We are not talking about future predictions. We are talking about how post-modernism became, andis presently, the cultural orthodoxy. — Maw

The present was once the future no? If we didn't know how it came about as it was happening, what makes you think we'd have anything more but the illusion of knowing anything (rationalisations) after the fact?

How did an esoteric academic philosophy transform into a the prevailing "cultural zeitgeist" or the paramount "values of society"? — Maw

I think to a certain extent (but not completely) it is random. It's not something that can be explained by a deterministic theory. A series of ideologies compete against each other, and the one that emerges as victorious isn't something that can, prior to the fact, be determined. That is exactly why we can't predict history or say what will happen next.

I am aware that you will take this response as a copout and a refusal to think more deeply about the problem, but I have thought deeply, and looking back at history, I see that it is pretty much impossible to predict what will happen next. This impossibility to predict means either that the solutions are intractable or that the phenomenon isn't entirely deterministic. I think maybe both factors are relevant.

If you have an alternative explanation, I'd be curious to hear what that is, and why you think so.

never precisely explain how political correctness, or more radically, "Post-Modern Marxist Identity Politics", has (for them) dominated college campus, private businesses (STEM-based companies), and mainstream media and other institutions, influencing all of society. — Maw

To answer how is actually quite simple. Basically it's because political correctness etc. are the prevailing cultural zeitgeist and values of society - or at least the relevant segments of society. Why are they the prevailing zeitgeist? I don't think there is much reason - it's like fashion. There's no reason why pink hats are fashionable now, or why it was fashionable to wear a wig 200 years ago, etc. It's just what it happened to be. If we played history again, it would likely be different.

But we're not gods, and we do have involuntary acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but we were discussing:

It doesn't make sense to say that a person is a will and intellect, but not a body. — Metaphysician Undercover

So apparently, it can make sense for someone to be a person (formed of will & intellect) and without a body.

China as it is now does have some problems - I think at some point in the future China will reorganise as a monarchy. The goal of getting China to convert to liberal democracy is the goal of spreading the disease to them as well. That wouldn't be good for the world.

I think the time has come for all of us to return to constitutional monarchies, with one life-time ruler whose powers are limited by the Constitution, but who is in charge of the country and does not have to worry about losing power as much as rulers do in democracies.

I think the slow collapse of democracies is a good thing. Democracies have proven, not only this time, but also in Ancient times, to be nothing but the rule of the mob. It promotes mediocracy, encourages rulers to have no interest in the well-being of their state, but rather in the maintenance of power, promotes an attitude of bread & circus in the media, and ultimately collapses in some form of tyranny. Plato knew this. He was smart.

It's pretty scary, and also depressing. — Wayfarer

Why? Because the BS you were sold as a young adult (New Age, open society, bla bla) turns out to be nonsense?

It doesn't make sense to say that a person is a will and intellect, but not a body. If you could show me a will and intellect without a body, and demonstrate that this is a person, then I might believe you. Until then, I think you're talking nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe in God? God is a person that has no body.

Do you believe in angels? Angels are persons that have no body.

Yes, if someone controls you to make you do a nefarious deed (the devil made you do it), the act is still yours. The rock breaks the window despite the fact that someone throws it. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the immediate cause of the act may be your body, but your body is not you. I identify you with the will and the intellect. If your body remains, but the will and intellect are gone, then I would say that you are gone. But if will and intellect somehow remain without body, then you are most certainly not gone.

But the act is carried out by your body. Despite the fact that someone controlled you, there is no argument here to prove that the act was not carried out by your body. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with that.

So why would you argue that a human act without moral responsibility is not an act of the human being which performs it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Both humans and animals have will.

@Maw - "The Americans love to have a boss" :sweat:

Within 2 years, as Peterson's target audience graduates college and enters the work force, he'll become passé and fad into obscurity, and some other epigone takes his place. — Maw

LOL - most of Peterson's fans have already graduated college and are men who are struggling to find a job or fit in the workplace, or know what to do with their lives.

