It does seem to me that you can see the difference between argument and opinion, why then, do you need it explained? — Judaka

Well friend, you made the charge, which is all fine and well, but you may mean something very different by it, which is what I suspect.

I am not saying that your argument isn't "actual" I'm saying that you've merely given your opinion without justifying it or giving your reasoning in any way. — Judaka

Here we have a clearer exposition wherein you refute your original objection. So the complaint is not that I failed to make an argument, but that I failed to provide rational justification?

Arguments are interesting things. Do you agree that all men are mortal?

"The body of law is something that you act out; that’s why it’s a body of law. That’s why, if you’re a good citizen, you act out the body of law." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

Fundamentalist conformity.

Peterson isn't specifically talking about the culture here, he would consider it just a general truism of life that people are oppressed or fall short of the mark in one way or another. It probably doesn't even matter the type of society. — BitconnectCarlos

That's all fine and well, but if he admits there's a problem, which he does, he even validates the word "oppression," what caused it? Is his approach to the problem actually targeting the source? We already know the answer, his reply is, forget about the complicated details of reality and just fall back into the Matrix.

I watched the recommended section. The problem is that you are part of your culture, just like slaves were part of theirs. They didn't see anything wrong with it. So when a smart fella like Peterson came along and said, "the problem with the complaint of slavery is that it's true, and then you have to start thinking about all kinds of complicated, fragmented things, look, just forget that, go back to the plantation, obey your masters and life will be good."

This is exactly an example of his message of conformity.

You're such a joke. — Judaka

Come now, you can do better than this. You just tried to give a rebuke on arguments. I assume you don't think this is one, further, from your own words, you wouldn't want to be a "bigot," right?

It's congruent with what I have said elsewhere concerning the inability of the privileged to see their own privilege, needing instead ot have it pointed out. In contrast Peterson reinforces and justifies privilege for his readers. — Banno

This is an important point, because if we were to engage with such a person, they would, as they always seem to do, simply argue that their experience is a normative standard, all the while ignoring the social benefits that account for their quality. This is indeed a serious problem.

I think that thought has the power to dictate any narrative — Judaka

It does indeed, but it is greater than this. It has the capacity to transcend narratives, even to correct itself.

neither of them contained any actual argumentation — Judaka

Since this is the foundation of your complaint, I am happy to probe it with you. What makes an argument actual?

The system is not perfect. No worldly system is or will ever be, But someone who say happens to be a genius and excels at say mathematics or physics who from his efforts and endeavors could literally place their nation ahead of the pack, unrivaled in war and innovation, should earn/receive the same as someone who can barely change the oil in their car or its tires? — Outlander

With all due respect friend, you have much more educating to do. How do you think geniuses are made? Through genes? Where do you think people get skills and the ability for high function? You think people are just born this way? We'll they're not. Every human passes through a social system, the environments to which they are subject shape their individual quality. If you want more geniuses, which you already assume to be a good thing, then you need a more intelligent social structure. No advanced species would ever leave the cultivation of its progeny to chance. This is the main reason it would be an advanced species!

Aligning human nature with capitalism via immutable "competition" is to naturalize a socio-economic system that's only existed for a few centuries. It's another point of propaganda to identify capitalism and capitalist values as ingrained in humanity, while ignoring actual anthropological history that can provide alternative values for modern alternative systems. — Maw

Superb qualification my friend! Pity, I really don't think the objectors will be able to comprehend it.

Even accepting what you say, does there not remain "an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way." (Theses On Feuerbach) No? — jamalrob

Yes there is research to prove this, but as I understand it, and I am not a neurobiologist, some of our ideas of innate cognitive modules are being challenged by empirical findings.

If your claim is that we cannot identify an essence that fully determines human actions, this is surely far from saying that there is no human nature at all. — jamalrob

Yes, the two are different. The idea of human nature that I have discoursed against is a fiction. What we do know is that human's are not genetically determined, genes play a role but not independent of environment. By far the most important factor is the environment. What I accept about human nature is that humans are incredibly stupid creatures, the same premise one finds at the base of Nietzsche.

