Guide wrote:
Its clear none of them have ever studied the monotheistic tradition which is entirely a rationalistic and scientific tradition
Guide wrote:
Its clear none of them have ever studied the monotheistic tradition which is entirely a rationalistic and scientific tradition
Many atheists originally came from the monotheistic tradition of specific belief systems which are not entirely rationalistic and scientific
This is because science only deals in observable phenomena and therefore has nothing at all to say about belief which is beyond its scope
Guide wrote:One detests and is done with the simple issues at once, we all can think them no further. They are absurd, their simplicity is beneath one. They must be a trick. Only the philosopher sees such difficulties for what they are. Philosophers are very rare beings, their kind is seldom seen on the earth. If novelty of the condition of being is sought, it is not to be sought among the mediocre mob of collective individuals, but at the fined and refined pinnacle of time's most free output.
"Values are subjective and things are objective so they can be separated even though they may have a common point of reference
The simple act of observing something is not one of prejudice unless you define prejudice as any type of subjective interpretation"
“I was struck by this as being a statement that assumes that we are all our own makers, as though we did not thoroughly profit from the struggles of previous generations throughout millennia.”
Guide wrote:I understood this to mean something quite different. Closer to the reverse of your interpretation. We, we ourselves, I presuppose, are historial, and thus the historial ones alone can know what it is to have a history because we are that history. This is what makes the thesis that we can’t treat the simple straightforwardly as do most people make sense. We can’t act as though history were not part of us, a "nature" or preexistence, and therefore naively assume that it is wholly sound as a foundation for knowledge.
Guide wrote:“ Life is suffering.”
So: Leiden leiden, Kreuz Kreuz. (Suffering suffering, the cross the cross.) ― Martin Luther
Then, in the “secular” form: “Suffering is real, happiness is a dream.” Volitare
One interprets one's experience (or, experiences properly by explaining to oneself what is happening rather than simple sensing or empirical happening) as a western, now planetary, human. The real meaning of Jung’s observations of the western God, or what he calls the phylogenetic unconscious, must not be thought as mythology (if that is some sort of "story"), but as ourselves as living our history.
Guide wrote:My criticism of Peterson, who may become philosopher, one never knows, here, has to do with a specific defect of his account. The modern transformation was from a duty-bound individual, to a right-bearing individual. His notion of collective movements is misleading. The American and French Revolutions, still in effect in many ways, are as much collective movements as the Nazi or Bolshevik revolutions. All of these concern individuals or citizens.
“After checking the dictionary, the word “historial” must be a “Wortschöpfung” of yours.”
“ It isn’t as though we are born and grow up in a box.”
“We interpret everything by our values or what meaning we give our life.”
“The constructivist view that all order is only a social construct, and can be treated with contempt goes one step further to complete that confusion.”
Guide wrote:“After checking the dictionary, the word “historial” must be a “Wortschöpfung” of yours.”
Guide wrote:“ It isn’t as though we are born and grow up in a box.”
We do in a decisive respect. The box (or, better, the book) of our age out of which, looking back, all the dominating idiosyncrasies of primary substances “individuals” in the Aristotelian sense of “this one” the one we point to, rather than experience as a characteristic person or particular human, belongs to an age. The Meiji, the Hellenistic Judaism of the first Rabbis, the time of the Borgias or of the modern feminism where juridical homosexuality comes into being. Each have a belonging which is not available from outside, this is, also, in keeping with the principles of Anthropology since Boas; ergo, “participatory observation” as the belonging which transforms one into the collective character of being so far as is possible.
Guide wrote:In a certain sense, what you name, is the meaning of the old outlook which held only God can see the intense loneliness of the inner self, for it has no representation from without and even to our nearest friends and most dear and close to hand.
Guide wrote:“We interpret everything by our values or what meaning we give our life.”
Guide wrote:Nouns are already (collective, characteristic) agendas (e.g., the rat for the Chinese, for the Westerner). That is what we are speaking of here, in the history of being. The fullness of being. not some “meaning” as distinguished from a theory about something else. The whole.
Guide wrote:The final end is what such-like as Nietzsche speak against, e.g., that the world is an apple that can be nurtured to perfection or ripeness (ergo, nihilism in the sense of no teleology doesn't deny collective meaning, which would make no sense).
Guide wrote:“The constructivist view that all order is only a social construct, and can be treated with contempt goes one step further to complete that confusion.”
This is a misunderstanding of the issue. […] The simpler issue is this. When something seems possible, it seems unjust that it is not done. And the rapidity of change in our time makes any judgment concerning what is and is not possible monstrously difficult. Think of Aubrey de Grey. Beside from myself, no one has noticed how violently this shakes the tradition, based on the certainty of death, into a blurred image in contemporaneity.