Now I tell you it was a poplar tree, and it took you a good 15 minutes to reach the tree. And again, as soon as you read the words, the adjustments or additions are made in your imagination. — unenlightened

Well, some adjustment would be made if I knew what a poplar is :rofl:

:nerd: Playing what with me?

:lol:

Which ideas?

Yeah, far more prudent to base it on unscientific gobbledygook. — CuddlyHedgehog

LOL :rofl: , funny, but there are other ways to gain knowledge in life. Science is useful, don't get me wrong, in its limited field of application. But I would not resort to science in telling me who to marry, who to trust, how to negotiate, how to love, etc. Just like I wouldn't resort to astrology in those matters. I resort to critical thinking combined with life experience.

Resorting to science in those matters is no different than resorting to astrology in fact!

You gleefully cite examples of studies that presumably show biological gender determinism, when defending Peterson, but you suddenly become a hard skeptic when studies exist that doesn't conform to your worldview. — Maw

I do not base my life on shifting grounds. So I cannot base my life on scientific findings which exist today, but tomorrow could turn out to be wrong. I use science pragmatically. That is another reason why I don't like scientific studies. Science is ever-changing. Today we think this and that about lobsters, tomorrow we'll think differently. What am I supposed to do, move from fad to fad?

substantive virtues of authoritarianism, which you haven't provided. — Maw

I wasn't thinking of authoritarianism, I was thinking more along the lines of constitutional monarchies. In any case, a system different from democracy - doesn't have to be authoritarianism. I was merely questioning what I see as your Western fetish for democracy. Democracy & Authoritarianism do not exhaust the political possibilities, despite what many democrats would want you to believe.

You gleefully cite examples of studies that presumably show biological gender determinism, when defending Peterson, but you suddenly become a hard skeptic when studies exist that doesn't conform to your worldview. — Maw

No, I've probably never cited a study actually, even with regards to Peterson. In fact, in our discussion about the lobsters, I even told you that the lobster study is irrelevant - the underlying point that Peterson was making, however, is relevant. I don't believe in the usefulness & generality you seem to accord to studies because I know they can be made to say whatever they need to.

The lobsters are irrelevant in the end, just one example aimed to make understanding the idea that hierarchies aren't simply man-made, but also exist in nature. He's not saying that lobster hierarchy is like human hierarchy. — Agustino

The democracies of Eastern European countries tend to be weaker, more susceptible to corruption than Western countries, so I'm not surprised by your skepticism. — Maw

It's also that Western countries have developed a fetish for democracies. This doesn't exist in other regions of the world. China and Russia, for example, have, pretty much, for all their history been ruled by single rulers. Russians love Vladimir - they want a Father to take care of them. Russia probably cannot even be governed democratically. It is a mistake to assume that what works or worked for America and the West will work for other areas of the world with different histories, etc.

Undeniably, there is more than one way to measure 'well-being', but in all international studies there is a correlation between democratic countries and well-being. — Maw

Again, international studies carried out by democratic countries no? What else could they say? The study will simply be structured so as to produce these results. Many people in the West have also developed a fetish for "studies" - but the truth is that scientific studies can be performed to give any results that one wants, especially in fields that are not the hard sciences. For example:



There are many thinkers who have started to understand this - for example Taleb (picking an example that I know you know). One does not gain wisdom and understanding by reading more and more of those studies - the information overload is an overload of mostly false facts.

I am not aware of any study shows the antipode. — Maw

I will also question that well-being can be measured through scientific studies. I think this is something that we simply cannot quantify. And even if we can, we quantify it based on our own assumptions of what is good (which must also be questioned). For example, we decide having access to economic opportunities is a necessity, and therefore places which offer greater access are better.

Regarding transparency, elected officials are responsible and are held accountable to their constituents. — Maw

This is just naive. If only the corrupt run, then there is no real choice. If the constituents are dumb, then they can be manipulated (and more often than not, they are). Look at countries like the US or Italy, etc. Democracy is a crass failure, because it promotes the mediocre, just as Plato clarified in The Republic. It also attracts men who have to focus on keeping power, instead of on doing administration work.

