with my logic here — Judaka

This is exceedingly impressive, it is one of the rarest things I have ever seen within the context of an online format. In general we all just defend, defend, defend, no one ever wants to admit to their error. Judaka, I join you precisely in this, I believe it is really the only way to move in the direction of high level thought. The thinker who merely defends is usually trying to avoid the pain of a reality he fears. I hope I can do the same thing when I am in the wrong.

Nor does it seem like Rawls would be okay with any concept or definition of marriage (in response to Pfhorrest), since he recognizes that family arrangements can have significant effects on things like wealth and social capital. — JohnRB

Are you sure you're not reading your own domestic preference into his position? Very hard for me to see Rawls arguing against polygamy just as long as all parties consented.

Give me a horror of the middle ages and I'll show you the equal today. — Monitor

This is a tragic and fallacious standard that assumes violence and cruelty merely arise from some fictional, metaphysical nature in man, when in reality, any horror we could cite would also have a sociological history that brought it into being. These things are not like asteroids hitting the earth (although even that has a causal history). What you have here articulated is basically Nihilism. It is in no way impressive to arrive at a false positive through the projection of a false negative.

I'm not talking about changes in conditions, technological advancements, more and better data, I'm talking about some actual teleological (verifiable?) improvement / advancement in the human condition. — Monitor

You mean like Sweden's recidivism rate for prisoners? You mean like the measurable success of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy? You mean like, Attachment Theory tracing many pathologies back to early childhood, thereby figuring out how to prevent these problems through the intelligent cultivation of healthy attachment relations?

but by how evolution has shaped three-year olds to do what they have to do in order to flourish. — Thomas Quine

This is the the first stage of consciousness in an advanced species.

My argument is that to flourish is more than a norm, it is a biological imperative for the species. — Thomas Quine

Hard to see how one could refute this, precisely because it's premised in the material nature of being.

To claim that we just need the right culture to bring about complete uniformity of attitude or instinct or reaction towards something is just too much for me, personally. — BitconnectCarlos

If values are not established by culture, where do they come from? Much fatalism you have here. I wonder if the people you find attractive in your culture would be equally attractive to the members of another culture? Some tribes drastically alter their bodies, if you are lacking these cultural alterations, it is doubtful you would be attractive to the people in that culture.

Do you believe in Meliorism? — Monitor

Last time I checked it wasn't faeries that invented agriculture, medicine and science.

not all of us are called to vigorous action in this regard. If we are involved with ideas and engage with others in this involvement, either by writing, speaking or teaching then we are certainly playing a part in the move to get as many people as possible to start thinking for themselves, — Janus

Yes friend, I completely agree with you, this is what I was talking about, intellectual work. This is a problem I have thought a great deal about, and have arrived at some exceedingly practical solutions.

I have found it is not that easy to find a satisfactory group or institution to align oneself with. — Janus

I have found exactly the same thing.

Of course some people are able to at least genuinely care about their progeny. If everyone has progeny and everyone cares about them and everyone has a grasp of the actual situation we face, then there would be universal motivation to organize for a better future for those progeny, which if comprehensively thought out, would ensure a better future for the whole biome. — Janus

I agree. I do not believe that people without children have a right to set the rules of the future for society

And that said, what about caring about the future of the earth itself and all the species that make up the biome per se (and not merely insofar as it it affects us)? — Janus

I agree, man's entire life hinges on the earth.

Is such broad-based care possible, emotionally speaking, to people who are not motivated by ideas (that is, most people)? — Janus

Yes, because we have now largely figured out how people's personality structures are devolving into pathological behavior.

Or do even intellectually motivated carers genuinely care enough emotionally, if their comfort or lifestyles are threatened or if they are called upon to sacrifice much? Looking around, I see a lot of talk, but not much genuine sacrifice. — Janus

I so very much feel your complaint here, I have the exact same one. As a philosopher I stand against arm-chair intellectuals and philosophers, mere theorists. However, this doesn't mean that thinkers are supposed to hold up signs in the streets, no, their cultural vocation is a bit different.

The first thing is for one to orient themselves to social reality, the next step is to figure out what kind of social actor they are, the third step is to innovate in order to maximize the power of individual action, many times this means aligning oneself with a group or institution. "Most philosophers have merely analyzed the world, but the point is to change it."

Are there any Christians on this thread?

Got it, so we just need to teach people to value quality of character over attractiveness and we're all set. Attractiveness no longer matters. — BitconnectCarlos

Considering the fact that the value of physical attractiveness is set in place through the emphasis of culture, if you want to alter the values of a culture then you have to alter its emphasis. The good news is that this can be done on the basis of intelligence! (However) when you jump to the conclusion of saying, attractiveness no longer matters, this depends on what you mean by "matters?"

Is it asking to much to expect people to care about the whole of humanity, much less the whole of future humanity? — Janus

Emphatically, of course not! But here the capacity of mentalization, which is a psychological capacity, hinges on the social structure into which one is born. Hence, if you want to make a better world, humans must first learn how to provide, more specifically, intelligently organize, better social conditions for their progeny.

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another? — BitconnectCarlos

Cultivate a stronger cultural emphasis valuing quality of character above that of physical appearance.

just because you have read much, studied hard, and have accumulated many theoretical insights doesn't prevent you from being a learned fool. I'm not saying you are a fool, learned or otherwise, mind you. I'm just suggesting that you could be--and you wouldn't necessarily know it. — Bitter Crank

I agree with this. The question is how do we go about preventing ourselves from becoming learned fools? "...wouldn't necessarily know it," what standards could we used to help prevent ourselves from deceiving ourselves?