Guide wrote:Obviously Christianity is a “collective” movement that led to more harm than the short lived failed regimes named (the good of which was not allowed to mature at length). His views, and what you write, are not credible. He should drop the notion of the collective if what he wants to speak about is dangerous experiment. It’s childish though, since European science is most manifestly the greatest danger to all life on the earth and the most comprehensive collective identity movement on the planet controlling the education of the young. (Cf. my “abiotic Mirror” thread., which speaks very importantly to this).
Bob wrote:Guide wrote:“After checking the dictionary, the word “historial” must be a “Wortschöpfung” of yours.”
No. Avital Ronnell and Corbin, &c. al., use this to stand for “Seynsgeshichtliche”, the history or fate of being, in the ergon with the title Heidegger. However, it is not unhelpful to treat the word afresh as a new coinage because we are, here, modifying it as we speak and thinking under the labour of its subject matter. As an interpretation it has many expressions of more or less minute nuance according to the thinker.
Guide wrote:“ It isn’t as though we are born and grow up in a box.”
We do in a decisive respect. The box (or, better, the book) of our age out of which, looking back, all the dominating idiosyncrasies of primary substances “individuals” in the Aristotelian sense of “this one” the one we point to, rather than experience as a characteristic person or particular human, belongs to an age. The Meiji, the Hellenistic Judaism of the first Rabbis, the time of the Borgias or of the modern feminism where juridical homosexuality comes into being. Each have a belonging which is not available from outside, this is, also, in keeping with the principles of Anthropology since Boas; ergo, “participatory observation” as the belonging which transforms one into the collective character of being so far as is possible.
Guide wrote:In a certain sense, what you name, is the meaning of the old outlook which held only God can see the intense loneliness of the inner self, for it has no representation from without and even to our nearest friends and most dear and close to hand.
Guide wrote:“We interpret everything by our values or what meaning we give our life.”
I don’t accept this formula. There is nothing that is not thought, and therefore all is “meaning”, i.e., it is understood. A theory of values is always misleading because it has nothing to distinguish itself from.
Guide wrote:Nouns are already (collective, characteristic) agendas (e.g., the rat for the Chinese, for the Westerner). That is what we are speaking of here, in the history of being. The fullness of being. not some “meaning” as distinguished from a theory about something else. The whole.
Guide wrote:The final end is what such-like as Nietzsche speak against, e.g., that the world is an apple that can be nurtured to perfection or ripeness (ergo, nihilism in the sense of no teleology doesn't deny collective meaning, which would make no sense).
Guide wrote:“The constructivist view that all order is only a social construct, and can be treated with contempt goes one step further to complete that confusion.”
This is a misunderstanding of the issue. […] The simpler issue is this. When something seems possible, it seems unjust that it is not done. And the rapidity of change in our time makes any judgment concerning what is and is not possible monstrously difficult. Think of Aubrey de Grey. Beside from myself, no one has noticed how violently this shakes the tradition, based on the certainty of death, into a blurred image in contemporaneity.
Guide wrote:Obviously Christianity is a “collective” movement that led to more harm than the short lived failed regimes named (the good of which was not allowed to mature at length). His views, and what you write, are not credible. He should drop the notion of the collective if what he wants to speak about is dangerous experiment. It’s childish though, since European science is most manifestly the greatest danger to all life on the earth and the most comprehensive collective identity movement on the planet controlling the education of the young. (Cf. my “abiotic Mirror” thread., which speaks very importantly to this).
“So you’re saying that there are dominating idiosyncrasies that are particular to an age, whether or not they are present in particular people. However, that doesn’t really address my point, which was that individuals must at some time in their lives treat the simple straightforwardly, even if we derive the answers to simple questions from the experience of others. The very simple experiences in life have to be made personally, or we lack the learning incentive. I think sometimes that aspiring philosophers forget that they are biological beings that have to pee sometimes, in a metaphorical sense.”
“Suffering, as far as I can make out, is universal. This has the advantage of being something that everyone can identify with, given the right example for a particular life and time. The collective unconscious seems to reflect this in the contribution to tragic mythologies over time, which seem to have a universal application.”
“Again, this is down to basic survival. However, the brain thinks, the body is attuned to survival mechanisms and can override at times. Ask those suffering from psychosomatic illnesses. Finding meaning in life may be a social construction, but it is based on these basic instincts of survival and becomes more complex depending on the degree of satisfaction of human needs.”
