Posturing and appeals are quintessential of every academic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Then you aren't very widely read. It's no wonder you think this, considering you laud the likes of Jordan Peterson and his "profound" contributions to...something or other.

Insofar as their 'non-real work' is concerned, it's only a shame that they haven't met your exalted standards. — Aryamoy Mitra

Exalted, no. That I have standards, yes. If you call asking for something beyond truisms "exalted," that's your issue. I asked for what exactly the "work" is. You, like all those taken in by Peterson's superficiality, can't point to any. I suppose "cleaning your room" is one piece of that profound work?

Eh, I'm already bored. It's not even worth discussing this bore.

The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world
everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no
value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value. — TLP

Nonsense! Drivel! Unless by "outside of the world" he means merely the world as objects, and instead finds value in mind. But that mind is certainly in the world considered as the place where all things are. So this reduces to florid prose that hides its meaning behind amphiboly and ambiguity. And why would any responsible thinker do that?

Nietszche does not deny science. What he denies is the:

metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests
— Fooloso4

Which amounts to the same! He explicitly denies the idea of 'natural order' or 'natural law' as an anthropomorphism.

The total character of the world...is in all eternity chaos—in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for ". — Wayfarer

The quote is from The Gay Science Aphorism #109. It should be read in context. What he warns against is regarding the universe as a machine. He says:

"The astral arrangement in which we live is an exception; this arrangement, and the relatively long durability is determined by it, has again made possible the exception of exceptions, the formation of organic life."

What he is denying the the passage you quoted is "our aesthetic anthropomorphisms" and an eternal order to the universe. The natural sciences are possible because of the relatively long durability of our astral arrangement. But we should not conclude that what may be the case in our little part of the universe must be true everywhere.

He goes on:

"Let us be on our guard against ascribing to it heartlessness and unreason, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble; nor does it seek to be anything of the kind, it does not at all attempt to imitate man! It is altogether unaffected by our aesthetic and moral judgments! Neither has it any self-preservative instinct, nor instinct at all; it also knows no law. Let us be on our guard against saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, no one who transgresses."

The denial of natural laws is the denial of a lawmaker and a universe that obeys.

"There are no eternally enduring substances ..."

He ends by asking:

"When will all these shadows of God cease to obscure us? When shall we have nature entirely undeified! When shall we be permitted to naturalise our selves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?"

Then you aren't very widely read. It's no wonder you think this, considering you laud the likes of Jordan Peterson and his "profound" contributions to...something or other. — Xtrix

Of course. Shouldn't have foreseen anything less myopic.

Exalted, no. That I have standards, yes. If you call asking for something beyond truisms "exalted," that's your issue. I asked for what exactly the "work" is. You, like all those taken in by Peterson's superficiality, can't point to any. I suppose "cleaning your room" is one piece of that profound work? — Xtrix

Have you read Maps of Meaning? Have you chanced across his lectures of Existentialist Psychology? Are you acquainted with his contentions to New Atheism?

Eh, I'm already bored. It's not even worth discussing this bore. — Xtrix

Sure. Revert back to transforming the course of human history - a feat insurmountable for the rest of us unread mortals, from your perspective.

Have you read Maps of Meaning? Have you chanced across his lectures of Existentialist Psychology? Are you acquainted with his contentions to New Atheism? — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured." -- From "The Intellectual We Deserve"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

"Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

But we do not live in a reasonable world. In fact, Peterson’s reach is astounding. His 12 Rules for Life is the #1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating. One person said that when he came across a physical copy of Peterson’s first book, “I wanted to hold it in my hands and contemplate its significance for a few minutes, as if it was one of Shakespeare’s pens or a Gutenberg Bible.” The world’s leading newspapers have declared him one of the most important living thinkers. The Times says his “message is overwhelmingly vital,” and a Guardian columnist grudgingly admits that Peterson “deserves to be taken seriously.” David Brooks thinks Peterson might be “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.” He has been called “the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today” a man whose work “should make him famous for the ages.” Malcolm Gladwell calls him “a wonderful psychologist.” And it’s not just members of the popular press that have conceded Peterson’s importance: the chair of the Harvard psychology department praised his magnum opus Maps of Meaning as “brilliant” and “beautiful.” Zachary Slayback of the Foundation for Economic Education wonders how any serious person could possibly write off Peterson, saying that “even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good.” We are therefore presented with a puzzle: if Jordan Peterson has nothing to say, how has he attracted this much recognition? If it’s so “obvious” that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect?"

Says it better than me. Worth a read before wasting a second more on this fraud.