Load a human with all the genes you want, without the right, qualitative, social interaction, they will develop very poorly and very unintelligently. New findings in Neuroscience are claiming that action comes before perception, which is quite revolutionary.

.

Marx's theories are social, political, and economic primarily. They're not legal. — Isaac

Marx's theories are comprehensive, they span the species, there is massive and profound legal theory associated with Marx. He tried to think about the whole structure of society.

evolving along with other primates, have no characteristics arising from their genetic heritage — Bitter Crank

Yes, genes play a role, they can offer potential or the lack thereof, but environment is the earth that determines what genes will become and what genes will be triggered. Simply do more research on the topic. Humans have made quite a bit of advances in this area. One of the most interesting things about the advance of the social sciences is that none of them are reaching regressive conclusions, everything is flowing in the direction of the vital necessity of species consciousness. Because we know that the quality of individuals is determined by the quality of their social environment, this includes basic goods such as healthy food and clean water.

And the will and strength would come from where, if not human nature? — Isaac

Please tell me I am living a nightmare from which I will soon awake. Sir, did you just assert that will and strength are a product of some notion of "human nature?" Do you know what drives your will? Do you know how your personality structure is formed? Do you know what neurological processes are necessary for high functionality? Do you know what happens to your brain if your attachment system is impaired as a child? What you are talking about does not exist. Humans are not predestined by some spiritual phantom which dictates their action and disposition. This is entirely superstitious and indefensible. Humans pass through psychological and physical environments and their quality is determined and shaped by these environments. Part of the genius of Marx is that he understood this at the most concrete level, that humans are filtered through a process of production, and this process, the organization of society, determines the outcomes of man's life and potential.

Allegedly the argument is it adds to the GDP, helps the economy, and creates jobs and opportunity for all. Trickle down economics I suppose. What alternative is there and is it really better or even much different? — Outlander

David Mo has already addressed these kind of fatalistic, all or nothing arguments, which seem to be the foundation of all cult-minded-thinking.

The level at which this reply is the result of what is administered, thus rendering its purveyor incapable of standing outside his own culturation, is disappointing to say the least. I do not know how one replies to this, not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. So many countries are doing socially better than the United States (and surely that must be the whole point in establishing a government, to secure social quality). The question, "yeah, but what is there besides plantations and masters?" How does one communicate with this kind of artificial consciousness?

I think you're taking this a bit too far - it's like a cat with fangs and claws thinking that fangs are claws are far superior than everything else and cats know better. — TheMadFool

This is a false analogy. While you are right about thought having a very bland and pathetic dimension to it, in contrast to the ever shifting idea of God... claws and fangs exist, Cat Deities do not.

English speaking idealist interpreters of Hegel such as McTaggart and Stace, different kinds of idealist admittedly, but no idiots either of them, find in Hegel's dialetic the "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" model. — jkg20

It doesn't matter if the Pope says it, this is not in Hegel. Citation please? See Hegel Myths and Legends by Jon Stewart.

by the way, no one is forcing anyone to respond to NOS — Maw

This is true, but tragically his fallacious and emotional approach to this topic is probably the approach of most people, at least in America. I understand the position of the intellectual who sees himself above it, there is truth to it, but it is also a form of arrogance. The Left has been obliterated precisely because its repose to people like NOS4A2, has simply been to declare them ignorant. And no doubt they are, but the error, even though it is incredibly juvenile, must be refuted. Simply dismissing people like him leaves them with with the impression that they have a powerful argument that cannot be refuted. Tragic, and fallacious as it is, it leaves them with the impression that their negative stance is both comprehensive and true. It is simply not good enough for intellectuals to use an ad hominem, believing it gives them an excuse to evade their responsibility of refutation. No doubt, there is a time to walk away and leave ignorance to itself, precisely because it wastes time, but in this case, the very likely fact that NOS4A2's position is common, provides good grounds to refute it.