"Okay, but if you want the whole, you have also to account for the simple aspect of survival, or at least the protection of conditions that guarantee survival to a certain degree."
Guide wrote:Dear wild bore, courageously absorbed in mad fury, at the spear tip of a silvery death, from a human,
There is something wrong with a human that does not think. That has its basis in necessity. And is not a philisophic teaching. One must consult daily life. Now, if European science, the teaching of our youth, which we forget we have in our bones, is right, then thinking is a waste of time. One should simply do technological science with one’s whole heart and mind. Yet, we can not know that without stepping away from ourselves, so as to question whether our current way is the true perfection, the right piste leading towards, the zenith of all life on the earth.
You don’t consider that we all had many years of compulsory education. Such that we talk all the time in extreme abstractions without noticing it. Darwin, for example, was the first biologist in our sense. No other beings ever found such talk of “biological beings” readily intelligible. Men understood animals, since they lived near them. But, animals are simply brutes, born from a mother, they are not first thought as some abstracted region of existence like the biological as set alongside the region of mathematical physics, and the chemical region, and perhaps also the psychological or human region proper. The very idea of biology is the most extreme abstraction from daily life, it tacitly speaks of a region of being, and is by no means a simple or “personal” issue.
We grow into being human. You know, for example, Aristotle says, and one has surely had occasion to observe it, or even be aimed at by it, small children call every male “papa” or the like at first. The number and sort of things that are trained, that come over us, befall us as becoming beings, are incredible to sleepwalking humans who take their foundation for granted. The only way we genuinely can see this is by attempting to sense the play of the other ways of being.
“Suffering, as far as I can make out, is universal. This has the advantage of being something that everyone can identify with, given the right example for a particular life and time. The collective unconscious seems to reflect this in the contribution to tragic mythologies over time, which seem to have a universal application.”
It’s obvious the reverse is also true. So this is empty. This question was dealt with at length by Leopardi, Nietzsche, and then a whole generation when the west collapsed into nihilism after the failing of Kant denuded the deep foundation of the European, then Western, confidence in its own development. There is removal of pain, the highest name for that is the sublime, but there is also exalting and rejoicing in the grandeur of being. The highest name for that was, in the Christian age, beatitude. Do you really deny the existence of beauty? Beauty and the noble go together, kalon, it is what is worth our effort, and what in the expenditure of the effort fills us with the encouraging strength to expend more in further exertion.
I don’t accept all these wild theories and mad abstractions, “the brain thinks” and so forth. Life Is not experienced at such strange theoretical remove.
I eschew answering the rest of what you put down, since I think you are dogmatically, so to say, insistent in speaking in the terms of an abstract fantasy which excludes communication concerning direct reality as one finds it based on your answers so far. One lives, indeed, in such a “key idea” as is half present in the average way of speaking, but one can also see that it is vacant. That is when one thinks. You describe the “meaning” already when you write the story you here outline in all the fantastic array of bosh verbiage “the brain thinks” “survival mechanisms” “psychosomatic illness” “basic instincts”. Did anyone speak in such terms even one hundred years ago, will they in thirty thousand? There is your “meaning”, so, it's already in the appearance of anything for a human.
Something happens, then it becomes "experience" when we repeatedly catch it, when we explain it through some notion, and make a predication of the something. For instance, we call something "psychosomatic illness" and bring it into many spheres of thought and doing that were unavailable in form ages and places and won't be there in the future. Such things change, and, on occasion, are deliberately changed.
You conflate meaning with another question. That of a perfection of the essence of the human being in a teleology = in “happiness” or the discovered best way to live. That is like, we have an apple seed, now, what is the way to get the best fruit from it. I can't speak with you because you refuse to clarify terms, you speak from a kind of hypnotic trance which is your blinding promise for thoughtlessness.
Bob wrote:Guide wrote:One detests and is done with the simple issues at once, we all can think them no further. They are absurd, their simplicity is beneath one. They must be a trick. Only the philosopher sees such difficulties for what they are. Philosophers are very rare beings, their kind is seldom seen on the earth. If novelty of the condition of being is sought, it is not to be sought among the mediocre mob of collective individuals, but at the fined and refined pinnacle of time's most free output.
I was struck by this as being a statement that assumes that we are all our own makers, as though we did not thoroughly profit from the struggles of previous generations throughout millennia. If Philosophers are so rare, why not value the work of those who have gone before, and not assume that the simple issues have to be sorted by each and every one of us, and are therefore not absurd or “below us”? There seems to be an arrogance about these days that is hard to understand, except in assuming that those people who are arrogant are ignorant of basic truths. They are steeped in many theories but either shy away from the lessons that reality teaches us or they cling to the most fashionable “ism” around at the time.
