Mao was a devout Marxist who sought to bring about communism. — NOS4A2

Answer my questions. All you are doing is asserting the same narrative over and over again. Please provide citations to back up your assertions. Please stop blaming Marx for Right Wing dictators and totalitarian political parties.

Bother, if I don't soon find intelligent life on this Forum I am departing to greener shores.

I think you may be a little unclear about the word 'nihilism' and what it represents. — whollyrolling

Here the formal game does not work, but more importantly, it will not save you. Nihilism is the denial of existential positivity, it is the militant affirmation of the negative. Those who preach the happiness of another life are always in the business of condemning this one. The question still stands, and indeed has already been answered, Peterson, like so many religionists, teaches that value cannot exist in the absence of supernaturalism. And to make matters worse, maybe he wants to follow Lewis and admit that this supernaturalism is really just a game of delusional comfort? The outcome is simply more Nihilism. (Here reality is projected as being so negative that one must turn to delusion, one must swallow this delusion as though it were reality, merely to cope with what is projected).

If you affirm existential value then you are not a Nihilist. However, if you only affirm value, via the premise of supernaturalism, then you are a Nihilist because you deny existential value. No formality can save you from this.

"[Nietzsche] knew that, when we knocked the slats out of the base of Western civilization by destroying this representation, this God ideal, we would destabilize and move back and forth violently between nihilism and the extremes of ideology." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

This is not what Nietzsche knew, this is Peterson's mischaracterization of Nietzsche. What Nietzsche knew is that Christian ideals had been so entrenched into western culture that people would (as Christianity engineered) fall into Nihilism. The Nihilism was not the result of an inability to handle reality or construct more intelligent values (we have been doing this for hundreds of years), this Nihilism was the direct result, pre-programmed, cult reaction to having the error of Christianity ripped out of the brain. Peterson tries to make it sound like Nietzsche believed man needed the ideal of God! This is false. The culprit is not reality, but the negative indoctrination that Christianity has done to culture.

Some of Peterson's statements are akin to nihilism
Therefore Peterson is a nihilist
Nihilism is bad
Therefore Peterson is bad. — A Seagull

Strawman. See above, reply to whollyrolling.

My advice: don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson, whether as criticism or not. Better off digging a ditch and filling it back up. — Xtrix

This is indeed the proper and initial response, but there is a serious problem here. The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence, fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture. Whether one likes it or not, he has become relevant, people are influenced by him, they look up to him and see him as the very thing he is not, an intellectual example. When intellectuals like yourself withdraw from the advancing public discourse, the narrative is lost to people like Peterson, it regresses. What is required is an intellectual fight. Those who actually read literature across the domain of the social sciences, know that this fella is a charlatan, the problem is that we expect other people to know it as well, but they cannot connect the dots. In the shadow of religion's collapse many have become Nihilistic, they feel the weight of reality without the crutch of God. Peterson comes along and says, "don't worry, I feel the same Nihilism that you do, but I have real answers, I know the way forward." Tragically, his answers are entirely reactionary, conformity to authority, "go back to the old slave masters and you will feel safe again." People are so intellectually bankrupt and frightened that they will take anything they can get, hence the strong man doctrine, hence a return to authority, the mindless affirmation of delusion on the basis of pragmatism: religion, because it helps us cope with our Nihilistic feelings of terror.

To me, nihilism is just reality, not an impediment to my enjoyment of life or the creation of meaning. — Judaka

This only proves that you are not a Nihilist, but a thinker bent on facing the negative, whether you know it in those terms or not.

I believe that only through the realisation of nihilism can true pragmatism be achieved. — Judaka

Friend, holding pragmatism up as something to be achieved only manifest that one is lost in philosophical confusion. For example, the categories of pragmatism are themselves idealistic fictions without history, you will not make progress as a thinker or revolutionary through the domain of pragmatic idealism. It is essentially a philosophical position of giving up, which of course, makes it attractive to searching Nihilists.

See above.

Here, you've claimed that he uses "Nihilistic language", yet you've provided no example and no reason for saying so. — whollyrolling

The quotes I provided are more than proficient, more could be referenced. Does Peterson believe man can arrive at meaning absent the premise of supernaturalism? The answer is no. So entrenched is he in this idealism that he has even fallaciously tried to attribute it to Nietzsche, claiming that Nietzsche knew morality/values could not be bolstered without some kind of supernatural foundation(???). This is Nihilism! This is also a distortion and woefully incompetent mischaracterization of Nietzsche's position [see Peterson's exchange with Susan Blackmore]. (This proves that he is exactly the kind of Nihilist Nietzsche warned about.)

I do wonder if you were able to comprehend Adorno's position? Would be interesting to see where you object?

