Want to discuss? Contextualize! — Gus Lamarch

There would be no point according to your egoism, that would assume something could be gained from it, but how can an ego be great if it is not complete? How can it be great if it needs something from the outside? You cannot even justify this thread.

Hopefully you are just a young person that grew up without guidance, searching for some kind of meaning, and you landed on Ayn Rand. If that is the case I'm here to tell you that you got duped. If you are seriously interested in reading outside your ego you might start with sociology or social psychology. Try to account for the word ego without making reference to society.

this makes it easy to legally murder someone. — Outlander

What on earth? So people are going to start forging papers to get people to go through a process of suicide in an attempt to murder them? I mean, come on.

What this does mean is that the State cannot force a person to stay alive and suffer until the last breath. This is truly a triumph, the document contains tremendous beauty and powerful arguments.

"Where, in the exercise of this right, an individual decides to end their own life, having reached this decision based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of autonomous self-determination."

Win for intelligence! Win for freedom! Schopenhauer is applauding from his grave.

Life is an eternal process of the satiation of the eternal hunger of the egoism — Gus Lamarch

This is seriously deluded. Life is not an eternal process.

People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people. — Philosophim

Life is too short, one cannot go down the rabbit hole with every sophist, one can try to rationally thump them or to make a public spectacle, but it is foolish to indiscriminately spend one's life refuting every child of religion. It is a dilemma that one must solve. Who is one speaking to? It's strange that you attribute a moral fault to me when I did not attack this man in any personal way, I simply attacked the premises that lied behind his position. You might try thinking about the questions I asked him and see where they lead you.

I believe transcendence fails — apokrisis

There is no disagreement between us here.

But just because one can promote the success of one's ontology, doesn't mean one fails to recognise the epistemic fact that one is always "just modelling". — apokrisis

Well, one is, as a matter of fact, not "just modeling," correct? There are empirical considerations. The problem I have with this way of speaking is that you make it sound like all approaches are equal, they are not. Some do their best to draw from reality others do their best to impose on reality. One cannot say that all models are equal, I understand that you did not specifically say this, but this would seem to be a possible implication of your statement. "Success" is not the same as failure. Success in this context implies an advantage in accuracy... I just want to be clear, you are not saying we should "recognize" the validity of all models? You agree that some models are so divorced from the premises of reality that they offer no value to reality? In fact, some models are so abstract that they actually serve the purpose of negating reality.

If we don't set up our arguments counterfactually, they can only ever produce vague conclusions - no matter how decisively we may reject or accept either alternative. — apokrisis

What makes the supernatural, religious dichotomy, which you have admitted is just a technique, an actual alternative?

I never said reality is constructed. I said our models of reality are socially constructed. — apokrisis

One can produce all the models they want, but models, abstractions, only matter insofar as they can be tested or verified, otherwise they never make it past the level of speculation. So how do you go about verifying or testing your so-called, transcendent models? 

It will be one of the most bizarre things I will have ever heard if you try to tell me that precision is the result of the projection of spiritual being, which it sounds very much like you are saying? My understanding is that it's the result of empirical observation coupled with dialectical comprehension. The interjection of supernaturalism into the process is unnecessary.   

Immanence and transcendence are logically derived as the dichotomous alternatives. — apokrisis

This is very close to an argument from ignorance. Further, it is a mere assertion, you are simply demanding that you have the right to invent transcendence and assign being to it from the premise of matter. Where then does such a logic end, how does one deny the existence of the most fantastic antithesis? The dichotomy here is false, a mere abstract derivation, it is not found in nature.

The point I made was based on your own premises. If you accept the premise that reality is constructed, then you must submit to the conclusion that your idea of transcendence is a construction, which negates its being. To avoid this conclusion I offered you the chance to connect the dots and show how you escape the dilemma of your own logic. Your reply was merely to appeal to idealism, this is not a solution.

Just superb. Thank you for sharing this! The language is powerful and precise. I would even say this is an important humanist document.