Perhaps it is because I have a very complex psychology that I think that the task of socialisation is such a struggle, and finding the right path so confusing. It took me decades to understand myself fully and only then are we really in the position to understand history and the development of philosophy throughout the thousands of years we have been developing. If I take this personal experience and assume that I am not so very different from other people, then the ups and downs of history are understandable, but also the horrific suffering that people have gone through before we came to be. The human rights that we have become accustomed to having been cut out of a bloody history, and acclaimed although they still remain utopian for many people.
There has been a variety of criticism of Jordan Peterson, most of which I fail to agree with because it misses the mark. I am by no means someone who would defend Peterson at every occasion because there are things he says that I disagree with. However, coming from a parallel development, discovering Jung late in life, having a Christian background but being disappointed with the church, and discovering suffering very close up through my vocation as a geriatric nurse, I must agree with Peterson on his starting point: Life is suffering. From there, we can develop different ideas about how to cope with that, indeed to combat suffering, as many in the past have already done, but we tend to find similarities despite cultural differences, which is what Jung and now Peterson have picked up on.
My criticism of Peterson isn’t that he is wrong, but that he fails to find an integral approach to history. The developments of the past, in history, but also our own developments, have aspects towards which we may now find animosity, but they are a part of our development and not all wrong. Some things we do because it is the lesser of two evils; sometimes we have been struggling to survive, and therefore unable to find the higher ground that we assume ourselves to be on today. I know that I have had many occasion to be frustrated at the path I took, but benevolent onlookers have appeased me by telling me that they didn’t see anything bad about what I did, it is just that today I would do something different.
I find that Peterson has laid down a worthy psychological description of what value mythology has in our lives, and has had throughout time. His 12 Rules are in a way just an excerpt from the bigger work Maps of Meaning, which is worth a read, even though it is pretty large. His Youtube videos can give further insight. I just can’t accept that people who have not yet achieved anything similar should ridicule 15 years of intense study and thirty years of clinical experience.
Artimas wrote:Existence is agony, if I put you in a room alone you will suffer on your own, by mind and eventually by body.
Purpose of life is to lessen suffering of self and of others around you by being kind(real conscious love) and investing time into art, expression of self and experiencing things of which you deem positive.
Asserting will upon any other individual is tyrannical in nature, to assert will upon one who deems it fine to assert will, is justice.
And no this is not from Peterson, I knew this all on my own, especially the Bible being a metaphor. It’s as obvious as day and night that heaven and hell are ideas we project on reality by consistency of thought.
Meno_ wrote:The collectivist Peterson states that we all should, in order to benefit the collective, view each other as "essentially" individual. Is this a collective demand to how each one should think itself? What could be more "low resolution" than the demand that each one take the same view in order to do what is best for all? Namely, to think themselves as essentially "individual" for the sake of the collective?
Peterson, driving his ego into self annihilation, might now pick himself up and learn thought. Ergo, he might remember what is properly worthy in his inner teaching.
Bob wrote:Meno_ wrote:The collectivist Peterson states that we all should, in order to benefit the collective, view each other as "essentially" individual. Is this a collective demand to how each one should think itself? What could be more "low resolution" than the demand that each one take the same view in order to do what is best for all? Namely, to think themselves as essentially "individual" for the sake of the collective?
Peterson, driving his ego into self annihilation, might now pick himself up and learn thought. Ergo, he might remember what is properly worthy in his inner teaching.
I think you are wrong. Peterson says it is wrong to identify someone immediately as being part of a group and therefore giving them the attributes that are associated with that group. The racist argument and the numerous “#Phobes” which have been applied to people, just because they have a certain skin colour or particular sexual inclination, doesn’t fit. Peterson has demonstrated this by going on tour with someone who is openly gay.
People are first and foremost who they are as an individual, and not who they are for other people because of certain attributes. Back in the sixties I (a white person) had friends in GB who came from Jamaica and I was criticised by racists. Amongst the black community there arose concern that I was a white person who visited a black area. My friends made the point that racism can work both ways, and told the others that they should be careful not to fall into the trap. Now we are forty odd years on, and they have made that mistake, but were treated in a way that seemed to warrant their opinions.
What we need to do is, as individuals, work out the best way for everybody, which is what democracy should be (and not just defeating people by majorities) and be wary of where this goes wrong.
Meno_ wrote:I don't know that if that would make a great deal of difference in Your reply.
[/quote]Bob'_ wrote:[quote_"]can't really say that you give me any indication as to why something should make a difference in my reply.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users