In addition, a strong, independent media is important in holding elected officials accountable and uncovering and reporting corruption, scandal etc. — Maw

What stops the media from getting in cahoots with politicians?

Perhaps more to the point, there are ample studies showing that democracies are indeed more transparent than alternative political regimes, so it's not a matter of subjective "I think", or political abstraction. — Maw

What does "more transparent" mean? Does it mean that you don't openly steal from public funds, but instead you do it through Panama funds, Clinton foundations, Obama foundations, etc.? If that's "transparency", then yeah, obviously democratic regimes are more transparent.

In regards to economic opportunities, I think the ability to enter a market-place to buy or sell commodities and services is an important freedom in-itself. It also enables one to advance in their social mobility. — Maw

I agree because I favour capitalism and am an entrepreneur myself, however, we must remember that unless one accepts the assumptions of capitalism, then one could arrive at different conclusions, where economic opportunities are not as relevant.

Dearest MU :heart: :snicker:

I am back.

You continue with your faulty logic. You argue "if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term". But you have no premise to support this conditional, it's based in an absurdity. You conclude that because I am not morally responsible for the actions therefore the actions are not mine. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's nothing absurd with my conditional. If you do not will the actions, then they are not yours, since they occur without your will. If mind control was real, and someone could mind control you and get you to do a nefarious deed, would you say that it is you who did the nefarious did, or rather the person who mind controlled you?

You need a further premise to support your conclusion, and you cannot state that premise without contradiction. "A person's actions are not that person's actions if one is not morally responsible".
You've acknowledged the contradiction already. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's the other premise: actions performed with the body and/or mind of another are not that person's actions if they do not will them. No contradiction.

Unless you can clear up this contradiction, you have no argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

Done.

How do you propose to separate the actions from the person, to support your claim that the actions are not the person's actions? — Metaphysician Undercover

Based on whether the person wills the actions or not when they occur.

Clearly, it doesn't suffice to say that we can separate the actions from the person on a basis of moral responsibility, because dogs, cats and other animals all have actions without moral responsibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

We were talking just about humans. If you want to generalise to other animals, then obviously moral responsibility is not required. But one of the two components of moral responsibility (which are will and reason) is still required. Animals lack reason, but they do not lack will.

Some for instance, have been known to insist that I am the conduit for God, God is thinking through my mind. Such an argument is commonly dismissed as lunacy though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Like your hero Socrates right? He claimed to have had a daemon which spoke with him.

Again, this is all wrong. The action of pushing the button belongs to you. The action of forcing you to push the button belongs to the other. Even if responsibility for pushing the button is transferred to the other, this in no way indicates that the action itself is the other's. "Responsibility for", and "the action" refer to two distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the action is not mine in the sense I've specified above. I do not will the action, and hence I cannot be morally responsible for it. From a moral point of view, the action is not mine. From a biological point of view, or a physical one if you want it, the action belongs to my body as the immediate initiator.

Citizens in liberal democracies experience better well-being — Maw

This is questionable. I can get you to speak to a lot of people in Eastern Europe who much preferred communism to democracy. In addition, quantifying "well-being" is also not easy, and we never ran experiments on this, except, of course, experiments run while liberal democracies ruled our society.

stronger and more defend-able human-rights — Maw

Yeah, probably I can agree to that in most regards.

more accountable and transparent governments — Maw

No, definitely not. I think democracy is one of the most corrupt systems of government, where the rulers have no long-term responsibilities because all that matters is staying in power and the next election.

greater economic opportunities — Maw

Why are greater economic opportunities a good thing outside capitalism? Taking greater economic opportunities as a positive is already to presuppose the validity of our current economic system which has so shaped our way of life.