Look, "a thing is the same as itself" does not indicate the requirement for a human being to name the thing, point to the thing, or otherwise notice the existence of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Thing" is a word used by humans to demarcate objects of being. Further, the word 'thing" is itself insufficient to encompass the reality of being, this is why you must use other words to demarcate the nature of being.

The kind of identity you are talking about is precisely the idealist identity, the mysticism, that Hegel disposes of. Further, all that you are distinguishing here, does require, as your articulating presence proves, a human to make the distinction. This is because the abstract formation that you are putting forth is not the object, it is a characterization of the object invented by humans. Now I agree that objects exist beyond words, but what you are trying to do is equate essence as being synonymous with your concept of identity. But essence and identity are not the same.   

It is agreed that matter exists beyond concepts. It is not agreed that your concept of identity explains or contains the essence of matter. It is too narrow and one-sided to even come close to accomplishing this purpose, enter now Hegel's dialectic. 

"

See, the "movement" referred to here is an instance of "becoming". The "being", an abstraction, is represented as A, which cannot be understood without reference to not-A. — Metaphysician Undercover

Once again, we are beyond identity, which states, A = A, are you saying this is false? Hegel's point is that identity never makes it to reality precisely because it never makes it to -A, which is actually the concrete reality of what occurs in being, the essence of being.

You are doing here with Hegel, exactly what you are trying to do with Aristotle, distort the position to suit your idiosyncratic formation, falsely attributing your own confused ideas to Hegel and Aristotle.

The real trick to your sophistry, and every last ounce of your philosophical leverage, is achieved by trying to smuggle in a loaded premise; you are trying to say that identity embodies negation, but the concrete problem is that it has no negativity in it, the formation is entirely positive! This is undeniable, A = A does not say, A = -A, and this proves you are distorting and twisting the position, no doubt, because you know you cannot get the content you need for essence from the empty tautology of identity. Hence, you are trying to argue that the law of identity states, A= -A =A = -A. This was in fact Hegel's point, "the movement returns to itself." And I must confess, it is nearly beyond belief that you would be so bold as to assert that the law of identity states A = -A. While this is an accurate presentation of what occurs in being, this is not the law of identity, this is a step in the direction of dialectics, as Hegel demonstrated, it is a step beyond identity.

Where your mysticism arises is that you are trying to claim that your concept is the most basic representation of reality, thus attempting to fuse it with the highest philosophical authority. This turns identity (because it is not a representation of reality) into an ideology that is wielded against reality, it literally becomes a form of tyranny that leads to tyranny.

One more thing can be mentioned here. When you make use of this concept in discourse, you most assuredly do not, and will not, use the form you are here trying to assert for reasons of posture, A = -A. Instead you will assert the positive image against the negation. On all fronts then you are defeated and exposed as a practical negator of the position you espouse.           

I hope it is clear to those who are reading this that you are not only distorting the concept of identity, but also distorting and misrepresenting the position of Hegel. [Please do not listen to this man, read Hegel for yourself.] There is one simple question that proves this, where is the negativity in identity? You have no choice but to bring it in from the outside by going beyond identity, then turning back to the concept in an attempt to correct its error by adding the negation which it does not contain! Your fallacy is the lie that states: identity is equal to essence.  

You Sir, have not studied Hegel, which was my original point. You are merely dealing with a straw-man-caricature of his position. Intellectuals like yourself are not liberators of the minds who read them, but you cast them into confusion and error because you are after praise and validation as opposed to truth, a kind of polemical power that champions itself by preying on ignorance.

Ladies and gentlemen, take it from his own lips:  "The "being", an abstraction, is represented as A, which cannot be understood without reference to not-A."

And yet, this -A is not contained in the law of identity! The refutation is complete. 

Marx would be rolling in his grave over this stance. Socialism does not equal government intervention tout court. — Maw

Here I am simply using the Neoliberal schema, thus reflected back in on itself.

