Off-topic aside: Jordan Peterson is a bigger AH than Elon Musk.

Do you know him personally? Or is this just sort of yelling into the ether "hes an AH"?

Seen some of his videos, gods help me!

Or is this just sort of yelling into the ether — AmadeusD

Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour?

Seen some of his videos, gods help me! — Vera Mont

Ah yep, fair. Would you like any that show his other side? Well, tbf, he has several - but he is often, quite extremely misconstrued. That said, there are plenty of examples of non-misconstrued videos of his that are batshit. LOL. Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect.

Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour? — Vera Mont

LOL, yes I suppose so. Probably better if more and more understand these discussions to be such.

If there is anyone you have listen too who has not said something you disagree with then you simply have not listened enough. The same principle goes the other way too in terms of agreement.

Why people care about 'agreeing' like it is something to be valued I have no idea. I would rather just try and understand opposing views and be happy with that.

Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect. — AmadeusD

Background; struggle with and recovery from substance abuse; helping other addicts - that sort of thing? I know nothing of his private life, hobbies or charities. It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse.

Why people care about 'agreeing' like it is something to be valued I have no idea. — I like sushi

It tends to keep the homicide stats down. Opposing 'views' can be hard on a society. Eg. "There is no such thing as witchcraft" vs "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

It tends to keep the homicide stats down. — Vera Mont

Guess what ... I disagree :D

Inside I am John Lenon's Imagine, but outwardly I know it is better to stem liberal views because they can often cause way more harm than we intuitively expect. — I like sushi

There’s a reason for the affirmation that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I get that: the axis powers of WWII wanting to pave the way to a global utopia, ditto with communism, to not get into so many cults whose cult-of-personality ends up doing monstrous things, or else the intentions of Christian Nationalism, and so forth. As I previously said, I can sympathize with many of your views, including this one. But I do not find the truism of this just affirmed maxim to then indicate that one should not hold good intentions to begin with.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

Have I in anyway managed to cover this question to your satisfaction? I doubt I have! Feel free to reform it in some way as I cannot possibly begin to answer it without writing a few thousand words. — I like sushi

I don’t know how else to phrase things in a succinct manner. To me there can be no utopia in the absence of a heightened morality shared by all, or at least most, constituents of the addressed society. I again find the possibility of a world devoid of rape and murder to be contingent on a great number of societal (both economic and political) changes toward more ethical and less corrupt systems. In the absence of this requirement for greater morality, what one ends up with is dystopias, which are a dime a dozen. So I’ll just restructure the previously given expression: Is the morality of humans as a whole only something that can either get worse or remain the same for all time yet to come or, else, can it improve relative to its present day and past manifestations?

If this doesn’t help, we might well be dealing with disagreements regarding any number of underlying metaphysical issues, such as with the metaphysical issue of whether morality is relative or not. In other words, if the good is something we make up as we go or else is something universal to all sentience. And I’ll back away from any such discussion for the time being.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra


Jordan Peterson has an interesting opinion on that:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cIDopS5C1Ck

A wallflower guy might benefit from some training in narcissistic psychopathy, you know, sort of to balance him out a bit.

In other words, don't be too nice. — Tarskian

Here’s an antithetical opinion: whomever makes a strict equivalency between morality and niceness can only in some way be an immoral individual. For instance, morality can require that one kill a murderer so as to prevent the injustice of, say, an innocent child being murdered; this in contrast to passively watching the murderer brutally murdering the child and doing nothing about it so as to not have blood on one’s own hands or, just as bad, so as to not risk one’s own death. And to intend to kill is to not be “nice”.

But, when it comes to the moral killing of another human, in the words of Winston Churchill: When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. For example, to insult the man, to unnecessarily brutalize the man, or else to piss on the dead man’s corpse after killing him is to be an immoral killer of another man – in contrast to being a moral killer of another man. Most soldiers know all about this, irrespective of whether they choose to be moral about their activities in war or not.