The absence of thought is not a solution, it's a resignation. Further, as I mentioned above, Peterson could only arrive at, his equivocated and superficial solution, through the medium of thought. You have not even made contact with my point. His action presupposes the negation of his prescription.

That is absolutely not how the "subjective" works because whether you like it or not, you are a biological entity and being that as it is, your brain - the tool you think with, is not even remotely close to neutral or unbiased. This bias is largely responsible for the differences and more importantly, the similarities in our interpretation of facts. No matter what one tries to do philosophically, nobody will ever succeed at removing these biases. — Judaka

This is a tough one. Judaka, I think you might be a bit too dogmatic here? You are absolutely correct about implicit bias. This has been studied in depth and repeatedly verified, but I have a hard time with your last statement. I think you might actually be arguing that we cannot remove every last ounce of our bias? This is likely correct, but there are indeed things we can do to overcome bias, here critical thought and standards play a large role. If you take the position all the way to solipsism then it becomes pure dogma without distinction, and would indeed lead to Nihilism. I can understand how a critical thinker would become a Nihilist, it would almost seem to be a necessary stage, but one must grow beyond it. Not trying to be condescending, but it seems to me you have the foundation to be a powerful thinker if you have the discipline and courage to stick with negation, coupled with the resistance to fight back against it with the power of thought. This is really the essence of every great thinker.

fdrake and Judaka, without a doubt you have two people here that are really trying to think, not implying that I am superior to either of you, I just like to see it. Would not be my approach or emphasis per se, but I think it is commendable in this anti-thinking world. When I see people really putting effort into thought it gives me hope. :)

I was more so speaking about Marx’s idea of the nationalization of land. Mao saw such a necessity, nationalized the land—a euphemism for the confiscation of property by force—and did so with the most ruthless efficiency. As it turns out, the nationalization of land does not make living on other people's labor a thing of the past. As it turns out, the nationalization of land never made the class distinctions disappear, and state brutality, starvation and murder became the order of the day. — NOS4A2

With all due respect you're way out of your depths here. What you have brought are a bunch of false assumptions. When Marx speaks of nationalizing land, he is not speaking of putting it in the hands of a dictator, but in the democratic hands of the workers, not in the hands of a political party, but in the hands of the workers. You are falsely equating Right Wing dictatorships with Marxism, they are not the same.

As it turns out, the nationalization of land never made the class distinctions disappear, and state brutality, starvation and murder became the order of the day. — NOS4A2

Unto whom was the land nationalized in the examples you cite? Were these democratic nationalizations? Further, you said, "state brutality," but in Marx's theory the state power was to be nothing more or nothing less than a democratic union of workers. The historical examples you are citing persecuted and exploited the workers, they did not empower them. What is more tragic, you don't comprehend that the tyranny you are referencing is Right Wing tyranny, fascism. It's what you get when individuals are put into power without a check on that power, it's what you get when individuals in power are allowed to execute any order they want and the people obey out of fear (see Arendt); it's what you get when you subvert democracy.

Either provide citations from Marx's work to back up your sweeping claims or humbly move on from this thread.

For Hegel, the positive stays, the negative moves. That's how the dialectic worked. — Gregory

With all due respect, I am not going to expound Hegel's dialectic here on this thread, but it is not simply explained by the movement and stagnation of the positive and the negative. Dialectic is, to be brief, a living approach to understanding, which accompanies being through movement, in order to ascertain its essence. The point of dialectic is comprehensive comprehension. I could cite more examples from Hegel himself, but I have other ventures besides this forum and am not going to spill all the beans in this format.

Hegel is a way to learn about philosophy. He is not the be all or end all. — Gregory

I did not say this, I said he was the gateway to dialectic. But I will say more about him, he was, very possibly, very possibly, the greatest human mind to ever live. These are not merely my feelings, my conviction is based on the objective power of his thought. No philosopher did what he did, but many were able to do much more because of what he did.

I do know that dialectic is a historically contingent idea of humans; and that therefore it can't be true in any absolute sense. — fishfry

How you use the term absolute matters quite a bit here. One must be wary of the false criteria of a radical skepticism. Why is it false? Because it stacks the deck, just like religion does, demanding the highest possible level of exactitude in terms of justification -- which is a violation of its own existence. (None will ingest a gallon of cyanide unless they want to die, but according to radical skepticism they cannot know it will kill them, there is then no reason not to drink it). However, mathematics does not get to play the lesser game of knowledge because of what it claims for itself.

If there's no absolute truth, that also is an opinion and not a fact. — fishfry

I think the problem here is one of mere formality, logical abstraction void of any concretion.

I do not deny that words can lead to logical mazes, but reality is not merely a word.

it can't be true in any Absolute sense. — fishfry

If you can establish the existence of this thing I will agree to it as a negative criteria.