The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies. — DoppyTheElv

These arise for many reasons, but when you are talking about belief in the imaginary, unless you are talking about Deism, which could be leveraged though it wouldn't matter, you are talking about some kind of psychological or emotional motivation. Those who come to religious belief in terms of propaganda, apologetics, are manipulated, victims of their own ignorance. So here the cause, though it has an ideological base, it is still premised on the negative. People give all kinds of reasons for their beliefs, but these often only serve to mask the real psychological motivations. We can sometimes discover these by probing their negative convictions. Above all, we know there's a problem when a rationale for the belief is legitimately refuted and the subject merely looks for something else by which to retain the belief. This is a good indication that one is being driven by their psychology.

Peterson is selling soft soap cunningly disguised as hard rock (for real men). — unenlightened

Can't help it, makes me think of Viagra. Hard rock for real men. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So why would we shy away from criticism? — NOS4A2

You have to first know how to do it before you can perform it. What you are engaged in IS NOT criticism, it is simply a form of confirmation bias.

You might also watch the Chomsky Foucault exchange on youtube. I am so damn impressed with Foucault's foresight in that exchange. He seemed to exactly target the problem of tyranny in modern society: the supremacy of institutions.

What issues is he palliating in his target demographic? — fdrake

Conformity. Submission as opposed to thought's resistance.

Here we have a serious thinker without species consciousness?
Here we have a serious thinker without class consciousness?
Here we have a serious thinker without a dialectical awareness of political systems?
Here we have a serious thinker that manifest zero knowledge of the advances that have been made in Psychology and so many surrounding fields, Sociology, Neurobiology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, Education, Social work practice, Law, Economics etc.?

At some point something has to give.

Do we have to be either fans or anti-fans? Am I allowed to agree with some of it? Can I cherry pick? — bert1

Yes, of course, one can do whatever they so like in the domain of ideas. I have never said and would never say that everything Peterson says is wrong and that the man is just pure evil. I would only note that the truths he does confess are shallow platitudes. Our world is full of so many tremendous thinkers and researchers at this time, Peterson is not one of them. If you like McDonald's eat it, even pretend that it's a Michelin-starred French restaurant if you like, the only problem arises when you demand that other people validate your delusions.

Perhaps for Hegel God and thought, although intially in apparent contradiction, become finally synthesised in Spirit? — jkg20

VERY IMPORTANT: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis has nothing to do with Hegel's position. This is a distortion and gross simplification of his philosophy. Please do not feel defensive as I bring this up, I am not trying to attack you here friend, there is no possible way you could have known this. We are taught this error through online media and institutions, and Hegel is very intimidating to read. He reduced Goethe to silence when they had lunch together.

I do not know enough about Hegel's specific notions of theism to discourse on it with any kind of authority. One thing is certain, his idea of God would indeed be far more rational than any God produced through revelation. One of my friends has pointed out to me repeatedly in Hegel's writings that Hegel holds religious knowledge far lower than philosophical knowledge. And of course, he is correct. My friend also brings up the relevant fact that it would have been very hard for Hegel to dissent from Christianity in his time... so it is a most interesting question, because we read him repeatedly denigrating religious knowledge in the logic, if he was an atheist would we know it?

If you're interested in reading a good introduction on Hegel, one that also covers a great deal of ground in a short space, see Andy Blunden, Hegel for Social Movements.

But it's even worse because the defenders of capitalism play with two cards: neo-Darwinism and contractualism. When it suits them, they appeal to the contractualist card to show off capitalism's pacifying virtues (Steve Pinker). When things don't work out, they claim the competitive Darwinian basis of capitalism. — David Mo

Spot on friend. Tragic that so many have swallowed Pinker uncritically. There is a deeper social problem which I believe has to do with rational instrumentality and an outdated logic that has begun to function as an ideology. Do you have any ideas on how this could be countered?

This is just a shallow poisoning of the well, the fallacy of guilt by association as well as a stawman. Is anyone on this thread advocating or defending Maoism? I join you in celebrating the condemnation of his violent regime. Clearly then, we have a problem here. TRY INTERACTING WITH THE QUESTIONS I POSED IN THE SECOND PRIVATE PROPERTY POST (you can find it on pg4 of this thread).