Shouldn't have foreseen anything less myopic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Yeah, it's a shame I don't put more effort into Jordan Peterson-like witticisms, like the following:

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high. — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

From "The Intellectual We Deserve" — Xtrix

Damn, that sounds like a lot of work. I guess that anyone would expend that kind of energy to be right is testament to their concern about the opinion which others might have of them. It's like lying. The truth is easier to remember. Or, when I was a prosecutor, I remember criminals putting effort into a crime that, had they just invested the same amount of resources and energy in a legal pursuit, they'd be rich! Like lawyers! Alas, I have been known to improve on truth! LOL!

Anyway, thanks for the quote. Windy, but nice.

Exactly. I think it's just an avoidance of real work. It's much easier to pontificate about truisms. But also it's a kind of trickery to sell books, be famous, and gather a following. Very self-serving. Peterson and Zizek are both egomaniacs.

Give me 5 minutes of someone like Noam Chomsky over either of their oeuvres.

The universe has always been meaningless. — Wayfarer

Then how are we able to understand the meaning of the word ‘universe’?

↪Fooloso4
The universe has always been meaningless.
— Wayfarer

Then how are we able to understand the meaning of the word ‘universe’? — Joshs

Wayfarer was quoting me so I'll respond. The problem is not with the meaning of the term. I suspect you know that.

He does not deny science. What he denies is the:

metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests — Fooloso4

Yes, and this means he denies that the aim of science should be the attainment of truth, which amounts to a direct critique of modern physics and most sciences outside of perhaps a few branches of psychology.

The problem is not with the meaning of the term. I suspect you know that. — Fooloso4

What is there outside of the meaning of the term? Put differently , unless you maintain a dualist perspective, positing an objective ‘real world’ existing in itself outside of subject-object interaction, is the idea of a ‘meaningless in itself’ universe even coherent? ( I’m arguing this from a phenomenological philosophical perspective).

Yes, and this means he denies that the aim of science should be the attainment of truth, which amounts to a direct critique of modern physics and most sciences outside of perhaps a few branches of psychology. — Joshs

As I understand it, Nietzsche denies transcendent, absolute, unchanging truths. Some contemporary physicists do as well, although others treat the laws of nature as eternally unchanging and immutable.

Peterson and Zizek are both egomaniacs.

Give me 5 minutes of someone like Noam Chomsky over either of their oeuvres. — Xtrix

Peterson grossly misreads most of the postmodern authors he pontificates about. Zizek’s a windbag but at least he has a solid background in figures like Hegel, Marx, Freud and Kierkegaard. Chomsky is a brilliant psycho-linguist but as a political theorist is an egomaniac to rival the other two, and whose philosophical understanding seems to be arrested somewhere between Hume and Hegel.

What is there outside of the meaning of the term? — Joshs

For those who seek meaning in the universe it means, but is not limited to, questions of purpose, significance, and our place in it.

Some contemporary physicists do as well, although others treat the laws of nature as eternally unchanging and immutable. — Fooloso4

I agree that some physicists have moved beyond naive direct realism , but I can’t find any who have left realism of all stripes behind, Do you know of any? I can’t imagine any phycisst who would subscribe to Nietzsche’s claim below:

Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren't we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn't enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect, where everything is contained in a powerful unity before branching off and organizing itself in the organic process (and, of course, being softened and weakened –). We would be able to understand the mechanistic world as a kind of life of the drives, where all the organic functions (self-regulation, assimilation, nutrition, excretion, and metabolism) are still synthetically bound together – as a pre-form of life? – In the end, we are not only allowed to make such an attempt: the conscience of method demands it. Multiple varieties of causation should not be postulated until the attempt to make do with a single one has been taken as far as it will go (– ad absurdum, if you will). This is a moral of method that cannot be escaped these days; – it follows “from the definition,” as a mathematician would say. The question is ultimately whether we recognize the will as, in effect, efficacious, whether we believe in the causality of the will. If we do (and this belief is really just our belief in causality itself –), then we must make the attempt to hypothetically posit the causality of the will as the only type of causality there is. “Will” can naturally have effects only on “will” – and not on “matter” (not on “nerves” for instance –). Enough: we must venture the hypothesis that everywhere “effects” are recognized, will is effecting will – and that every mechanistic event in which a force is active is really a force and effect of the will. – Assuming, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire life of drives as the organization and outgrowth of one basic form of will (namely, of the will to power, which is my claim); assuming we could trace all organic functions back to this will to power and find that it even solved the problem of procreation and nutrition (which is a single problem); then we will have earned the right to clearly designate all efficacious force as: will to power. The world seen from inside, the world determined and described with respect to its “intelligible character” – would be just this “will to power” and nothing else.”

For those who seek meaning in the universe it means, but is not limited to, questions of purpose, significance, and our place in it. — Fooloso4

Yes, the notio that the universe is a place that we exist ‘within’ is a realist notion, which I think Nietzsche is implicitly critiquing in the quote I sent you.

"Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train. — Xtrix

:up: :up: :up:

Chomsky is a brilliant psycho-linguist but as a political theorist is an egomaniac to rival the other two, — Joshs

I see no basis for this remark. I really don't see Chomsky as an egomaniac in anything, politics or otherwise. Especially not to "rival" Peterson and Zizek. Give me a break.

I really don't see Chomsky as an egomaniac in anything, politics or otherwise. Especially not to "rival" Peterson and Zizek. Give me a break. — Xtrix

I guess if I agreed with his political
philosophy I would notice his passive-aggressive style of argumentation less. Normally I try to get away from focusing on personality style, but you kind of drew me in with your remarks on Peterson and Zizek. Perhaps , like me, you notice their personal idiosyncrasies because you dislike their ideas.

I’m assuming youre a fan of Chomsky’s political thinking?

I can’t imagine any phycisst who would subscribe to Nietzsche’s claim below: — Joshs

I think there is first and foremost a difficult interpretive challenge here. Just a few quick points.

The quote is from Beyond Good and Evil Chapter 2 "The Free Spirit", (36). He begins: 'suppose' or 'assuming' or 'if we assume'. This assumption is followed by a question: "are we not permitted to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this which is “given” does not SUFFICE, by means of our counterparts, for the understanding even of the so-called mechanical (or “material”) world?"

In other words, from the supposed given: "our world of desires and passions" he makes the attempt to understand the world.

There are some noted physicists including John Wheeler who defend the notion of a participatory universe.

Yes, the notio that the universe is a place Nietwe exist ‘within’ is a realist notion, which I think Nietzsche is implicitly critiquing in the quote I sent you. — Joshs

You seem to have missed the point of what I am saying. The desire to find meaning in the universe is not a linguistic quest. Nietzsche denies that such meaning can be found in the universe. Hence my statement: "The universe has always been meaningless." Whatever meaning we find is a meaning we create.

There are some noted physicists including John Wheeler who defend the notion of a participatory universe. — Fooloso4

Would you say that for Wheeler
the universe is participatory in a materially causal way or in a valuative way?I realize that ‘value’ would have to be fleshed out in relation to notions like intentionality and goal-oriented normativity.

The desire to find meaning in the universe is not a linguistic quest. Nietzsche denies that such meaning can be found in the universe. Hence my statement: "The universe has always been meaningless." Whatever meaning we find is a meaning we create.
3h — Fooloso4

ok. So you’re saying apprehension of a universe is not a matter of adequation or correspondence with an independent reality but of construction?

I wonder: is the "subject-object interaction" subjective or objective?

It is equal parts subject and object. Unlike idealisms, the subject pole doesn’t dominate or determine in any transcendent sense( categories of perception) but neither does the object simply impose itself as a pure empirical given (external sense data) unaffected by the normative influence of the subject pole. There is nothing self-identical about the subject over time.

Epistemologically the "interaction" is pov/language-variant (e.g. poetry) or pov/language-invariant (e.g. gravity)?

Would you say that for Wheeler
the universe is participatory in a materially causal way or in a valuative way?I realize that ‘value’ would have to be fleshed out in relation to notions like intentionality and goal-oriented normativity. — Joshs

Wheeler said "everything is information". Does that fit somewhere in your categories?

I am not arguing that Nietzsche's views are compatible with Wheeler's or some other scientist, but that it would be a mistake to think he was anti-science.

So you’re saying apprehension of a universe is not a matter of adequation or correspondence with an independent reality but of construction? — Joshs

I don't know where you got that from anything I said. I am talking about the significance of Zarathustra's "good news" - God is dead. How the death of God relates to the problem of the meaning of life.

t would be a mistake to think he was anti-science — Fooloso4

When I think of the expression ‘ anti-science’ , I of course think of Trump. But I also think of the attitude of conservatively minded writers toward philosophers at the opposite end of the political spectrum. The cultural
wars that reached their peak a few decades ago pitted Sokal and his supporters against representatives
of postmodern fields like cultural studies , and individuals like Deleuze and Derrida. The latter were accused of being ‘anti-science’ by the former, because they attacked the precious foundation of method, verification and objectivity upon which modern science is supposedly based. Of course, Sokal and company were
right about what the postmodernists were attacking, but this didn’t mean they thought planes shouldn’t be able to fly.

When you say that Nietzsche is not anti-science, do you have this group of postmodernists in mind as being truly anti-science ?
Do you know of any philosopher who is actually anti-science in the way you mean it?

I appreciated your formulation.

What do people think about Nietzsche’s Death of God?

He was quite prophetic about the coming nihilism. It seems right that if an orthodoxy is proven absurd, it risks leaving those who rely on such a foundation to be without one for a time, or at least to search for another one in a frenzy, leading to mental and even actual conflict. The quick retreat leaves a vacuum. And for an ideology that often seeks to suppress competing world-views, like Christianity, such a retreat is particularly dangerous because it has already limited access to better ideas, leaving one without many substitutes.