But you made a claim far in excess of available evidence. You wrote down an opinion, not a fact. — fishfry

That being is more than a dead image or fragmentation of time, is not an opinion.

I recently put down Being and Time in order to read the lesser Logic. Three fourths thru and loving it. — Gregory

There's a reading group on this text meeting through Zoom. If you have an interest let me know and I'll tell you where to find it. Please note: I am not part of the group and am not trying to advertise it.

Have you read either of Hegel's Logics? — Gregory

Of course, one cannot be a serious thinker if they have not read Hegel. I should say, one could be, but only if they get past thought as an inert image in order to comprehend being in the context of movement. It's unlikely a human could do this without assistance. Hegel is the gateway to dialectic.

Ooh! I like that. Go beyond logic — fishfry

Friend you're behind on the times, we already went beyond logic over 200 years ago. Further, "intuition" is not what lies beyond logic, being, comprehended through dialectics, is what lies beyond logic.

Can you address a quantity without making use of number? — javra

One more thing I should have noted: this conversation has just morphed into a total waste of time. This is a red herring. I never claimed that numbers are lacking in value, I attacked mathematical supernaturalism. What you have asked has nothing to do with this. You are posturing away from the point because you made an indefensible claim: "some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”"

By all means use numbers, even marvel at their proficiency, but please stop claiming they are a special, cosmic language of the universe.

Can you address a quantity without making use of number? Given an example if you can — javra

You already did this: "Mathematics is a formalized language of quantity."

What I said is the mathematics is the language of quantity and its relations. Not that quantity equals mathematics. — javra

Strange you would misquote your own position when we have it in writing: "some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”"

Two instantiations of an abstract entity are exactly the same in reference to both being the same abstract entity. — javra

This is a formal assertion, where is the concrete example that corresponds to your idea?

What I am most interested in, I would to like hear from you what reality looks like through your eyes if the universe is not mathematical? What does it mean if math symbols are just contingent and limited human constructs? After all, this is the part that reveals the true motivation behind belief.

Tragic. What a waste of life. Do tell me, where did these conversations take you, what did they do for you in terms of concretion? Clearly, even after all of that, and sixty years of mathematics, you still can't provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? Sophistry always works this way... "hang on, it will make more sense if we use more symbols." (All the while trying very hard to sneak past a false premise, only then to declare victory).

You believe God is only a product of thought and has no independent existence. — Coben

This is what all the evidence tells us.

we just have an assumption/assertion, not an argument. — Coben

Well now, arguments are based on premises, which are themselves assertions.

Maybe you should try interacting with the premises, as opposed to merely trying to characterize my position?

"Though we can produce symbols via which to convey... concepts, we do not likewise willfully produce the universe’s attribute of being endowed with quantity."

Wait for it, wait for it,
Non-sequitur:

"Therefore, at least some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”—this in correspondence to how quantity and its relations is so weaved."

Quantity does not equal mathematics. Humans have produced a symbolic structure to try to make sense of quantity.

But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade. — javra

Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same?

We can review past situations where the nationalization of property has occurred, for instance in Mao’s land reforms, and find that these types of “intelligent restructuring” often led to mass murder, famine, cannibalism and economic disaster. — NOS4A2

Can you tell me what this has to do with Marx? Of course we should all stand against this kind of Right Wing totalitarianism, fascism is dangerous no matter what name it uses. Marx knew that qualitative democracy was the only real solution to political tyranny. Not sure where you locate democracy in Mao, Stalin or Hitler?

State or mob confiscation of land is barbarism of the highest order, no matter which cadre of intellectuals think the know how to do it best. — NOS4A2

Marx already addressed this argument above. What you don't comprehend is that the criteria ("confiscation") actually puts you in a bind.

My people are Native, our land was confiscated from us, this game doesn't lead where you think (see Marx above).

Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill

You have this supernatural belief, so you must have some kind of reason for it, surely, being a mathematician for "sixty years," this ought to be an easy question for you.

Can you provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? In order for math to be what you believe it to be (for starters) this must the case.

will to power. — ChatteringMonkey

Once again, more of the dark ages brought into the present. Will power as you speak of it does not exist, your will is determined by your motivation and motivation is caused by a plurality of psychological and physical factors. You cannot tell a brain lacking grey matter to simply try harder! This is my last exchange with you. You need to educate yourself and stop trying to see what will stick. I wish you all the best. :)

Well, I haven't thought about God for some time, and there was apparently nothing He could do about it. — Ciceronianus the White

There you have it friend. A concept void of any substance, negation without ramification.

