Or perhaps now the young leftists who don't have any clue about the reality of the socialist experiment, — ssu

I've been down this road before. Conversations with people who considered themselves authorities on politics because they lived in a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship. I do not defend or advocate the Right-Wing fascist system of the Soviet Union. The only thing you can mean when you say Leftists have no clue, is exactly what I have been repeatedly pointing out, a workers revolt is not necessarily going to create a better system, thinking it will is delusion. There are many factors that come into play, pre-revolutionary factors as well as post-revolutionary factors. You seem to think you have settled the matter, but all you have really done is manifest that your theoretical position is driven by emotion. All the problems of class and society remain, how do you propose we approach these problems? How do you propose we go about making a better society, where human quality doesn't hinge on exploitation?

Accordingly, abandonment only occurs from within a lazy mind — 3017amen

Wrong fellow, it is also the deliberate act of intelligence. You will never find me discussing the theology of the Christian Holy Spirit, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm too smart to waste my life on something so fantastically absurd.

Serious problems you raise here for anyone who claims to be taking the idea of God serious.

You apparently can't see he is describing the status quo, and establishes the observance of a universal truth. — god must be atheist

Hard to follow you here. Not sure what you're talking about?

The chain of power is presented in an uprising or revolution. And you fear that the restructuring won't be intelligent... that is a very rational and valid fear. Restructuring may very well be done unintelligently. Both these notions don't contradict Marx's text. — god must be atheist

You merely re-state my point. I don't understand what point you are trying to make? My comments were meant to be the beginning of a discourse not a finality. Here you merely show that you comprehend the point, which means it can now be discussed. As for contradicting Marx, this was neither my point or my intention. Nevertheless, fundamental Marxism is incredibly naive (but I must say) its naivety is nothing compared to capitalism. Romanticizing the quality of the masses is a huge mistake. Life does not end after such a realization, theory must figure out how intelligence can proceed. We can either be the dupes of our time or we can use thought to resist.

Would you please be so kind as to point at the source where "barbarism" is defined, as quoated by you? — god must be atheist

It is a false assertion that claims barbarism must be advocated as a formal political method in order to be a procedure of praxis. If you must know, fascism is equivalent. The methods utilized cannot be distinguished from barbarism, in fact, they may even be worse insofar as they make use of systematic violence through official channels. Much of my thinking on this topic has been influenced by the work of Adorno. I would challenge you to think about the shallowness of your objection, as it is one of mere formality.

Humans are so funny, so very very funny, they think their little brains is so special and high. Supernaturalists just love questions related to consciousness, it gives them another chance to reinstate their happy immortality systems on life. The premise is always that consciousness is so amazing, so incredibly profound. Little dumb dumb humans can't even fly very far off their rock, fills earth with garbage and waste. Uses consciousness to make bombs to blow itself up.

I don't know man — Mutakalem

Is it possible that this entails a waste of your intellectual energy and power? Are there more important issues you could be applying your mind to?

And this potentiality emergence is absurd, because being rationally possible to exist is a property of identity and no transformation of reality/identity can ever occur; meaning that it's either a 2 dimensional square circle is logically rationale or it's not, we cannot say that after day X it became logically rational, but before that it was irrational, or that the existence of an apple pie after day Y is irrational. This is violating the law of identity saying that y=y but starting from day X y=/=y if for example y is a 2D squared circle that by virtue has a logical irrational existence. — Mutakalem

Fantastic! All these fancy symbols, this must mean that your subject is of the highest value? I mean, you wouldn't go through all this trouble if it wasn't of the utmost importance. Do tell, what would a man lose if this argument never existed? Is there any price to be paid for ignoring a conversation on the power's of Zeus?

With all the serious problems in the world, why did you choose this topic? Why spend your time on such a useless abstraction?

Can you elaborate on that? — philosopher004

I did, read through the thread.

You are poor, or even miserable; empathy, humbleness, and other of these "virtues" would not help you out of this state at all. What would benefit you most would be the act of focusing on yourself, getting a job — Gus Lamarch

Insufferable incompetent! What man would benefit most from was changing the system that imposes his oppression in the first place. Here intelligence is required as opposed to a delusion of the will.

If everyone was concerned with resolving only their lives, their personal, individual interests, they would gradually change the whole of society. — Gus Lamarch

Did you make the clothes you wear? Did you grow all the food you eat? Silence, contingent and ignorant one, your quality is bound up in the labor of others! You would not go without it, you are oblivious to your own hypocrisy.