There is something else that must be said here to clarify the context of what's going on. Where you have the upper intellectual hand against your opponent, you would no doubt pounce on his ignorance. This is not deserving of respect, it is the technique of all Christian apologetics. However, you no doubt find it very hard to pass off your idealism on a thinker like myself, and this is because I can discern that the polemic you leverage is itself constructed of sophistical, abstract precepts that merely give the appearance of progress in the direction of mysticism, but in reality, it is just a special pleading exercise in the absolute negative. Your own fantastical precepts, as an anti-philosophical tactic, are not even disclosed, and even if they were you would fallaciously exempt them from your negative criteria. This is not philosophy, this is modern sophistry.

Your ad hominem is but another desperate attempt at evasion.

Strange you will not tell the truth here. I am indeed an atheist. But you know the moment you confess to your Christianity you are in a bit of a dilemma. Your dishonestly and secretiveness is disappointing, it is not conducive of intellectual integrity.

Ultimately, I fault ecclesiastical religion for this - the emphasis on orthodoxy, on 'right belief', and the way heretics were treated, is what drove the dichotomy between faith and science in the first place. In other words, religious dogmatism drove the secular backlash that is one of the major strands of Enlightenment thought. — Wayfarer

apokrisis is desperately trying to save you from your own dogmatism, he thinks you might be a Buddhist. My hunch is that you are an undercover Christian. What's clear is that you have tried to pretend to be concerned with truth since the beginning of this thread, as time went on it became clear that you are an undercover metaphysician. Are you a Christian?

"...whoever shall deny Me before men, I also will deny him before My Father in the heavens." Matt 10:33

His account shows just how socially constructed our notions of reality are — apokrisis

If there is an admission of construction, then how do you get from this to transcendence? If you are arriving at it through construction then please demonstrate the process. Seems to me you begin with it as an emotive premise.

I think your atheist convictions are so overpowering as to make discussion with you pointless. — Wayfarer

On the contrary, I will not assume your metaphysical categories as default reality, if you want them you will have to defend them.

Look at what Nagel is saying, think about it.

Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Thomas Nagel

Here Nagel is assuming too much. To begin with, he is referring to idealist categories, this is why they are mentioned in contrast to physics. I do not believe Nagel can sustain the ideas he here puts forth. It matters not, the point is that we don't get to pick and choose the nature of reality (the same point I was making above about God). If observation leads to the conclusion that there are no grand metaphysics, this does not make our observation false, but it does tell us a great deal about thinkers like Nagel. I don't see how he can escape the charge of Nihilism, precisely because he seems to be demanding an absolute negativity in the absence of his positive categories. This is simply an admission that one cannot handle reality without delusion.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. — Thomas Nagel

Thank you for extracting the citation. I am not interesting in derailing this thread, but I cannot stand idly by while you try to sneak in some kind of theism, so I will call it out.

I agree that I don't want the abominable Gods of Christianity or Islam to be true, this would be quite horrific, nevertheless, if either of these deities really do exist then I will swallow the bitter reality whole. As a serious thinker I am not concerned with comfort, I am concerned with comprehending reality, and if that means comprehending the existence of a real God, so be it!

I don't have a problem with deism, pantheism or other kinds of vague theism, just so long as they are not false postures for monotheism or organized religion. If one is a consistent deist or pantheist they are not and cannot be a Christian or Muslim. Deists, Pantheists and Atheists all live in the same world.

One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. — Thomas Nagel

I think I agree with this, but that also depends on what one tries to do with the premise.

Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. — Thomas Nagel

This is exceedingly poor reasoning. Nagel is defending delusion in place of reality. This merely shows that he's the kind of thinker who is seeking comfort as opposed to truth. The so-called, "elimination of purpose, meaning and design," of which he here speaks "as fundamental features of the world," are in fact delusions that man projects onto the world. These metaphysical constructs are just that, man's constructs, the real error arises when people like yourself then jump to the conclusion of Nihilism. The absence of these constructs doesn't eliminate value! This Nihilism is itself generated by the false premise that claims these constructs are necessary for the cultivation of quality. This is a lie of idealism!

It will be clear to all careful readers that you are not comprehending your own inconsistencies and errors. This discourse did not go well for you, namely because you sought to leverage a strawman. I honestly don't see what's left in your position that can even qualify as a valid objection. It has been thoroughly exposed and refuted.