Thinking in terms of well-being and what we need as a species, won't work if it doesn't align with what we want. — ChatteringMonkey

This proves that you can't even enter the room to talk with the adults, and this is why: it is the most basic knowledge of sociology and social psychology that human wants can be artificially generated. This is what consumer culture is all about, generating artificial needs. One thing people should not do is listen to any advice you have on how to approach the problems of the world, because you have clearly manifest that you don't even comprehend the most basic parts of the system. I'm not trying to be mean, this is a problem if you want to converse with any kind of authority. If I was you I would return to education, specifically psychology and sociology. (If you want to learn how to think powerfully read Hegel and Marx, if you want to learn how to calculate and shift symbols across the page, devote your life to analytical philosophy).

And I'll say this once, if you continue the discussion in the same pompous vein, I'm done with it. — ChatteringMonkey

No need for this here:

you'd know that there is strong tendency to appropriate things for themselves. — ChatteringMonkey

What separates humans from other primates is that we look to the adults to obtain information about ourselves and our environment. What a human is and will be depends upon his environment, and here we use the term in the broadest possible sense, both physical and psychological. What you are claiming is not empirical, it is a fiction, humans become what they are as their brain develops and passes through concrete experience structures (see Allan Schore, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self). You are asserting that humans come preset, this is a superstition left over from religion. "Human Nature" does not exist, human brains exist, and they are exceedingly sensitive, what your brain experiences and how it develops determines who you are and what you become. If you abuse a child, neglect him, he will grow up to abuse others, he will be selfish, there will be many problems. Humans are not born predisposed to the negative. This is a religious assertion, not a scientific fact.

I also really think we should bring out the criticism of the concept of 'human nature' into full focus. This is a concept that many people rely on when arguing, and it is not one that ever been clearly defined. — Kornelius

You are correct, but it seems to me this needs to be the topic of another thread. Also, we are not guessing here. The Human-Nature-Metaphysicians have no ground to stand on apart from isolated and distorted historical images (these images prey on fear). Their position is exceedingly primitive, it has been entirely refuted by recent discoveries in psychology and neurobiology. There is no way around it without suppressing and ignoring concrete facts of being. They are desperate because much hinges on their cynical, negative metaphysics. Through this error they essentially justify barbarism. Every intellectual that uses words to make progress, as opposed to physical violence, must stand against this.

Would it be correct to say that, on your view, Marx was a critic of ownership rights over means of production, but not over personal property (like a home, a television, etc.)? — Kornelius

I actually don't want to argue over Marx's orthodoxy, the world of Marxism is full of such banter. So to answer the question, at the same time moving beyond the question, the problem is that property is not intelligently distributed in light of a social awareness. No one is talking about abolishing private property, that is something close to what the Libertarian position amounts to, the intelligent suggestion is to make sure all humans have property. That property must be socialized is inevitable, but this will not make it realized. The inescapable needs of human life dictate that an advanced species would never neglect these needs, or leave them to the chaos of a system such as capitalism. An advanced species would know the needs HAVE to be met for one specific reason: individual quality is inescapably linked to social quality. (It's the difference between one Einstein every two thousand years, or the common cultivation of Einstein). A species cannot advance without species consciousness. So far as I know Marx was the first philosopher to ever comprehend this specifically.

I will clarify that I am not a Marxist. I do not believe in Marxist revolution, what I see in Marx is (astoundingly!) one of the greatest thinkers that ever lived.

Having been in the math game for sixty years I feel deprived not meeting such a colleague. I am sure had I done so I too would have chuckled. — jgill

What then does mathematical supernaturalism entail? The straight-forward confession that one worships math and that math is a God? I think not. To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols, that they are something we discover weaved into the fabric of the cosmic universe, as oppose to something we create in an attempt to understand and navigate the universe.

It is a social disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately, a decent percentage of the population sees this as a non-problem. — Frank Apisa

So true. All this means is that serious intellectuals have much work to do. Ignorance is the mother of tyranny.

Smith and Marx agree more than you'd probably think. — Pfhorrest

More than he knows for sure, Marx has extended commentary on Smith. The Libertarian, one-sided Adam Smith, the raving capitalist, seems to be the one that most people latch onto, because most people don't read.

Perhaps you could compare your OP with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. — A Seagull

You are going to have to give a further exposition of your point if you want feedback. The way you cite me makes me think you have not understood my point? Provincialism is only a fragment of reality, one cannot ascertain the state of the world by looking through the lens of America. Further, the fact of needs does not imply a response, the needs do exist, you seem to be assuming that in order for social necessity to be an actual thing you must see some kind of response to it? If you want to cite Adam Smith in relation to this thread, by all means do it, a proper citation would only add to the discourse.

will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. — JerseyFlight

The nationalization of property does not mean the abnegation of private property. Please read more carefully before you reply next time.