Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between humans

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between humans

Postby Jakob » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:40 pm

"If we are going to inhabit the same space for a long time, then we have to figure out how to play an iterative game that both don't object to."



Indeed - what is an appropriate frame of reference?
Philosophy claims to be that, rather than the objective truth.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:49 pm

I don't think that you have any insight whatsoever into your capacity for good until you have some well-developed insight into your capacity for evil.
Jordan B. Peterson


How I would truly enjoy a discussion with him regarding this. One, however, that goes beyond such "general description" observations.

What on earth does he mean by this?

Anyone here know?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:38 am

Jacob ... I find the title of the video exciting and provocative. A caterpillar isn't required to think about how to become a butterfly ... it simply happens across time and space. OTH ... humans are compelled to think, analyze and act as part of the process.

Reminds me of the notion ... parochialism. All too often in our individual process of transformation ... the process of "becoming" ... we get comfortable with the social units we subscribed to ... the schools of thought we subscribed to ... the value systems we subscribed to ... and so on. We reify our "frame of reference" ... the consequence being ... personal transformation is arrested.

Shedding these 'boundaries' is a difficult and often painful journey and most often requires a voluntary exile from the crowd.

Iambiguous ... was your quote part of the video?

Eighty-five years ago, G. K. Chesterton looked at his society and saw some things that disturbed him. Here’s his comment:

There comes an hour in the afternoon when the child is tired of ‘pretending’; when he is weary of being a robber or a noble savage. It is then that he torments the cat. There comes a time in the routine of an ordered civilization when the man is tired at playing at mythology and pretending that a tree is a maiden or that the moon made love to a man. The effect of this staleness is the same everywhere; it is seen in all drug-taking and dram-drinking and every form of the tendency to increase the dose. Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as stimulants to their jaded sense. They seek after mad religions for the same reason. They try to stab their nerves to life, if it were with the knives of the priests of Baal. They are walking in their sleep and try to wake themselves up with nightmares.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:44 am

iambiguous wrote:
What on earth does he mean by this

Evil negates good so assessing your capacity for the latter while ignoring your capacity for the
former will not provide a true analysis of who you really are from a psychological perspective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby Only_Humean » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:02 am

iambiguous wrote:I don't think that you have any insight whatsoever into your capacity for good until you have some well-developed insight into your capacity for evil.
Jordan B. Peterson


How I would truly enjoy a discussion with him regarding this. One, however, that goes beyond such "general description" observations.

What on earth does he mean by this?

Anyone here know?


Why would you ask this? Surely we can never really comprehend what another dasein truly means. :P
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:31 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
What on earth does he mean by this

Evil negates good so assessing your capacity for the latter while ignoring your capacity for the
former will not provide a true analysis of who you really are from a psychological perspective


Another "general description" of human interaction.

Again, let's bring it down to earth:

1] choose a moral/political issue that we are all familiar with
2] note your own moral/political narrative regarding it

In other words, what particular evil behavior negates what particular good in what particular context? What encompasses the most [or the only] rational assessment of good and evil here?

For example, good and evil as conveyed by the liberals or by the conservatives? Good and evil as conveyed by those who place the emphasis on the individual or by those who place the emphasis on one or another "politically correct" rendition of the collective?

Something, say, that those fiercely pro and anti Trump might argue about.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:52 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
Why would you ask this? Surely we can never really comprehend what another dasein truly means. :P


Actually, I often note that this frame of mind [relating to the is/ought world] is in turn just another existential contraption. That, in other words, there may well be an objective assessment [relating to conflicting goods] able to be comprehended by all rational human beings. I can only note that "here and now" it is not comprehended by me.

So, let's focus the beam in on a particular moral or political conflict and probe the extent to which the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here...

a man amidst mankind...

That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

Or, of course, is that just my foundation?


And here...

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


...may or may not be in sync with Jordan Peterson's own understanding of human identity out in the is/ought world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:53 pm

Again, let's bring it down to earth:

1] choose a moral/political issue that we are all familiar with
2] note your own moral/political narrative regarding it
Why must every argument take this form in order for you to not dismiss it as "general" or "abstract"?

Do you have any justification for insisting on this particular approach?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:00 pm

phyllo wrote:
Again, let's bring it down to earth:

1] choose a moral/political issue that we are all familiar with
2] note your own moral/political narrative regarding it
Why must every argument take this form in order for you to not dismiss it as "general" or "abstract"?

Do you have any justification for insisting on this particular approach?


Yeah.

Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question, "how ought one to live?"

And that revolves [for me] around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power. Out in a particular world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

Now, how in the world can an intelligent discussion about these relationships not involve examining the reasons that we ourselves choose to behave this way instead of that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm

Yeah.

Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question, "how ought one to live?"

And that revolves [for me] around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power. Out in a particular world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

Now, how in the world can an intelligent discussion about these relationships not involve examining the reasons that we ourselves choose to behave this way instead of that?
IOW, you have a particular interest and you feel that this form of discussion is the way to satisfy that interest.