I assumed this was in HTML. I was not able to read it. Nevertheless, I don't think it will lessen the weight of what is happening here. Your position is becoming quite clear. You are not simply on a quest for truth, you are on a quest for God. You can deny it all you like, but this is the conclusion of your position. This would be fine and well if you had a valid approach, but your approach is the same moth-eaten attempt, "science cannot explain everything, therefore God must stand in the gap." I have no doubt you resent a thinker like myself putting it in such clear terms. You are very good at framing your theism, but it doesn't matter, at the end of the day the result is the same impossible leap: use a standard of radical skepticism to attack positive knowledge, and then assert your God into the gap created by the skepticism. The problem with this, as is always the problem, is that you try to exempt your own positive knowledge from the standard. This is why you did not answer my questions, even calling them "nonsense," namely because you cannot pass the test of your own standard. This is dishonest and hypocritical.

There are biggish background disagreements (e.g., religious faith) that can end discussion, — Srap Tasmaner

This is a deal breaker for me. I cannot have a serious conversation with a person who has an invisible, celestial friend. The mindset is so incredibly divorced from what is actually going on in reality. We are barely surviving in the midst of chaos. Serious thinkers don't have time to ponder the abstractions of God.

There are going to be barriers. Once thinkers have managed to escape the crudest forms of ideology, they can then begin work on liberation from more intricate, advanced forms of ideology. This is quite important. Thought is largely about liberation, this is its praxis, it is not merely about information. So my interest is in thinking with other thinkers who have escaped intricate ideological structures, thinkers who want to codify the steps that lead in this direction so it can be shared throughout society. Self-conscious thinkers, which I take to be the rarest, are not merely driven by their thought, but they have learned how to drive their thought. The former is lost in an impulse world of his own interest, while the latter strives to go in the direction of objectivity.

Great answer. :up:

The man wants discussion, not insults. — Philosophim

I have delivered here no insults. This is your emotional response and characterization of the situation. Philosophy is not a feel good game, thought is brutal, it walks against the silk of delusion, it is often sand paper to the heart. There is no more relevant question than the question of thought's relevance. How much time should one give to a discussion on the attributes of Allah? Pick any God you want, at some point you will and must affirm my position. So far from giving the original poster an insult I did him a favor by asking the right questions!

You do not like the idea of people thinkging about God, that is obvious. But I think you're trying to rationalize your dislike, and not thinking about discussions of God rationally. — Philosophim

This is not my argument. And I have little patience for people like yourself, so I'm going to do this swiftly. 1) Define what you mean by God. This is your burden of proof. 2) Show this specific being has existence, as opposed to merely being your fun little idea. 3) Demonstrate relevance. Until you have done this I'm afraid you must take your celestial puppet show to the back of the room and play with all the other kids.

Goodness friend, what a rigorous and relevant reply. Thank you for taking the time to write it. It stands as a testament to accurate information and a tough beat-down of misinformation. I don't know enough about the conflict between Marx and Bukunin. There should be a saying, when it comes to Marxism there is too much to know.

This needs to be stated and clarified: ssu has been thoroughly refuted at this point. Of course, he is free to prop himself up on the basis of empty ego and groundless self assertion, but the repeated replies on this thread have been quite devastating in pointing out his hypocrisy and contradiction. Insisting that one's emotional view is the proper one will not make it so.

In the Real World Soviet Union is considered socialist and leftist. — ssu

The content of being is not a matter for formal definitions. America was considered a "free country" through it was steeped and born in slavery. What matters are the actual functions and form of political systems.

Yes, I know who Nagel is. I cannot look at this until tomorrow, but am honestly looking forward to it. Credentials do not make the man, thought makes the man.

Yet it is simply pure dishonesty and flagrant denial from you to try think that the teachings of Karl Marx had nothing to do with a society that had as it's state ideology Marxism-Leninism and that you try to call the Soviet Union a "right-wing dictatorship". — ssu

It has as much to do with Marx's teachings of a democratic society ordered by workers as North Korea. This is one of the great dangers and tragedies of Marxism, it is so easily hi-jacked by dictators. It is actually your own fallacy, people think the name is equivalent to the substance. I have already provided citations on this thread that clearly demonstrate that Marx did not teach a political system of state dictatorship. He is not responsible for Stalin. Dictators will use whatever ideology they can to come into power.

