The reason for posting this is that I used to be prescribed lorazepam, another addictive chemical from the benzodiazepine class. Long story short, these drugs are wonderous for quelling anxiety symptoms in the short run, yet, as the article states, dependency on their effect is notorious and people sometimes just can't quit them. I went through back spazzing, psychological torture, that ended me up in a 5150 center. Thankfully, the police intervened and I went to an emergency center. In my entirety of dealing with drugs, I don't think anything compares to a long term habitual benzodiazepine induced withdrawal.

So, at the one end, I find it paradoxical, that someone like Jordan Peterson, with his wealth of knowledge on psychology, would need this drug, while on the other end, it shows his humanity towards the suffering of his wife.

Personally, I would rather be put on Buspar, or Nardil to cope with stressors; but, nobody is infallible and I suppose with all the bluster and gusto that Jordan Peterson has portrayed, he is still a human.

In Australia, the govermment has always relied on Catholicism to supplement its health and education systems, which makes for a complex political relationship that seems to create a kind of conservative socialism - at least since the 1970s. — Possibility

Do go on, Australia has always fascinated me...

The idea was that it shouldn’t matter who appeared to have political or social authority, there is a universally recognised positive ethics that transcends, rather than overrides, any illusion of external control. — Possibility

Cool point, man. I do wonder if the money changers and the clearing of The Second Temple by Jesus, was in any shape or manner a negative ethic shunned by Jesus?

To be fair back then there weren't any machinery that made everything so accessible. So naturally people worked hard. To be fair socialism and capitalism was post Catholicisms time. We created these systems after we mastered trading. Now everyone has access to everything and everyone "can" get anything. — Reverie

Yeah; but, what about the blatant exploitation of foreign nations by capitalism? Isn't that something we should be concerned about as good Christians?

Btw, @NOS4A2, the nick definitely checks out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_(word)

Yeah, I'm afraid that most sensibilities have been lost in regards to the issue. I say if you don't like what Nosferatu is saying then leave him be.

Overall though I think Peterson has done more good than harm and I’m certainly bored of watching the whole conflated media heist that was (it’s done for now it seems) Peterson’s contributions to pop-social science and the social media frenzy that explodes whenever anyone is vaguely offended by someone they disagree with.. — I like sushi

Yes, Peterson is a pretty interesting character, though, I think he owes a debt to Stoic thought, that he doesn't necessarily acknowledge. Some people might think he's reinventing the wheel in regards to Stoicism and its practical applications to modern-day living.

I mean, cite your sources, for goodness sake.

Also, I've lost my little library -- a tiny collection of philosophy books. — Caldwell

Oh dear. That is a real tragedy.

Read all about it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci/p1

This might be taboo to ask a philosopher to criticize another psychologist (philosopher)? But, I am keenly interested in Prof. Pigliucci's take on the purported perversion of Stoicism by mainstream people like Jordan Peterson.

Here's a take to the matter:

https://modernstoicism.com/nope-jordan-peterson-aint-no-stoic-by-massimo-pigliucci/

Prudent. I'm going to do the same. :) — Ying

To be honest, though, the thoughts Bartricks is professing is not that different than the caricature of Stoicism that any newbie might encounter, through reading about "stoicism" from Jordan Peterson and his sage Stoic being a bloke on an SSRI's eating tons of lobsters.

I hope the visit organized by Baden and other mods, of Massimo Pigliucci, will benefit his understanding on the matter.

Yes, but money does not necessarily equate prosperity. I could make the argument that the unshaken faith of its followers is a much more important asset any church. — simeonz

True, true. I don't mean to instill any conspiracies, as Hollywood does that enough to no end with their Da Vinci Code - Angels, and Demons, ehh...

But, I'm mostly glad we have a socialist Pope Francis.

Holy Shit. You found me a new hobby for the next week. — christian2017

Grazie. :cool:

My bad. I thought you were serious there. — simeonz

Semi-serious. I mean, if you account for all the years the Catholic Church has been around, and combine their liquid and non-liquid assets, along with probably being the first to invest in the stock markets, you should end up with a hefty sum of money accumulated throughout the years, no?

Sorry, but honestly, I am not informed on the subject. — simeonz

Yeah, it's definitely a message in the New Testament that often gets left out. Humdrum.

I think that most people will agree that banking and stock trading (especially day-trading), even though being legitimate ways of making money, leave a lot to be desired in terms of ethical underpinnings. — simeonz

Yes, it does make one wonder just how the Vatican or Opus Dei maintain and expand their wealth through the stock market.

I see that we're talking about money, so I might as well comment that the only instance where I picked out the fundamentally humanistic trait of Jesus, was his encounter with lenders/shylocks/money-lenders in the Bible. I don't think there's another instance in the New Testament where Jesus is infuriated more-so than towards money-lenders.

Many conservatives would justify getting rid of food stamps. — christian2017

Across the board, food stamps are deceptively a form of subsidizing goods such as food. There's a lot of socialism in America if you're poor enough to qualify for it.

Marginalized minorities, don't really get that much love though.

I lived in Eastern Europe, for a good decade, and definitely there is resentment, that goes both ways, towards Catholicism and communism. Personally, I see more overlap; but, asserting sovereignty comes first, in the minds of the former satellites of the Soviet Union.

Christianity started off as the religion of the dispossessed. After a period of class warfare the ruling class (polytheistic) adopted the religion of the lower classes and turned it into the state religion (Constantine). This was the formation of Catholicism. — ovdtogt

Yeah, a definitely interesting corollary question would be, how much of Stoic thought was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire?

