Jordan Peterson describes self-valuing logic between humans

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?

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

Why do you ALWAYS ignore advice?? Seemingly from literally everyone … which could substantially explain why you have such troubles with your dasein dilemma.

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

“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.

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:

[i]…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.[/i]

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.

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. :confused:

Obsession? On only a tiny fraction of all the threads here at ILP do I try to “sneak” dasein into the discussion.

Go ahead, check out, say, the last 50.

And, when your interest in philosophy revolves around the question “how ought I to live?”, and your conclusion revolves in turn around the relationship between identity, value judgments and political power, dasein just struck me as as good a description of that as any.

Dasein: “being there”

And, at birth, being there instead of some place else – and being there now instead of some other time – can make all the difference in the world when it comes to encompassing/embodying a particular identity.

As that relates to accumulating value judgments.

So, philosophically, what are the implications of that?

Feel free to tell us. :wink:

Would the analogy “as above so below” be appropriate for this? Maybe maybe not the best. Definitely an entertaining thought

Above or below what? What particular insight into what particular behaviors in what particulat context in which good and evil are distinguished?

That’s where I’d like to take a discussion with him.

I love how JP stole the notion of self-valuing from VO. Classic.

Yes this is how it must work.