I did not merely try to call the Soviet Union a Right-Wing-Dictatorship, in actual practice that's what it was. You don't like this fact because it refutes your strawman argument.

I guess "right-wing" is just a swearword for you, so perhaps you could call Stalin a nazi too. — ssu

He was not a Nazi but he was in the exact same political position as Hitler, they both had absolute power without democratic checks on that power.

Yet it is simply ignorance to try uphold the fallacy of Soviet Union being a possible success "if not for Stalin". — ssu

No one on this thread has done this that I am aware of. This is certainly not my argument. This is another strawman. You are very ignorant about Marx's political philosophy. The whole idea of taking a peasant society (nearly feudalistic) and artificially thrusting it into communism is a joke. In Marx's theory the contradictions of advanced capitalism lead to the conclusions of communism. Society must advance through a series of organic stages, this is required to produce the social consciousness necessary to communism. I would again like to here state, I am not a Marxist, and I most certainly do not advocate Marxist revolution, I am merely trying to swiftly educate you on Marx's position.

How many times have I heard "if not Stalin" ...how benign the system would have been under Lenin. This thinking totally disregards the intrinsic problems of Marx's ideology, which do inherently lead to a totalitarian system. — ssu

I agree with this, but for reasons very different from your strawman formation.

What a great Bakunin quote. I wish I knew the full context but I agree with what he said here. The difference is that you think this simply settles the matter, and Marx is quickly disposed of, but this is not the case. I see problems, but I am not sure I have ever encountered a more species-intelligent-thinker. One cannot think about material life and ignore Marx, even those who try end up in the same place. He simply thought about society in concrete terms, unshackled from the errors of idealism.

I do realise this might strike you as annoying, obscurantist, and even 'mystical' as has already been suggested. But I feel strongly that what is at stake here is of fundamental philosophical importance. — Wayfarer

It is indeed becoming more clear, this is not simply your attempt at noble thought. You really should be transparent, do tell us what is at stake and is of fundamental importance? If your answer is God then we have a problem, but if it's something about human rights or human dignity, this is a different matter. I am curious, but I suspect you're probably a Christian steeped in Norte Dame idealism. They have been pumping out tons of analytical mystics into society through their abstract propaganda. I honestly hope your answer is something better than monotheism.

I'm aware of that viewpoint but I want to free any beholders of that view from their shackles, because we can achieve so much more than that. — Malcolm Lett

You have my full attention. I have truly enjoyed reading your posts, and I don't think I'm the only one.

First question - is there a group or a forum for guys like me, amateurs that want to build knowledge together? — Ansiktsburk

You can ask questions on forums and sometimes you will get quality replies from intelligent people. "Building knowledge together," I think this is one of the hardest things, those who are capable of it have to either be fresh and new, curious, or exceedingly mature. I have searched for this kind of thing for years and never really found it. But this is only my experience.

Are there any more effective group discussion platforms? Where a thread do not wander away into oblivion and some conclusions are made. Maybe an active moderator? — Ansiktsburk

I am exceedingly cynical of the possibility in this day and age. I think these kind of forums are a step in the right direction because they go beyond mere soundbites of information. They refute the shallow formats that are suited to propaganda. I have personally found this forum to be most excellent and fair.

But even more I would love to explore the world of philosophy together with people and not against people, and without prestige. I am at the end of a rather succesful career (in a much more boring discipline than philosophy) and I have no need to prove Wit or IQ. I simply want to learn togeter with others. Is that possible here? — Ansiktsburk

This is the kind of thing I look for, but it's difficult. If thinkers are not to some extent matched, or at least good at asking the right questions, the dialogue will only go one way. Further, intelligence, and restrictions of time, dictate that thought must be aggressive, focused, it cannot afford to posture itself if it's really trying to get somewhere. Can you handle being a tough thinker?