Here's what I think about what happened. Corn prices plummeted, and the gov stepped in to set a price floor for the farmers. I don't think it got to the point of quotas, or I might be wrong on this.

And, yeah, we do have massive subsidies to farmers. But... at least the food is pretty cheap. I believe America is in the highest-ranking after the Netherlands and others in terms of food production per square hectare.

we have welfare. — christian2017

Yeah, so why does the religiously oriented right hate on it so much, and this isn't something exclusive to the right in the US, also. Centrists like Clinton or Obama, have been staunchly opposed to anything resembling welfare, even if it is economically rational to embrace it!

I believe if Christians embraced practical ways of making their neighbor's lives easier it would be very hard to tell whether a given society was fiscally conservative or on the other end socialist. — christian2017

Well, yes. The US spends more than any other country on charities or philanthropism. It is exceedingly paradoxical that this has become an individual calling for many religious types instead of something that would be implemented on a federal level. But, that's just America for you.

And, for the matter, the current Pope, Francis, is a hardline socialist, if anyone follows this line of thought from within Catholicism.

Yes, views vary on the relationship between socialism and Christianity to such a large degree that one may as well feel lost in regards to it. I'm afraid Wikipedia won't be of much use even on the matter.

But, there is this interesting entry on Christian socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Here's what I surmise. In countries where interpretations of the Bible are guided by an authority (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy), we have seen the emergence of socialist tendencies and doctrines thereof. Think, Latin America or even Eastern Europe, with the USSR being a quizzical example.

In democracies where secularism was enshrined, the correlation between socialism and Christianity has become moot.

That's about as far as I can take the analogy...

Oh yeah, Robin Hood as Martin Luther, for sure.

But, I believe this is all history to a large degree.

Maybe to guide the conversation, I would propose the edifying question as to why Marx was bashing on Christianity or any organized religion to such a degree to declare it the opiate of the masses? The divorce between socialism and Christianity seems to have been declared at this point in history.

This changed during the Middle ages when the aristocracy made religion their own prerogative again. (Probably this is also the period when Christianity became politically conservative.) — simeonz

I see you're going further back than I had anticipated. Please elaborate on this fact of the aristocracy adopting Christianity and thus making it politically conservative?

The following thread is quite pertinent to the topic at hand:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2456/communism-socialism-distributivism-capitalism-christianity

See that this thread got moved to The Lounge.

But, I'm serious about the last bit in my previous post... Being, why isn't Christianity more left-leaning than having being adopted by the right, so adamantly?

I have noticed this as of late although I'm curious as to why you describe it as Protestant? I mean, speaking personally I'm a baptised Salvationist and both my Grandparents on my fathers side are Majors and my mother and father worked in Homeless Hostels for the Salvation Army too so for me this probably true but to a lesser extent than my family as I diverged from my families religion at an early age because of social difficulties with the other Sunday School Children at the Army hall. So while the protestant work ethic is true of me, I'm interested to hear why you think the same shift is happening collectively on the forum? — Mark Dennis

Well, it was a bit of a joke as the majority of the thread posters here are atheistic or agnostic. But, it seems like it wouldn't hurt anyone if we adopted a Protestant work ethic in my mind?

In regards to the why... It seems to me that Protestantism, and its more serious offshoot being Calvinism are denominations of Christianity that are responses to Weber's appeal to enlightened self-interest and with that a response to capitalism.

Another way to phrase the question, would be a philosophical bite into why isn't communism a popular socio-political orientation among Christians, given that what Jesus preached falls in line in the least with a socialist attitude towards others?

This discussion has been reopened due to no new comments.

The thing that is really a watershed moment in all this, is connecting the Republican party with/to Trump.

Let's see if another investigation is (seemingly) warranted.

I have a special place in my heart for polemics and the argumentative style, a la Swift or Voltaire. I also love argument, rhetoric and disputation for its own sake. I feel the best insights fall in the sparks of debate. So I don’t mind heated exchanges, but I’m sure to treat others in kind. — NOS4A2

Great, so the followup question, is do you believe the stuff you post in the Trump thread, or just get a kick outta seeing people argue with you?

Offline, however, I’m a gentleman. I suspect if we all sat around a pub table and talked over a pint we’d be good friends. — NOS4A2

I'm not quite sure if anyone is interested in meeting you. But, who knows, maybe?

What's really worrying to me is that these people feel like their being protected by Trump, or that they can just about do anything they please.

Shit goes down the drain!

Watch another shietstorm emerge. Personally, I am relieved the scum is being flushed down the toilet.

I don't know what has happened in the forums lately. — armonie

There's a conscious umph towards more high-quality and structured content. The hope is that trolling, animosity, and such babble gets shoved aside, and more attention is shifted towards our new Protestant work ethic.

I don't know why exactly, but I'm getting the same vibe as in the Naming and Necessity reading group thread.

Nevermind if what I'm suggesting is irrelevant.

You could start by explaining in adequate detail how you think the logic of the T-sentence is different than the logic of correspondence. I have raised this point several times and have received no answer. — Janus

Should modalities be invoked here?

Sincerity is pretty important to this matter.

Its not a personal attack, and its not about Manson and the sort of batshit comment that Omni-guy made about him. Its about whether or not you think people should be banned (or otherwise dealt with by mods) for opinions you do not like. — DingoJones

No, my opinions shouldn't be a factor in the decision to ban OmniscientNihilist. And, this was made clear by Baden deciding to ban him on the ground of poor quality posts.