13

Jordan Peterson defines Existence

Posted by $ blarman 10 months, 3 weeks ago to Philosophy
109 comments | Share | Flag

Twenty-four minutes of high philosophy - the philosophy of being and existence. Worth every one of the twenty-four minutes.
SOURCE URL: https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-rubin-report/jordan-peterson-2666299722


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    How does the following quote from the article comport with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and ethics?

    “The speech covers a range of topics, including how identity is the intersection of faith and responsibility, what it means for humans to genuinely flourish at the psychological level, and the importance of sacrifice and getting outside ourselves in order to serve a higher purpose.”

    She hated sacrifice. She constantly said that “if you hear someone calling for sacrifice, run like the dickens because he means for you to sacrifice and for him to collect on your sacrifice.” What, exactly, is a higher purpose? And how in hell can you get “outside ourselves”?

    Who is this guy?

    Ayn Rand: Man's Highest Moral Purpose Is His Own Happiness

    This is the reason why I’m here. Is this still an Ayn Rand site?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Compare and contrast if you want. If you're not familiar with Peterson, he is a Canadian psychologist known the world over for rejecting the notion that he has to use someone else's pronouns (a case he eventually lost in the Canadian Supreme Court) and promoting values in young men. He's also an expert on the human condition, having studied it his whole life and spent much of it examining other people.

      Personally, it's pretty hard to argue with Peterson's findings because he's at the top of the game in psychology and research. And if you examine Peterson's suggestions in context, he's not calling for the kind of self-loathing that Rand referred to as "sacrifice" but in being of value to other people - the quintessence of a market economy.

      As to whether or not this is an "Ayn Rand" site, feel free to post things yourself. The biggest question should always be to check your assumptions. Rand didn't have a monopoly on good ideas. Personally, I think there's a lot to be learned out there beyond Rand as limiting myself to her works only leaves a lot on the table.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Although he lost the case in the Canadian Supreme Court, he didn't start using the "proper" pronouns, did he? (Serious question - I haven't heard either way, but I know what I hope....)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          He was forced to attend a "sensitivity training" course or have his license revoked. He vowed never to use pronouns though: his argument was that as a licensed psychologist he couldn't treat anyone properly by conforming to their delusions.

          What was really telling about the lawsuit was that it wasn't any of Peterson's patients who brought the suit. It was the industry itself - and they never should have been granted standing to sue because they couldn't show any harm. It was the most targeted, bogus lawsuit outside of Trump's impeachments.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            Wow. That's just insane.

            it's also happening in the rest of the world. I refused to call someone by their "pronouns" and now my daughter hasn't spoken to me in a year and half as a result (and she wasn't the one making the request.) She says she never will again, either. As a result, I haven't been screamed at, nor forced to speak lies in all that time. I wonder if she even realizes what she has done.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          Fuck pronouns. Just speak to a person's face and use their name. May as well just use their name all the time. Problem solved...or avoided at least.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            I take a different route. I go through the effort to demonstrate thorium absurd and direct examples that the only pronouns you use for someone you are speaking to when referencing them is "you/yours." I illustrate how they themselves use "you/yours" in that very conversation, and would never ask to me "How are he doing today?"

            This tends to produce a "deer in the headlights" look, followed by a quick "well of course not" type response. And that is when the trap has been set. They should see what comes next, but they never have.

            I then point out that to insist on other pronouns is not to insist on what someone calls you, but to insist on what they say to other people. I've had several realize they have no argument to counter with and accept it.

            Some have tried the "but it is about me, and I might be there," to which I illustrate that that argument does not change the facts. I then point out that in referencing other people the most useful way is to reference someone visually in appropriate contexts, such as "This is Bobby's jacket, take it to him at the bar" because the reference is a visual indicator. This is usually met with another flummoxed look followed by realization and accord.

            Sometimes they respond with something along the lines of "well you can't use expected visual stereotypes or cues because that is just reinforcing gender role stereotypes." Rare, but it has happened. Naturally the response to one line is around the lines of "There are three people at the bar, one looks like , two . If I say something like "This is xer jacket and motion toward the bar, take it to xe. Now how do you know which is which?"

            From here they sometimes leave in a huff. Usually they wind up grudgingly, quite grudgingly often, that I have a point they can't argue.

            Personally, I find that far more enjoyable. :D Because I know it gets stuck in there somewhere and one day will help reality bite them in arse.

            Edit: I forgot to mention I have been to a JBP event in Austin, TX, and I did this to fellow audience members. Admittedly nearly every one of them recovered after the first one and were surprised at how they hadn't thought of it. Good times.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              I saw him in 2017 in Manhattan. These arguments ultimately are just the ultimate question: Who's side are you on? "Will you use my pronouns?" is just a feeler to decide which of two ways you vote. It's a Friend or Foe interrogative. They don't even care about the most likely fact that no conversation is likely to take place anyway. It's just rams butting heads.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Abaco 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            Pronouns as used in this way are just part of the Marxist puzzle being assembled to crush the rest of us. Anti-science. Pronouns (forget your own name). Don't "threaten democracy" by expressing your concerns, etc... Soon, they'll be burning people on stakes or subjecting babies to experimental treatments. Oh...nevermind...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Not so much an Ayn Rand site as originally intended I suppose. Take JBP in his context. I've posted some of his anti-postmodernist videos which is more like Ayn Rand's philosophy. JBP is religious so he's not quite accepted by objectivists.

      Take Ayn Rand in hers. She grew up and witnessed the horrors of Communism, and that was the cauldron she forged her philosophy in. A bitter strong (over) reaction to collectivism. I don't think a Purely Exclusively objectivist person can be happy...no?