But I do not find the truism of this just affirmed maxim to then indicate that one should not hold good intentions to begin with. — javra

Agreed. I think in reality humanity is always going to overstep to some degree. It is necessary to make mistakes in order to learn from them. Judging the potential fallout from possible mistakes is mostly guesswork.

Is the morality of humans as a whole only something that can either get worse or remain the same for all time yet to come or, else, can it improve relative to its present day and past manifestations?

If this doesn’t help, we might well be dealing with disagreements regarding any number of underlying metaphysical issues, such as with the metaphysical issue of whether morality is relative or not. In other words, if the good is something we make up as we go or else is something universal to all sentience. And I’ll back away from any such discussion for the time being. — javra

I am a moral sceptic. I can pretend to believe this or that for the sake of an argument but in this case it is pretty hard to respond more without getting bogged down.

I am convinced we can move beyond the current 'moral' paradigm. What that would mean to anyone else if I could explain better I am unsure.

I am a moral sceptic. I can pretend to believe this or that for the sake of an argument but in this case it is pretty hard to respond more without getting bogged down.

I am convinced we can move beyond the current 'moral' paradigm. What that would mean to anyone else if I could explain better I am unsure. — I like sushi

I find that quite fair. It's been good talking to you, btw. :up:

:up: :100:

It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse. — Vera Mont

It was a bt of a cheeky quip - I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. I've seen some examples of that from him, but far more examples of him being compassionate, understanding and vulnerable. Again, can provide those instances if you're interested in them.
I think you're probably somewhat mislead by what you've seen, if this is the case. In his public life, he presents a character almost the polar opposite to that which is glommed onto for criticism purposes. ONe prime example is his talk about 'socially enforced monogamy' being misinterpreted as if he's advocating for forced relationships or something. Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. That said, It's not in any way going to improve your life, I don't think hahaha. Just generally like to ensure people get both sides of something like that, when so much bullshit is bandied about.

I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. — AmadeusD

It's possible. I've proved this on several occasions. Their public output is how they want to be known by other people. His public output is toxic assholity. I'm just fulfilling his express desire by expressing the reaction he's worked so hard to elicit.

Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. — AmadeusD

I'm not privy to any of that. I hope his god takes it into account.

@Vera Mont I think I may have found something that will help distinguish between what we were arguing about better here:

Karl Popper uses the terms Utopian Engineering and Piecemeal Engineering. I am STRONGLY against the former over the latter; as does Popper.

In brief, Utopian Engineering aims for a blue print of an ideal society whereas Piecemeal Engineering is more or less about contending with immediate negative attributes in society whilst also possibly holding hope for some perfect state yet not claiming it is achievable OR not believing it is achievable.

I believe you are advocating for Piecemeal rather than Utopian Engineering? It does seem to be what you have been stating previously, in which case I am far less resilient to this view.

Popper frames Utopia (rather than utopian engineering) as fatalistic. Very much like what Marx, Luxembourg and Lenin had in mind with the inevitably of Communism.

I believe you are advocating for Piecemeal rather than Utopian Engineering? — I like sushi

I don't advocate any kind of social engineering. I hope for social evolution.
You can read Utopia as 'No Place' and assume that means either that it can never be, or that it is not yet. Or you can read it as 'Good Place' and imagine what a good place would look like.
I see nothing fatalistic about either.
There is no inevitability about making a good society. It's not even probable. It's a long-shot at best. I just don't believe it's impossible.

Okay. It seems you are more or less Piecemeal then rather than having any explicit idea of what utopia would look like let alone laying out any particular roadmap for it.

It appears any misunderstanding of what you meant is due to use of terminology.

Thanks :)

t seems you are more or less Piecemeal then rather than having any explicit idea of what utopia would look like let alone laying out any particular roadmap for it. — I like sushi

Knowing what a place looks like and having a roadmap to it are separate ideas. I know what it looks like to me; i know how it works for everyone. I know you can't get there from here by pieces or meals or revolutions or engineering.