What I meant was that they're not essentially rebels. They don't oppose the status quo for the sake of opposing the status quo. If the status quo is believed to be contrary to the facts then the philosopher will oppose it, but if it agrees with the facts then he will support it. — Michael

Yes - I find it absurd and extremely arrogant to think that the status quo of today is in accordance with the facts. That's what all cultures until ours have also thought, and look, they seem to have been wrong.

No. It's the current status quo because it's believed to be the best way. — Michael

Indeed. But history shows us that all forms of political organisation change. Today democracy, tomorrow monarchy. What is the problem? The problem is that there is always a danger to side with what is currently believed to be the best way - you have the whole supporting culture behind you, it is an easy position to defend, and therefore likely to be wrong.

Uh, no. Philosophers aren't rebels. — Michael

Then why is it that Descartes, Spinoza, etc. all feared persecution and were very careful about what they said? Was it not because, in many ways, they opposed the status quo and the common ways of thinking?

Or do you reckon that philosophers have always merely expounded the prevailing spirit of the times?

liberal democracy — Maw

Why should we think liberal democracy is the best or only way of organising our societies politically? :confused: Just because that's the current status quo? I thought philosophers prized themselves on opposing the status quo - that's how it was in the past. But today philosophers prize themselves on defending the status quo... On being leeches and gadflies on the status quo, in cahoots with it.

Here is is a highly complex model that includes (a model of) the modeller as a part of the model and is 'run' just like a program, and it is just such complex reflexive models that are (mis)taken to be an inner world. — unenlightened

This seems very similar to Thomas Metzinger's Ego Tunnel and Phenomenal Self Model. A common position in modern philosophy of mind - being common already makes something suspect though. The most interesting philosophy tends to be that which is at odds with the spirit of the times - because one must really think hard to oppose the status quo - to affirm positions that no one else affirms and stands by - positions that seem implausible to one's contemporaries. And when I talk of one's contemporaries, I am talking about the philosophers, not the common people. For the philosophers live in their own world, which is often different than the world of the common people - indeed, it takes the world of the common man quite some time to reach where the philosopher had been. For example, Cartesian assumptions are already downloaded in our popular culture - but it took hundreds of years.

Analogies between the mind-brain and the computer software-hardware aren't very strong. Computer software is mechanical in a way that the mind is not - computer software works by pre-defined rules, and while the mind certainly does have components that have pre-defined rules, it also has freedom that the computer lacks. And this isn't merely the kind of freedom that can be gained by having a self-reflexive program that would modify its own programming to reflect changes in the environment (say). Because then such a software needs instructions that tell it how to modify itself - it needs if/then statements, loops, etc. The mind is more fluid than this, because the mind functions without instructions in many cases. It doesn't need instructions - it can create them - it is not trapped by a fixed structure like computers are.

I think this is where much of modern philosophy of mind goes wrong.

Thank you. This is the greatest day of my life. — Hanover

Make a note of it on your calendar! :rofl:

:rofl: — unenlightened

:naughty: — unenlightened

I see that you have started to plagiarise yours truly with these emojis. Nice.

:wink:

One implication is that there is no virtue in the virtual world, but only in what is expressed. It puts value firmly in action rather than thought. You are what you do, not what you think. — unenlightened

So what about someone who always contemplates destroying his enemies, committing adultery with his friends' wives, etc. but never does any of these out of, say, fear of punishment? Is that person virtuous?

I don't believe action and thought are as separate as you make them seem - thinking is also an action. Someone can be deceptive through their actions as well as through their thoughts. And there seems to me to be a close relationship between thinking and acting - St. Augustine speaks about this in the Confessions - how evil penetrates first the heart (and the mind) and only then translates into outward actions.

It is true that in some cases - such as OCD sufferers - people can have thoughts that they do not want to have - in that sense, thinking is passive, and not an action. But there is clearly a sense in which thinking is a doing, an activity, an action.

Another enlightened response from you. — CuddlyHedgehog

My responses are always enlightened :cool:

Monarchy is better.