But where does it get you?

Nobody seems to be "down to earth" enough to satisfy you.

When someone provides details, then you either ask for more details or you don't understand what he is saying.

You don't end up any wiser that the end when the discussion is over. You're no closer to answering the question "how ought one to live?". It's a fruitless discussion. Right?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:37 pm

phyllo wrote:
Yeah.

Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question, "how ought one to live?"

And that revolves [for me] around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power. Out in a particular world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

Now, how in the world can an intelligent discussion about these relationships not involve examining the reasons that we ourselves choose to behave this way instead of that?
IOW, you have a particular interest and you feel that this form of discussion is the way to satisfy that interest.
But where does it get you?


It all basically revolves around this:

1] In the "here and now" I -- "I" -- am entangled in a dilemma that pulls and tugs me in conflicting directions. There does not appear to be a way [for me] to choose behaviors as anything other than existential leaps to one or another political prejudice. In other words, I don't have access to this:

* there is a "real me" that transcends contingency, chance and change
* this "real me" is in sync with one or another understanding of "virtue", "truth", "justice"
* "virtue", "truth", "justice" as embedded in one or another rendition of God, deontology, political ideology, nature

But: How to convey this grimly fragmented "frame of mind" to those convinced that they do have access to it? Especially given the further conjecture that the access they embrace is more reflective of a psychological defense mechanism [comfort and consolation...a foundation] than a quest for truth and wisdom.

2] In the "there and then" I -- "I" -- tumbles down into oblivion --- into nothing at all for all of eternity.

Now, how on earth am I ever going to have access to possible alternative "frames of mind" other than by coming into places like this and exposing my own?

I just don't get the part that you don't seem to get.

phyllo wrote: Nobody seems to be "down to earth" enough to satisfy you.

When someone provides details, then you either ask for more details or you don't understand what he is saying.


All I can ask of folks [like Jordan Peterson and those who endorse him on this thread] is that, with respect to their own particular value judgments, they provide me with a rendition of my abortion trajectory.

That's detailed enough for me. Or, rather, detailed enough to get the discussion started. What on earth does it mean to speak of "self-valuing logic between humans."

With respect to conflicting goods.

phyllo wrote: You don't end up any wiser that the end when the discussion is over. You're no closer to answering the question "how ought one to live?". It's a fruitless discussion. Right?


True. So far. Of late. But I recognize all the years when I was able to convince myself that I did know how one ought to live. As an objectivist.

Also, let's just say that we think about "I" here in a world of contingency, chance and change, in very different ways. I suspect that when I use the expression "existential contraption" it precipitates thoughts and feelings "in my head" very much at odd with your own.

I merely speculate further that many objectivists react to me as they do [with open hostility, even scorn] because they recognize the implications of having to accept the possibility that I'll yank them down before they yank me up.

But I don't rule out either direction.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:55 pm

* there is a "real me" that transcends contingency, chance and change
The past and the future don't exist. Everything is in the present. There is a "you" today and it's the "real you" today. Since you are living today, then that is THE "you".
I just don't get the part that you don't seem to get.
The part that I don't get is why you don't try other approaches since the one that you repeatedly use is not working. You seem to have ample motivation and reasons to change, but you don't change. What would it take for you to try something else?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:30 pm

phyllo wrote:
* there is a "real me" that transcends contingency, chance and change
The past and the future don't exist. Everything is in the present. There is a "you" today and it's the "real you" today. Since you are living today, then that is THE "you".


Are you really suggesting that with respect to your own value judgments, the past and the future don't exist? That "out of the blue", in the present, you just think what you do. Period.

Surely, I must be misunderstanding you.

THE you? Like YOU is analogous to, say, a block of wood?

I just don't get the part that you don't seem to get.


phyllo wrote: The part that I don't get is why you don't try other approaches since the one that you repeatedly use is not working. You seem to have ample motivation and reasons to change, but you don't change. What would it take for you to try something else?


Well, it might help if others who have tried something else were able to convey to me what motivated them to go in that particular direction. And, how, with respect to the question "how ought one to live?", they discovered a set of behaviors that allowed them to transcend the manner in which my own value judgments have beome entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And then, hopefully, they would provide me with actual interactions that they have with others -- folks who chose different, conflicting directions instead.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:33 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question how ought one to live

You must not make the mistake of assuming that everyone is as interested in dasein as you are
You seem to want to introduce it into as many threads as possible and this one is no exception

There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Are you really suggesting that with respect to your own value judgments the past and the future dont exist

There is only the present which is creating a never ending now and so no the past and the future dont exist
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:53 pm

There is only the result of the past which includes your belief in a future and a version of the past. The future and past do not physically exist.