Any community of human beings who have collectively agreed that such-and-such an act or course of actions is moral, have done so in the final analysis because they believed these actions to be in the service of human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

A bit too much formal optimism regarding humans here. "Values," and that's what they should be called, usually arise unconsciously through culture.

Similarly, any community that has agreed that certain actions are immoral, have done so in the conviction that these actions harm or hinder the project of human flourishing. — Thomas Quine

Too much credit to humans, we do not think in terms of flourishing or species consciousness, don't get me wrong, we should!, but we don't. Many of our values are based on superstitions, traditions, psychological defenses. However, human flourishing is an excellent concept from which to begin, though it doesn't take us in the direction some might think. Here idealism is not king, instead the authority of its world is lost, being inescapably superseded by the importance of concretion.

Jersey, I'm asking you how do we, as a society, fix the inequality/unfairness/oppression of these issues? You say you want to target all forms of oppression. Tell me how we fix this. — BitconnectCarlos

That depends on the nature of the oppression, and before we can know how to fix it we must do what Peterson is telling us not to do, we must look into it, we must follow its fragmentation and trace it back to its source and then use intelligence to obliterate it. I'm pretty sure that's what an advanced species would do.

If you are more specific about the problem, but then again how you could you be, Peterson told you not to be specific, then I can do my best, using my intelligence, to tell you what I think we need to do to fix it.

Why are there still ugly people? — BitconnectCarlos

You mean this is an objective category?

Why are there still tall people? — BitconnectCarlos

Because there are people who are able to get the right nutrients, rest, have the genes for it, etc

Why are there still charismatic people while others are socially awkward? — BitconnectCarlos

Socially awkward? You mean, people that have social anxiety, poor social skills? Well this usually results from trauma, abuse, neglect etc. Has to do with the development between the right and left brain.

Why do we have those who can speak fast while others must speak slow? — BitconnectCarlos

See above answer, but this could also be brain damage. It could also be due to lack of nutrients.

Why do some have to worry about their tourettes while others don't? — BitconnectCarlos

Well, I think this is classified as a neurological disorder, so I think that would explain it.

Why are some people born with certain genetics which makes it easier them to lose weight? — BitconnectCarlos

My understanding is that genes are past down, so this means the answer is because of the past nutrient experiences of parents and grandparents etc. However, I don't know enough about genes that cause fat to answer this with any kind of authority.

have skipped crucial steps in explaining your views. — Judaka

?

Can you see how utterly meaningless and pathetically shallow your response is? — Judaka

No, I am not in the habit of consciously striving to put forth "meaningless," "pathetic" and "shallow" responses. If I saw this I would refrain from putting them forth.

If they are in fact, all the negative things you claim, one would think this should make them very easy to refute.

the list of assumptions you make are just staggering, only someone who really hated Peterson could agree with your characterisations. — Judaka

Well, I do gladly admit that I don't like him, as I don't like charlatans, authoritarians and conformists in general, but I wouldn't go so far as to say, I hate him.

That thought does not have the capacity to transcend narratives — Judaka

I suppose emotions could transcend narratives, but it's damn unlikely, and certainly not the way to achieve the optimum of this result. You will not catch me arguing as you have here, I don't even see the point in it.

I think if we, as a society, were to honestly target all of the sources of oppression we would turn into something like the dystopia — BitconnectCarlos

We have already done this and continue to do this, and in so many cases it has helped us to pass more intelligent civil laws. Your reason for not doing this is merely a negative assertion which amounts to the fallacy of poisoning the well. It is clear that you have mindlessly resigned to the error of Peterson's reduction. This merely proves that he's socially dangerous.

"One of the debates, we might say, between early Christianity and the late Roman Empire was whether or not an emperor could be God, literally to be deified and put into a temple. You can see why that might happen because that’s someone at the pinnacle of a very steep hierarchy who has a tremendous amount of power and influence. The Christian response to that was, never confuse the specific sovereign with the principle of sovereignty itself." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

Once again, another distortion and false presentation from Peterson. The Christian response was not philosophical! It was, "the emperor cannot be God because our God is the only true God!" This was in fact, and still is, the Christian response. Here Peterson is trying make Christianity sound general and philosophical, socially intelligent.

"It’s brilliant. You can see how difficult it is to come up with an idea like that, so that even the person who has the power is actually subordinate to a divine principle..." Ibid.

Another false presentation. Christianity did not come up with this idea, its idea was that the Christian God was the supreme ruler of the universe, a celestial dictatorship, therefore it naturally follows, not due to any brilliance, that the emperor could not be God. Christianity simply demanded that every other idea was explained in terms of itself. This is not brilliance. Further, there is a negative side to what Peterson is here saying, because Christianity did not respond as Peterson falsely characterizes, but actually responded in terms of brute fundamentalism and authority, when Christianity did come into political power, it shattered both the neutral idea of law as well as the practice of social freedom. Theocracy is synonymous with totalitarianism.

I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by opposite?

Sure — Judaka

Well then, Newton was mortal. There you have a rational argument. If you want to attack it you must go after the integrity of the premises. (I must also confess, I am not much interested in this exchange. I consider high level thought to have the ability to work from strong premises, meaning, two skilled thinkers don't have to seek justification for every premise, because they already have a great deal of knowledge they can actually make progress in thought. These are the exchanges that most interest me because life is very short).

Sure. — Judaka

Do you agree that Newton was a man?