Yes, it is difficult. It is as difficult as denying that one can see one's face in the mirror - as if one were a vampire. :naughty: The image is clearly me, clearly there, clearly real - and yet it is clearly not there, not me, and virtual. — unenlightened

lol - fine for the sake of argument I'll grant your point. What's the import of all this? Just a discussion for the sake of discussion or what's the aim?

Even so I have had friends who know me better than I know me. Not that this is something you might need or feel. But I know my most trusted friends well, and they know me better than me. I listen to them because of that. — Moliere

I also listen to my friends some of the time, and in some regards my friends know me better than I know myself. But that's certainly not true in all regards. For example, with regards to dating, I've never listened to my friends - that's why I'm now single :rofl: Ooops, bad example :rofl: . Let's try another. With regards to starting a business, I didn't listen to my friends, and things ended up well so far. There are entire areas of life where friends simply don't know enough (since they aren't me) to be able to help.

It's difficult though to claim that the internal reflections are "out there" and consciousness is like a mirror. Your own thoughts are not "out there". Thoughts are not words - they may be capable of (partial) conveying through words. But it's not the words that contain the meaning, it's the person who interprets the words who contains the meaning. He has the key to deciphering what the words mean so to speak. To someone who does not speak English and lacks the key, the words are meaningless. So this meaning that the words carry is something that supervenes on material reality, and perhaps, to a certain extent, socio-synthetic - since the meaning only emerges when a community agrees on a certain way of using words (language). And when we use words to communicate, it seems that by default we must be 'blind' to this socio-synthetic nature of language - we act as if these words have these meanings in themselves - even though they don't actually have those meanings, it is only our common agreement that grants them those meanings. We could change our agreement, and then words would change meanings. But to be capable of using a language, to become proficient in it, it is absolutely necessary that we are, PRACTICALLY, not theoretically, blind to this. The blindness is what makes communication possible.

If that is the case then "I know what's best for me" is false. No? — Moliere

Sure. I must've expressed myself badly, or perhaps I was tricked by the English language. I said:

But ultimately, it is us who know best. — Agustino

"Know best" does not mean we know it well - just that we know best compared to others.

Although, it has to be clarified that this "know best" does not mean that we cannot be wrong, self-deceived, etc. just that we can be less so than others. — Agustino

And as long as one is the only person in the world, there remains only the world. It is precisely when one mirrors another mirror - when one is mindful of other minds - that weird shit happens, and you start to see an internal world with an internal self looking at it and a homunculus in the inner world looking at it, with a homunculus's homunculus looking at the homunculus's internal world, and so on. — unenlightened

How's this different from Marx?

Man first sees and recognizes himself in other men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind. And thereby Paul, just as he stands in his Pauline personality, becomes to Peter the type of the genus homo. — Das Kapital

This seems no different than the Hegelian/Marxist idea that one's ego only crystalises and arrives at its self-identity by seeing itself reflected by another. So how is alienation then related to this self-consciousness that man has?

"I know what's best for me" — Moliere

No, nobody knows what's best for us, including ourselves. But we know better than others in many circumstances, that's my point. There are exceptions, like when you're depressed, or anxious etc. then you may not know what's best for you better than your friends. In any case, discussing issues is often useful, not just with friends, but with everyone.

Friends. A good friend knows you better than you know yourself. — Moliere

Not in all circumstances. Quite often friends can give what is for you bad advice, but would for them be good advice if they were in your situation.

It's false. :D — Moliere

I disagree that it is false. If we don't know what's best for ourselves (and we know more about ourselves than others in most regards, since we have been with us the whole time), then who does? Others may know more about us in some regards - whatever our blind spots are. So in those regards listening to others is profitable. But ultimately, it is us who know best.

Although, it has to be clarified that this "know best" does not mean that we cannot be wrong, self-deceived, etc. just that we can be less so than others.

I just did. The whole post is self-reflective. Yet these supposedly internal reflections have reached you. — unenlightened

Your words reached me, not necessarily your internal reflections. What happens to someone who stumbles upon these words but doesn't speak or understand English? Would your internal reflections have reached him?