Not in my country, basically. This country has truly eradicated large scale rural povetry that there was in the 19th Century. It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents. — ssu

You are living in delusion. The reason there is not more homelessness and poverty, and soon their will be, is ONLY because of social programs that exist to help the poor (and these are not even close to adequate). Further, I can't remember who, a study was done a few years back, maybe someone on this thread knows the reference?, that found the poverty in the United States to be comparable to third world countries. You live in a delusion friend, and have been refuted many times over on this thread.

Have you read the old testament wisdom books? — 3017amen

Indeed I have. Beware lest you discriminate against revelation, for this would imply an external standard, which serves to nullify the authority of the whole. It is always a good day when the theist realizes he is really playing by humanistic rules.

What scientific, objective fact tells us that education or gender equality are measures of flourishing? The existence of identifiable measures does not constitute proof that those measures are measures of human flourishing, you've just labelled them as such. — Isaac

This could not be more cynical, well, perhaps it could, you could say God is the only one who can define what a quality life means for man.

However, the indefensible and hypocritical skepticism contain in this position is clearly unconscious of itself. Individuals without children should have no say in what constitutes human flourishing, their negative egocentrism doesn't count.

Having clean water and healthy food are axioms of human flourishing, do you deny it?

cite a Heidegger passage that is mystical please — Gregory

This is totally valid and deserves a reply, I just haven't had time to get to it.

You can feel what I'm feeling. Irritation, maybe annoyance that you are dodging people's responses instead of confronting them. I can feel what you're feeling. Smug satisfaction, a little perverse joy that all these suckers have taken the bait and are responding to you at all. You are correct that your motivation is extremely selfish, but the reason the rest of us are responding is exactly because we are not solely motivated by selfishness. — Pro Hominem

:up: :up: :up:

the values that comes with the god and the religion makes peoples life better. — Ibtehal

This is false. Spanking children and burning witches neither makes society or people's lives better. Thinking one has solved the problems of existence because they believe in God does not make human lives better, it makes them more confused and rigid, more full of existential terror. All of the Christians who are alive today would be considered heretics in the world of the past, and Christians have wisely departed from much historical dogmatism, which proves that their real ethic, though they are not aware of it, is humanistic. It is humanistic values coupled with advances in knowledge that makes people's lives better.

Would that be right? — Wayfarer

No.

Egoism is the nature of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

This is a false metaphysical statement. Ego is only part of the human psychological system.

Attacking a person you don't even know is your way of presenting your arguments to me? — Gus Lamarch

What I said was based on your own premises. You are, by far, the worst person I have ever encountered on this forum. You are a raving narcissist, completely ignorant of the fact that any quality you possess came through the medium of a social process. I hope you continue to get crushed on here. TheMadFool has already demonstrated gigantic gaps in your dogmatism. Woe to those who fall across your path; woe to those who consider you a guide! Self-assertion is not the same as intelligence.

Yeah, well Hegel was wrong.

No, there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? — Gus Lamarch

My god man, you live in a Matrix of one. Fella finds a formula to justify the pathology of his egosyntonicness, then labels it as intelligence.

I don't think that the desire to lift the condition of humanity as a whole even requires a justification. It is self-explanatory. I don't think humans are special per se, but I think sapience is and we should do our best to use it to increase the general well-being of ourselves and our environment. — Pro Hominem

This is precisely the kind of down to earth common sense that has been marred by religious abstraction and abstraction in general. Yes, it is self-justificatory! 'Should we make life harder for ourselves?' Everyone will deny it, but so many are engaged in precisely this vocation through the medium of abstraction.

There is little need for us to contend with each other, we all agree with this. The enemy is abundant in the world, mindless superstition, wisdom dictates forces united to stop the advance of stupidity.

I don't find it strange that philosophy, after the tragic advent of its analytical form, has moved in the direction of Heidegger's mysticism. This is the logical step, given the empty formalism of analytical philosophy, but it is a step in the wrong direction for the species. More wasted time, more wasted lives.

I share every last ounce of justified and intelligent contempt you here articulate.

Morality arises out of human consciousness as means to try to organize our increasingly complex systems of interaction. — Pro Hominem

If only it were so intelligent.

Every single argument here is for deism and has been swatted down long ago. — Thorongil

There you have it. Kreeft can't get no Jesus-Trinity from here.

And the domain of its abstraction is nevertheless a domain. — tim wood

Yes, but purely a formal one. There is no authority here.

The question to you is do you know the difference between the idea of a thing and the thing itself? — tim wood

God is just a word without concrete substance. I think this manifest comprehension of a distinction. Here the idea is without being, it never escapes the domain of its own abstraction.

the idea is that you refer to ideas of things as if they were the things themselves. They're not. — tim wood

My position is the exact opposite of what you imply here, nevertheless, I can see your struggle, poor fellow, you desperately want to be able to proceed as though your notion of god was more than an idea.