Are you a Marxist? — NOS4A2

Even if he's not I can assure you that you are a socialist, and would never pack up your goods and move to a purely capitalist country. American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! But you know, a medical system for your aging grandmother is too expensive, it could end up costing 1 Trillion dollars! America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined!

But that is trivial. People like easy answers and comfortable answers better than true answers and no answers. They like to be empowered even if it is a fantasy of power. — unenlightened

Here here, friend. Exactly the case, and because of this we all, as thinkers, if we are serious, must examine ourselves for this bias as much as we possibly can. None of us are immune to it.

It would indeed be comical to see the Peterites attempt the argument that this is why intellectuals are rejecting Peterson, you know, "what he's saying is just too uncomfortable." And yet comfort is the entire direction of his belief structure. It's one of the high benefits of conformity.

I am not talking about making a distinction, I am talking about a difference which exists whether or not any one distinguishes it. That's why I said that the law of identity, "a thing is the same as itself", puts the identity of the thing within the thing itself. Therefore identity is not dependent on someone drawing a distinction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Identity is exactly dependent on a human being drawing a distinction, this takes place in every instance of identity. There is great confusion in your speech, what you mean to say is that being is not dependent on someone drawing a distinction. This is accurate, the other is not.

You are indeed making a distinction, you just sophistically claim not to be "talking" about it. Further, one cannot distinguish without the aid of difference, and to determine a difference is to make a distinction. Do you qualify "identity" by the concretion of the "thing" or do you qualify the "thing" by the abstraction of identity? (The problem here is that we can already see the answer). When you say, "the law of identity puts the thing within the thing itself," this is false, it is also ignorance. Identity does not allow this. By all means, do tell how identity puts the thing within the thing itself -- because this is not 1) what identity is and does and 2) not what you are doing; you are putting "the thing" into the concept of identity! And this is no doubt because you must, you have no choice but to take this road, precisely because being is not identity! Identity is a formal premise that states A = A, it does not contain information, it is just a tautology regarding the "inert image," which, as you should know, was Hegel's term.

I already anticipated your reply: 'Now I know you will insist and demand that you have the right to pack being (with all its difference) into the concept of identity, or to interpret the concept through being, but the concept itself will not permit it, which is proven the very instance you make a distinction between identity and difference.'

You have been true to form.

When you speak of being and becoming you are mistaken, being is becoming, the way you try to artificially divide being from "itself," to use your own term, merely displays more confusion and ignorance on your part. For you are trying to say that the law of identity contains both being and becoming within itself because the term "thing" encompasses the movement of being (this is a loaded premise not a proof). What you fail to see is that you are no longer talking about identity but have gone beyond it! A = A contains nothing but the assertion that the image is equal to the image. IN THE REALITY OF BEING THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A = A. You have been arguing this all the while, ignorant of the ramifications it has on identity. This is why you give supremacy to the "thing" and not the abstract tautology! What identity means to say is that A is the beginning of -A, but it never gets there, it repeats the image of itself, thereby distorting reality.

Being familiar with Hegel you should have known all of this, the fact that you don't only adds further weight to what I said:

You neither understand Hegel's dialectic, or for that matter Aristotle's position on identity. What you have repeatedly displayed is that you are posturing with your own, juvenile and idiosyncratic formations of the concept of identity, totally oblivious to the concrete ramifications. This is, and cannot be, an example of skilled thinking.

"In the form of the proposition, therefore, in which identity is expressed, there lies more than simple, abstract identity; in it, there lies this pure movement of reflection in which the other appears only as illusory being, as an immediate vanishing; A is is a beginning that hints at something different to which an advance is to be made; but this different something does not materialize; A is—A; the difference is only a vanishing; the movement returns into itself." Hegel

And then my question for you is: what are you going to do with the 4 billion year old genetically encoded competitive nature of all species when you remove all elements of competition from your utopian society, are you going to rewrite RNA/DNA codes? — whollyrolling

If you're trying to claim a kind of genetic determinism, specifically social Darwinism, friend you have it all wrong. Your personality structure, which includes your ability for empathy and compassion, is not predetermined by your genetics. Sure, they play a role, but they are not the determining factor, the maturation environment of the human specimen, both physical and psychological, these are the determining factors. So this is how the argument actually goes, when capitalism deprives human beings of what they need to develop, when it induces environments of stress through poverty and economic coercion, these traumas retard the quality of human development. You cannot be part of an advanced species if you don't know how to cultivate healthy humans!