But discussing theology is not a "non-smart" thing. — philosopher004

What makes it an act of intelligence? Please keep in mind, I don't deny you the right of an aesthetic claim, you are free to discuss the powers of Zeus until the day you die if you so desire, but claiming this to be an act of intelligence is another matter. There are engineers in the world who try to figure out how to increase energy storage and energy creation, engineers who figure out how to make clean water. These are all acts of intelligence, what makes your discussions about God intelligent? I have a very hard time believing that it occupies a place of importance higher than that of agriculture. Further, is it only your idea of God that you think is a "smart thing to discuss?" I even agree with you that many smart people discuss the topic of God, but they are not smart because they discuss God. It is a tragic waste of intellectual energy.

I'm quite sure that the content of our conscious experience is a representational model. A 'summary', if you like, of a certain subset of data flowing through the brain. One can argue that this means we cannot introspect anything about the mechanisms behind our subjective experience, because we are confined to this representational model, and we must inherently distrust the accuracy of this model. — Malcolm Lett

As I understand it, action comes before perception. If this is the case consciousness is not merely an image but an inter-working and synthesis of environment... it also means more than this, I cannot draw it all out. But think of this for a moment, there is no such thing as a computer without a long historical material process, the fact that one wants to separate the quality of the computer from this process, gathering of raw materials, creation, assembly, etc., only serves to manifest the limitations and distortions (obliviousness) of the one who artificiates the divisions. We are not talking about the fully developed being of a thing that miraculously popped into existence, we are, whether one likes it or not, talking about a historical process, social activity. Therefore, the mechanisms that account for this process are both historical and material. To say we are confined to representations seems to overlook the very real material process. I am not dogmatic here, but this seems like a gigantic, ignorant gap in the thinking.

Indeed you don't. — ssu

One can either pretend that reality is a definition or one can look at the actual attributes of reality itself. It doesn't matter what you or I say about the Soviet Union, what matters is what the Soviet Union actually was. Did democracy exist in the Soviet Union? Did Stalin have power? Were there any democratic checks on his power?

It's not a matter of placing 'restrictions' on science, but questioning its presuppositions. — Wayfarer

This is precisely the vocation of thought.

Modern scientific method starts from certain axioms and presuppositions, which may be perfectly suitable within its scope, but science is not all-knowing. — Wayfarer

This is exceedingly suspect, further, you did not answer my last valid question for which you bear the burden of proof. What I mean about this being suspect is that it's exceedingly clear to me that you are trying to create a gap that you can fill with mysticism. The statement "not all-knowing," reminds me of God-of-the-Gaps reasoning. You are searching for a hole, why? Be transparent. It's hard to see that you are simply trying to follow noble thought where it leads in this sense. For my part, I would never argue that science is all-knowing, is this really a valid premise of science or a straw-man?

revised to negation.

As I suggested, there is an intrinsic difficulty with attempting to treat the subject - the thinker, the agent who is writing and speaking - as an object of scientific analysis. — Wayfarer

We simply must know, how then should the subject be "treated?" I think the problem may be the use of the term, "scientific analysis." It's possible to use this concept in such a rigid way that one essentially creates a kind of straw-man, which is to say, one refutes a kind of fundamentalism in science, fallaciously believing it to cover thought in general. All of this seems to me as so much sophistry, it is clear that you are trying to leverage the conversation in the direction of some kind of mysticism, and you are trying very hard indeed.

3) and the two are intrinsically linked because, as it happens in all dynamic living systems that we are aware of, you cannot have one without the other and still produce the kinds of behaviours that we expect of a dynamic living system.

But what's most useful from that is that it provides a framework for measuring the effectiveness of a system to produce self-referential conscious-like processing capabilities, and its efficiency. — Malcolm Lett

The way I see it, this all speaks to the same finality: the environments through which human systems pass are essential to the realization of their quality. What is missing from this awareness is that all of the qualities contained in the premises are actually references to social products.

Superb job on expressing your ideas friend.

That's a nonsense question — Wayfarer

It is indeed a strange event when the agent's imagination tries to negate its being.

Putting a criminal in jail is not racist. — Outlander

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? What is the criminal's genesis?

Glad to see you agree that matter exists.

I wasn’t talking about ‘matter’ but about the postulate that ‘everything is physical’ which is physicalism or scientific materialism, depending on who you talk to. — Wayfarer

I am aware, you are talking about a postulate not reality. This is a sophistical game. It's leveraged on the idea that one is making a formal claim about the nature of reality, you then seek to rightly point out the unsustainable absolutism of the claim. All good and well. When I make this argument you are free to counter it as you see fit, but you will not be assigning it to me. What you are here using as a your leverage is the refutation of an abstraction, not reality.