I think going over the heads of intellectuals in order to appeal to the masses is an important skill. For me, the problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional manner, but whether or not the ideology is correct. — NOS4A2

This is totally false. I have proven*, in your case, that this is exactly not the thing that matters: you are the kind of thinker that is ONLY after confirmation bias, which means, for you, your core beliefs are not falsifiable. Anything that contradictions them, no matter how "correct," will be denied and distorted, overrided by your emotional commitment.


*https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9011/marx-and-the-serious-question-of-private-property/p3

You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? — tim wood

You are already sunk, the burden of proof lies with the original question, "Can justice be defined without taking god and others into account?" That depends, what do you mean by god? While I admit, it could be claimed that stating god negates justice seems to jump the gun, it doesn't matter, to make the charge would be useless posturing, you end and begin at the exact same place, with the question, what do you mean by god?

I was specifically expounding on the reason why the idea of God negates justice. I didn't have to do this, I did it because it 1) helps to move the conversation forward for serious thinkers by providing clarifying content and 2) is the harder thing to do, instead of simply throwing the ball back into your court.

You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of. — tim wood

I can barely comprehend what you are asking and saying here.

what are some of them? — tim wood

Pro Hominem already mentioned one, you tried to imply of space standard for the reply, this is a typical trick of sophists. Reality doesn't work that way, if truth is complex, but you don't like it, all this means is that you will never comprehend it.

please provide your definition of the word "God" — Pro Hominem

This is exactly where the burden of proof lies.

Which is debatable whether conformism and back-seat Christianity, as you put it, is a form of nihilism. — boethius

This is not an original argument on my part it was Nietzsche's formation.

The statements I made are falsifiable, they are deduced from both Peterson's positive and negative affirmations, as well as his actions. What you don't seem to comprehend is that there is a negative side to a positive affirmation, the same is true of negative affirmations. Further, this is a superior way to proceed because one is using the subject's own premises to arrive at a contrary conclusion.

Apologists for Peteron, as apologists generally do, usually want to quickly move the conversation to the "big" questions (human nature vs. socialization, relativisim vs. universalism, redistribution vs. competition, collective interests vs. individual interests etc.) which serves the function of first credibilizing Peterson by making it appear he genuinely engages with these issues in a coherent way as well as fruitful ground to fabricate the fallacy that as long as there is one credible position in such a philosophical debate we could imagine, that can be somehow associated with Peterson, then Peterson therefore has a credible position, while also focusing the conversation on issues that have not been resolved for thousands of years and there are plenty rebuttals for everything on-hand. — boethius

That is, you have here admitted that his supporters are not drawn to him for the reasons you say, but precisely because he is good at "making it appear" that he has "genuinely engaged these issues" and arrived at comprehensive answers. I will continue to attack him precisely at this point. People want answers to the "big questions."

However, by focusing on what Peterson actually says outside the attempt to make some theory Peterson is imagined to be representing or then a theory of what ulterior motives Peterson has, but rather just the simple self-expression of the man and whether it's coherent or incoherent, then the challenge to supporters is much more acute: they must actually deal with Peterson and not their own noble conceptualization of Peterson. — boethius

You have admitted that this "noble conceptualization" results from Peterson's ability to posture on the "big questions." Then you go onto the topic of healthcare, claiming that the ability to show inconsistency here will result in the demise of the "noble conceptualization." I think not friend. I will stick to attacking Peterson on the "big issues."

it is clear that Ideology is useful for capturing the imagination of those that are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about a thing. — Pro Hominem

Repeat five times and post on every thread please.

So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood

Ignoring a few of the problems with your reply, by definition and social reality, the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God is taken to be a finality, complete in itself (unless one is talking about Whitehead). Further, this justice can only be said to proceed from experience in the most negative and unconscious way, which cannot be considered an intelligent approach to the construction of principles of justice. It is reactionary and emotive, it does not take human action into account within the complex systems that human action arises, and neither does it examine its principles in terms of their intelligence within an existential context, therefore it cannot be an answer to an honest question, "how do we make more intelligent principles," the justice of God is an authoritarian idealism projected onto man as though it were an infallible Eternal Code and map for human conduct.

-

they were not designed for the purpose of understanding the world. — ChatteringMonkey

Any philosophy you read that lacks this attribute should be discarded and thrown into the trash... so much for formal analytics. Life is way too short to spend it on thought puzzles whose only referent is their own abstraction.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

I second this.

Totally accurate, which means, if Philosophers don't want to live in totalitarian societies, they are going to have to concern themselves with politics, as well as the refutation of ideology. But in order to do the latter one must not be a practitioner of it.