The way you get better humans is by raising them in healthy environments. This is not my mere opinion, see the work of Allan Schore.

Further, your objection, like so many other objections in this domain, begins with the false metaphysical assumption of the predestined evil of human nature.

The defenders of the system (who are usually the ones who benefit from it) often argue that social justice is at odds with freedom. Therefore, there must be more freedom (for the riches) than social justice (for the poor).
If the argument is not convincing, they move on to the next line of argument: democratic systems are not good, but everything else is worse.
If the argument is not convincing, they move on to the next phase: There is no alternative. Capitalist liberalism is a natural necessity. Scientific economy and so. Besides the defenders of the system are very strong and very violent: you cannot go against the rich. It is our destiny to be subject to them.

Apart from this argument there is the subliminal propaganda exercised by a multitude of advertisements, films and series that show the delights of capitalism (Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas type) and the horror of non-capitalist systems (terrorists, bombs, dictatorships, pest...).This is one of the most important gaps in the Marxist theory of revolution. — David Mo

What you have here stated summarizes so very swiftly the way capitalist ideology functions. They often pretend to be champions of reason and truth, that is, until these virtues expose the brutalities and stupidities of their system, then they dismiss reason and begin to talk about pragmatism. I have experienced this first hand with libertarians. "If the argument is not convincing they move on to the next line of argument..." "There is no alternative... a natural necessity." That's just it, isn't it my friend, the same as all cult thinking, Nihilism, "the world will collapse if you reject our system."

Don't be melodramatic: Marx didn't want to "kill" an entire class. He wanted the bourgeois class to disappear as a class because it was living off the exploitation of humanity. In his opinion this would happen "naturally" when private ownership of the means of production disappears. But he did not think that the process would be very peaceful. The exploiters don't like to have their means of exploitation taken away from them and they have enough power to defend themselves violently. — David Mo

"Don't-be-melodramatic: Marx-didn't-want-to-kill-an-entire-class." This is just hilarious, you have me cracking up David. Sad that this even needs to be stated. Sane clarity in your exposition here. Also, the common sense of it, who would argue that it's acceptable to live off the exploitation of humanity? And yet this is the history of the world. Also sad that those who defend themselves, those who try to make a better life for themselves and their children are brutalized by those who exploit and want to keep their power. Any of the objectors on this thread would do good to study the history of the labor movement in America. Poor coal minors living in abject poverty tried to stand up for themselves, merely to give their children a better life. It wasn't greed! And what happened? The owners called in gun men from out of state and murdered the workers. The workers get blamed for violence when they try to form groups to defend themselves. Truly heartbreaking.

Is this how thinkers should think? Prejudice and stereotyping? — Judaka

Does the culture one is born into affect their view of reality? What about one's economic status?

I am more than happy to engage with intelligent, thoughtful replies on this thread, but some of the replies here are so inept that I will not do it. If I have not answered your reply, it could mean I didn't have time, it could also mean it contained too many indefensible, loaded premises, manifesting that it speaks from a place of ignorance. I will not go back to the foundation over and over again merely to correct blatant errors of presumption, just so one can finally get to a place where they comprehend the nature of my criticism. I wish I could, but I don't have time. (For those who are religious, if you pray to your God he may help you out. It's worth a shot).

You might try thinking about what David Mo is saying instead of blurting out a barrage of convictions.

Thought? Or imagination? — MAYAEL

Thought. Not sure how that wasn't clear?

So are you saying Heidegger was wrong to posit being as most prior? — Gregory

Not at all.