I know what it looks like to me;i know how it works for everyone. — Vera Mont

How is that possible. How can you say how your vision works for everyone? Is that not like stating you know what everyone want. I am guessing not, but you can probably see how easily this can be misconstrued.

It is just a fantasy, yes?

How can you say how your vision works for everyone? — I like sushi

By the fact that it's not my vision alone: it's a distillation of historical information about social arrangements that were stable and equitable, of 2000 years of European folk tales and songs and of the yearning of utopian literature through the centuries.

Is that not like stating you know what everyone want. — I like sushi

There you again, confusing needs and wants. We all need the same things, adjusted for size and level of activity, and we don't have to know in advance what everyone wants. People are capable of expressing their desires and aspirations; they're capable of reciprocity and of co-operating on community projects. All they require from their society is freedom to pursue those aspirations - so long as they don't harm the environment or restrict other people's freedom.

I am guessing not, but you can probably see how easily this can be misconstrued. — I like sushi

Some people make a strenuous and sustained effort to misconstrue and contend, I suppose because that's what they want. Some people seek clarity and consensus, because that's what they want. The world is big enough for both kinds of personality and many more besides.

It is just a fantasy, yes? — I like sushi

It's a theory. You can't get there from here without climbing over a whole lot of rubble.

By the fact that it's not my vision alone: it's a distillation of historical information about social arrangements that were stable and equitable, of 2000 years of European folk tales and songs and of the yearning of utopian literature through the centuries. — Vera Mont

I can agree that overall humanity does always seem to be reaching for a higher fruit. As evidence that it is a good idea to aim for a utopian society it just simply doesn't hold up though. Like I have said before, the whole John Lenon-esque vision is certainly an appealing idea to me. Personally I think it is good for the individual but obviously holds no ground in reality and any roadmap - as Popper points out - would take so long that our outlook may change the form of the initial idea into something unrecognisable.

We all need the same things, adjusted for size and level of activity, and we don't have to know in advance what everyone wants. — Vera Mont

No confusion. The question is still left open about how you know what everyone needs?

Some people make a strenuous and sustained effort to misconstrue and contend, I suppose because that's what they want. — Vera Mont

Sounds like a dig :D I just want to know the rationale behind your thinking; or lack of it. The irony is I think we are pretty much on the same page BUT the contradictory positions we hold within our views (mine are lacking too btw) are of a different breed. That is what interests me.

You oppose 'social engineering,' as do I to a degree, yet seem to hold some form of it in your head as you have a theory (a vision to work toward). I do not have a solid position on this matter as I have only recently started looking more closely at political philosophy.

Although I am pretty well convinced by Karl Popper regarding 'utopian engineering' I am not sure that reason is necessarily all there is to how 'piecemeal engineering' could work in an optimal manner. This is where I am lacking because I am pretty convinced that 'reason' is not a mechanical cognitive process - it is a difficult extrapolation from neuroscience though so more or less conjecture at this point.

It's a theory. You can't get there from here without climbing over a whole lot of rubble. — Vera Mont

I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet." :)

The question is still left open about how you know what everyone needs? — I like sushi

What would you die without? So would everyone else. What would you die from? So would everyone else. Supply the first group of elements and eliminate the second. Maslow proposed a good starting point.

You oppose 'social engineering,' as do I to a degree, yet seem to hold some form of it in your head as you have a theory (a vision to work toward) — I like sushi

A hoped-for destination, yes. So you have a criterion for judging each proposed step - is this getting us closer to the desired outcome or veering off in some other direction? Each legislation, each reform, each legal decision, each commercial transaction, each building construction, each technological innovation moves us toward or away from peace, health and comfort.