As far as the OP video, yes values require prioritized hierarchy and people need to seek compromise of their self-valuing in order to get along in a society. Of course, that is a breach in the sanctity of pure self-valuing.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25427
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:01 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question how ought one to live

You must not make the mistake of assuming that everyone is as interested in dasein as you are
You seem to want to introduce it into as many threads as possible and this one is no exception

There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question


What I assume is that folks who are not interested in probing the extent to which the question "how ought one to live?" may well be an existential contraption derived in large part from dasein, will either "foe" me or just skip my posts.

But there is also the possibility that others will be intrigued enough to offer a constructive critique of my own frame of mind here.

But not you, right?

No fucking way I'll ever yank you down, is there? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:10 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Are you really suggesting that with respect to your own value judgments the past and the future don't exist

There is only the present which is creating a never ending now and so no the past and the future dont exist


Yeah, I get that "metaphysical" take on it.

But I challenge you to go about the business of interacting with others from day to day to day and, then, when conflicts occur, elaborating on the actual existential implications of that observation.

You'll get a lot of blank stares for one thing. But, sure, how many "serious philosophers" are there able to grasp how sophisticated this particular "general description" really is.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question

What I assume is that folks who are not interested in probing the extent to which the question "how ought one to live?" may well be an existential contraption derived in large part from dasein, will either "foe" me or just skip my posts.

Or they just suggest to you "how ought one to live", as surrept just did.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25427
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:44 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question

What I assume is that folks who are not interested in probing the extent to which the question "how ought one to live?" may well be an existential contraption derived in large part from dasein, will either "foe" me or just skip my posts.

Or they just suggest to you "how ought one to live", as surrept just did.


What, here? In our posts?!

Again, my friend, my interest in that question revolves more around conflicting behaviors out in a particular world --- as that involves an actual existential examination of identity, value judgments and political power. The relationship between them.

With respect to a particular past, present and future.

In, for example, a particular context.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Or they just suggest to you "how ought one to live", as surrept just did.


What, here? In our posts?!

Again, my friend, my interest in that question revolves more around conflicting behaviors out in a particular world --- as that involves an actual existential examination of identity, value judgments and political power. The relationship between them.

With respect to a particular past, present and future.

In, for example, a particular context.

??? Are you blind??

You are in a "particular world" right now and surrept just suggested one means of improving your lot (aka "how one ought to live") in that world.
surreptitious75 wrote:You must not make the mistake of assuming that everyone is as interested in dasein as you are
You seem to want to introduce it into as many threads as possible and this one is no exception

There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question

Why do you ALWAYS ignore advice?? Seemingly from literally everyone .. which could substantially explain why you have such troubles with your dasein dilemma.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25427
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Over and again I note that my own interest in philosophy now revolves almost entirely around the question how ought one to live

You must not make the mistake of assuming that everyone is as interested in dasein as you are
You seem to want to introduce it into as many threads as possible and this one is no exception

There is more to philosophy than just that and maybe you should only reference it when it is relevant to the thread in question

What I assume is that folks who are not interested in probing the extent to which the question how ought one to
live may well be an existential contraption derived in large part from dasein will either foe me or just skip my posts

But there is also the possibility that others will be intrigued enough to offer a constructive critique of my own frame of mind here

The issue is not with the subject itself but your apparent obsession with wanting to talk about it at every available opportunity
This is I Love Philosophy not I Love Dasein in case you had not noticed
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:20 pm

THE you? Like YOU is analogous to, say, a block of wood?
"you" is analogous to a ball of snow rolling down a hill. It picks snow, rocks, twigs as it moves. And it loses snow, rocks and twigs. But at any moment it is what it is. Since only the present moment exists, it is now what it is. That is the "real you".

A human has the added advantage that he is not entirely at the mercy of gravity ... he can guide the motion.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:16 pm

James S Saint wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Or they just suggest to you "how ought one to live", as surrept just did.


What, here? In our posts?!

Again, my friend, my interest in that question revolves more around conflicting behaviors out in a particular world --- as that involves an actual existential examination of identity, value judgments and political power. The relationship between them.

With respect to a particular past, present and future.

In, for example, a particular context.

??? Are you blind??

You are in a "particular world" right now and surrept just suggested one means of improving your lot (aka "how one ought to live") in that world.


Let's just say that his rendition of "describing self-valuing logic between humans" out in a particular world is not nearly the same as my own.

Again, mine revolves more around this:

...conflicting behaviors out in a particular world --- as that involves an actual existential examination of identity, value judgments and political power. The relationship between them.

With respect to a particular past, present and future.


On the other hand, since you never go there with respect to exchanges of this sort with me, I can well understand why you would not expect him to either.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21850
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between hum

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:25 pm

Let's just say that his rendition of "describing self-valuing logic between humans" out in a particular world is not nearly the same as my own.
You know, that's not what James was saying in that post. He was talking about the question "how ought one to live" being answered for you.

But you respond with this bizarre statement. :-?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]