I mean, saying ‘everything in the universe is a physical mechanistic process’ is problematical in light of the hypothesis that what is understood by physics only comprises 4% of the totality of the cosmos, the balance existing in the form of dark matter and energy, about which nothing is known. — Wayfarer

Well, you seem to know a lot about it. Never mind your Fairy-Dust-of-the-Gaps argument here, what specially was your alternative to matter?

If you start arguing that the Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship, terms and definitions have no meaning for you. — ssu

I care little about your formalism or anyone elses. The Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Dictatorship presided over by Joseph Stalin. Just like all good Right-Wing ideology the Leader was allowed to unilaterally make the rules and issue executive orders without a democratic check on his power.

However, because your entire argument is based on the straw-man of the Soviet Union, no doubt you need to define it to fit your argument. Too bad that in reality it was a Right-Wing-Dictatorship.

the real world isn't driven by emotion. — ssu

Once again, you merely prove that you don't live in reality. Humans are exactly driven by emotion, which is why their world is driven by emotion. The problem with the world isn't the fact that we have too many dispassionate thinkers, but that the human world is full of passions.

A good start would not to put one historical political theorist on a pedestal for worship. — ssu

I think this is indeed a good place to start.

It would be good to look at what has worked and why...and what has failed. — ssu

By worked I assume you mean the cultivation of some kind of social quality, how do you measure it? This is important because your criteria will determine whether or not your standard is actually addressing the issues, suppressing them, or possibly even creating them?

Well, that's what the labour movement and trade unions generally did in the West: the implementation of labour laws, increase in pay and the improvement working conditions. The lower classes didn't fall into despair, on the contrary, absolute poverty was decreased. Liberal democracies could do something to correct the problems that the industrial revolution had created. — ssu

Labor struggles are never pretty. These are resistance movements. Why wouldn't you try to target the imbalances of power and possession that account for these struggles in the first place? You are already confessing to poor conditions, how did these conditions come about? No labor struggle has ever abolished "absolute poverty." Further, your analysis doesn't even take into consideration the whole notion of the activity of work itself.

So you admit that Liberal Democracies could do something to correct the problem, where was the democracy in the Soviet Union? And if it wasn't there how could the people address their social problems?

And these corrections were generally universally accepted by both the left and right, usually through the political system in nation states. — ssu

There is no empirical reality to this at all. Labor struggles are hard fought. Those who own the land and have wealth do not want to give up their power.

Hence the transfer of jobs from the rich countries to places were labour was more cheap. — ssu

Clearly you see this as bad thing. But this is how capitalism works, maybe you don't like capitalism? How should we go about solving this problem when it is created by the very axioms of the capitalist system?

I think perhaps from the viewpoint of Marxism, the lack of response to globalization from the international labour movement is the problem. And just why this difficult is obvious: if globalization has erased jobs in Western industrial countries, it has created them in the Third World. I'm not a leftie, but in this question I think we could find some common ground. — ssu

Hard to see how we are even on the same page here? What you are talking about is called a race to the bottom. Your analysis doesn't even make contact with the power structure of the system. It simply reproduces the social consciousness into which it was born. How can you change a system you don't even comprehend?

I don't think there can be evidence for that. — Wayfarer

???

It's a metaphysical attitude, or rather, a methodological postulate that is then interpreted as a metaphysical principle. — Wayfarer

What on earth? Matter is what we find existing, this is not an "attitude," or "postulate."

Modern science has tended to want to see 'everything in the universe' as physical, because physical objects are amenable to the precise objectification and quantification that is central to its method. — Wayfarer

Did you happen to have an alternative?

The categories, "good" and "evil" do not explain humans. The behavior of humans is not merely "good" or "evil." It is passionate, unconscious, mindful... there are all kinds of other words that help us to better explain and describe the behavior of humans. People that divide the world in terms of "good" and "evil" are eventually prone to the justification of violence. The categories are too narrow and absolute to allow for variations, and because of this their explanatory power is exceedingly limited.