I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet." — I like sushi

It's not that. I haven't called for revolution or a philosopher-king with unlimited power. The way things stand, I'd rather see a supercomputer in charge than the motley collection of humans who run things now. But my main contention is that the way things are can't keep standing very much longer. Tipping points loom hither and yon.
Fifty years ago, we were on the right track to social improvement, but largely wrong on the technology and infrastructure. The mechanics have continued headlong in the wrong direction, while the social improvement has been halted or reversed.
More people are miserable and going crazier than ever, and more people are under greater threat. i don't see a mechanism whereby this trend can correct itself. I see it heading for self-destruction.

Afterward, there likely to be survivors. The ones that don't eat one another will have to figure out how to survive in the ruins, in a hostile climate. Utopia will have a long, long wait, but at least it has a tiny glimmer of hope.

What would you die without? So would everyone else. What would you die from? So would everyone else. — Vera Mont

Well, no. The degree is different for everyone. I get your general point though. The problem lies in the application and logistics.

There are, and have been, efforts to reduce such problems and they have been reasonably successful. The social issues and social institutions are probably more pressing atm as they could likely need resolving before tier one issues can be fully completed.

I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet."
— I like sushi
It's not that. I haven't called for revolution or a philosopher-king with unlimited power. The way things stand, I'd rather see a supercomputer in charge than the motley collection of humans who run things now. But my main contention is that the way things are can't keep standing very much longer. Tipping points loom hither and yon. — Vera Mont

You are for "smashing eggs" then? I am confused. What do you mean?

The problem lies in the application and logistics. — I like sushi

Is there enough air for everyone to breathe? Is there enough clean water for everyone to drink and wash in? Is there enough food for everyone to be nourished? Is there enough shelter for everyone to be warm and dry? I don't see the problem -- except that a few people take a hundred or thousand or million times as much as they need, piss in the pool, and leave the other people to fight over whatever's left.

You are for "smashing eggs" then? — I like sushi

I'm not for or against it. I haven't been and will not be instrumental in the events; I have not been and will not be consulted in the matter. I see people stacking eggs on top of eggs on top of eggs and I predict that the stacks will topple over and the eggs will break.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human. — kindred

Pain isn't a constant and it isn't just something physical that the nervous system tells from our body. It's what we feel it to be. Heck, even boredom can be painful. Besides, if you ever haven't felt pain, how can you know what it is. Ask yourself, how many of us have experienced real hunger. The human can go without eating for days. How many of us have gone out without eating for days? Not many. So what on Earth do we know about real hunger, about what starvation feels like?

And most of the things that cause unhappines or sadness aren't something the society can solve. It starts with our own acceptance of ourselves.

The only example you gave that I feel made sense in the context of the explanation you gave was the riches vs poverty one. This is also the least relevant to a utopian society.
The bad experiences actually happening isn't what's necessary, it's the possibility of them (or the memory of them).

Usually the balance argument is about the fact that these things (riches, joy, etc) could never have existed without some poverty or pain.

In my opinion, the only thing holding a utopian society back the actual viability, which primarily depends on perfect individuals.

Religion has the answer for that question.

Is there enough air for everyone to breathe? Is there enough clean water for everyone to drink and wash in? Is there enough food for everyone to be nourished? Is there enough shelter for everyone to be warm and dry? I don't see the problem -- except that a few people take a hundred or thousand or million times as much as they need, piss in the pool, and leave the other people to fight over whatever's left. — Vera Mont

How do you think that would actually go down? Do you believe everyone would see this as fair and just?

In my opinion, the only thing holding a utopian society back the actual viability, which primarily depends on perfect individuals. — Igitur

And those who dictate who is 'perfect' bring in the next totalitarian rule ... no thanks!

It’s sad that there is truth to this. I agree that any realistic society will fall short barring divine intervention.

The most likely reason to me, however, is simply that a government and country set up for perfect individuals would not actually work for real individuals.

You do bring up a good point, and that is that a government that claims its goal is perfection is probably just a dictatorship. I can’t imagine that goal would mean more freedom to the people.

I can’t imagine that goal would mean more freedom to the people. — Igitur

You are also assuming people WANT more freedom or that an equal amount of freedom is GOOD for them. Maybe?