PETERSON AND THE POISONED METAPHYSICAL ROOT:

"Well, we don’t know what’s happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, but we know that God’s got wind of it, and that that’s not good. We know that sin means to miss the mark, and so we know that whatever’s happened in Sodom and Gomorrah means that something about the natural, ethical order of things has been seriously violated. There’s a strong intimation in the Old Testament— which I think, by the way, is completely correct—that, if the proper order of being is violated, and that’s something like the balance of chaos of order, then all hell will break loose. One of the things I can tell you from reading a very comprehensive set of myths from around the world is that that’s a conclusion that human beings have come to everywhere: stay on the goddamn path, and be careful, because if you start to mess around, and you deviate—especially if you know that you’re deviating—things are not going to go well for you. That idea is everywhere. I think the idea is right because there aren’t that many ways of doing things right, and there’s a lot of ways of doing things wrong. If you do things wrong, the consequences of doing them wrong can be truly catastrophic." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, XI Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is no such thing as a "natural ethical order," this is pure fiction; it is Peterson's attempt to ascribe attributes to the universe that the universe does not contain in an attempt to comfort himself against the hard reality of chaos. He is much sheltered, as are we all, by the soft conditions of earth.

Peterson speaks of "the proper order," enter here the roots of fascism! Notice the silent fear hidden behind this exposition... what will one do, what must be done in order to maintain "the proper order?" We need to hear more about this "proper order!" If one transcends cultural values (The Proper Order) then one must face the horror of chaos, disorder will ensue? Is this accurate?

At one time it was The Proper Order that women should not participate in democracy, those who were not born white were considered slaves, but low and behold, we broke The Proper Order! Down with the conformists and their ignorant attempt to condemn the world to primitive values! And what happened when we liberated the oppressors from false values, did the world collapse into chaos? Did the sun unhinge itself from the reaches of space, did we tumble through oblivion? All these fears are unfounded, they are an overreaction, a desperate attempt to hold onto what is familiar and therefore comfortable. As evidenced from what has been cited, Peterson is motivated and driven by his psychological fear, how then can he be a liberator of those who are afraid?

"Stay on the goddamn path, do not deviate, things will not go well for you little child... fear! fear! fear! the consequences of everything I say: run back to conformity and you will be safe. I know the wild winds caught you, and you crouched in the shallow brush, come back to the fold and you will be safe."

"If you do things wrong" ? Moral language, behold the language of the Gods! But why not just use the word intelligence? 'Do not act foolishly my son, be wise, navigate the world with intelligence.' This seems more fitting, one has no need of the Gods. 

Peterson is his own myth, his mythology is comprised of absolute ignorance regarding class structures and systems, it is an ignorance that extends to the quality of the individual, what it seeks to create is not a liberated specimen or species, but a serf, both content and oblivious to his chains.

The message of the thinker (in contrast to the conformist) is to learn how to resist tyranny, is to study and comprehend, to learn how to overcome unintelligent systems, not only does our own quality hinge on this activity, but also the quality of our children. How human society is organized and valued plays the largest role in the quality of human life.

What lies buried beneath Peterson's exposition is the false claim that the reality into which we are born is a standard for life's quality. To depart from this, thinks Peterson, is to destroy the world. Dialectical awareness comprehends that this naivety is a kind of false consciousness, one that the specimen is fond of imposing on himself and others. Where are the thinkers!? Are we so dull that we are but the mere replicants of culture, only to mindlessly advocate the same? To properly contextualize Nietzsche, this is not the way of The Higher Man, he is not a mere replicant, but his thought is fiercely and courageously bent in the direction of intelligence. If one cannot see through the stupidity of an ignorant such as Peterson, how can one hope to move in the direction of a higher species awareness, how can one possibly be the Creator of Higher Values?

Peterson is not so intellectually large, my young friends, the problem is that he is too small! Thought-power has always resided with the non-conformists, and though their ideas are rejected in every epoch, it is the form of history that they often become the guarantors of a better future. Seek out the non-conformists, seek out the thinkers, do not run to men like Peterson to quell your fear. Learn to face it and overcome it by the power of thought, as so many quality thinkers have done before you.