      If you burn your hand on a stove, you don't want to turn around and run away through a plate glass door. I read three of her books, loved them. AS, Fountainhead, Anthem-also made into a Rush song. They had an objectivist phase in their lyrics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "JBP is religious so he's not quite accepted by objectivists."

        He's not an anti-religious person like Rand was - that much is true. He does a lot of study of religious texts but he presents them as stories about human nature rather than history. And he doesn't support the Judeo-Christian ethos either even though he recognizes and lauds it for all the good it has done. He's probably closer to an agnostic than either an atheist or a theist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          He has explained in lengthy videos lately that he does believe in God, and Christianity. Though I still love the way he explains rationally what in the Bible can be explained rationally. I find it helps a lot.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      "She hated sacrifice."

      She also defined it in a very narrow sense, right? To give something of value in exchange for something of lesser value. However, the common use of it is distinctly different: "to give something of high value in the moment for something of equal or higher value after"

      Even the Guardian had this to say on it from an interview with him:
      “God”, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. And the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got."

      Notice the meaning here is not to give something of good value for something of lesser value, but to trade a fleeting pleasure or happiness for a deeper, more long term one. Notice as well that in this very video he describes a sequence of increasing scope of responsibility one can take, starting with self then expanding to family, and so on. He then comments that this is also associated with "going up" or "higher" and that at the top of it the "spirit" that those things embody is traditionally associated with God. Further, that you are acting on a faith in your ability to do so - it isn't a religious faith anymore than starting a business requires you have faith in your ability to be successful at it. Which is a different definition of faith than Rand uses.

      In the strict sense, which you'd know if you watch and pay attention he is referring to a "faith" that is built by objective success - you start by learning to clean your room, then you learn to take more into your scope and become competent, and repeat this as you continue through life.

      Frankly, much of your response is really anti-objective in that you conflate things and fail to apply reason - they are knee-jerk responses from an emotional basis. A rational being would ask what is meant by those terms when used by those individuals honestly, and then seek the answer; they would not use that as an excuse to dismiss the work of an intellect as you did. In fact, your opening quote is not from Peterson, but is a summary opinion given by someone else.

      Consider:
      "Ayn Rand: Man's Highest Moral Purpose Is His Own Happiness"

      What is Happiness? Do you understand that what Rand defines as Happiness is actually in line with what JBP describes as meaning?

      Consider Galt's Speech:
      "For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors— between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

      This is what Peterson is saying - the last sentence. He decries "happiness" as the term is used today - and as Rand did. For Rand, Happiness is not a fleeting emotion that is Man's Purpose, which is what Peterson also says.

      Rand via John Galt:
      “Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

      “But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

      Again, this is an accordance to what Petersen promotes as well. He speaks of eschewing that irrational whim in favor of purpose and meaning:

      "‘Happiness’ is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life."

      and this from another interview goes into more depth:
      ---
      Dr. Oz: Happiness you talk a lot about it should it be our life goal and if not what should we be seeking.

      Peterson: Well, it shouldn’t be our life goal because there are times in your life when you’re not going to be happy and then what are you going to do? Your goal is demolished. And there are going to be plenty of times in your life when you’re not happy, there might be years. And so it’s a shallow boat in a very rough ocean. And it’s based upon a misconceptualization. Happiness is something that descends upon you, everyone knows that. You know, it comes upon you suddenly and then you should be grateful for it because there’s plenty of suffering and if you happen to be happy, well… wonderful, enjoy it, be grateful for it, and maybe try to meditate on the reasons that it manifested itself, right? Because it can come as a mystery, you know, you don’t necessarily know when you’re gonna be happy. Something surprising happens and delights you. And you can analyze that, you can think well I’m doing something right, I’m in the right place right now, I’ve done something right, maybe I can hang on to that, maybe I can learn from that.

      What you should be pursuing instead is– well there’s two things. You should be pursuing who you could be. That’d be the first thing. Because you’re not who you could be and you know it. You have guilt, and shame, and and regret and you berate yourself for your lack of discipline and your procrastination and all your bad habits. You know perfectly well that you’re not who you could be, and god only knows who you could be. And that’s what you should be striving for.

      And associated with that you should be attempting to formulate some conception of the highest good that you can conceive of, you can articulate. Because why not aim for that? It’s like your life is short and it’s troublesome and perhaps you need to do something worthwhile with it. And if so, then you should do the most worthwhile thing and you should figure out what that is for you. And part of that’s definitely going to be to develop your character as much as possible to dispense with those parts of you that are unworthy. And then maybe, if you’re fortunate and you do that carefully, then happiness will descend upon you, from time to time. And that’s the best you’ve got. And then also, perhaps, during sorrowful times, or worse, evil times, the fact that you’ve strengthened your character and that you’re aiming at the highest that you can conceptualize, that’ll give you the moral fortitude to endure without becoming corrupted during those times and to be someone who can be relied upon in a crisis.

      There’s a name you know– one of the things I’ve told my audiences is– the young guys take to this a lot—I said “you should be the strongest person at your father’s funeral”, right. Well, that’s something to aim for. It’s a transition, the generational transition, and it means that– well, all the people around you are suffering because of their loss. They have someone to turn to, who can illustrate, by their behavior, that the force of character is sufficient to move you beyond the catastrophe, and you need that. And that’s a great thing to hypothesize as your aim. And happiness just evaporates as irrelevant in light of that sort of conceptualization.

      How is that opposed to Rand's definition of happiness and man's purpose? Peterson is talking about being the most you, that doesn't ask another man to live for you, or demand you live your life for his. He speaks of showing strength of character not by reducing yourself, but by strengthening yourself and demonstrating it by example and accomplishment rather than self-destruction through Randian sacrifice. He speaks of you defining what matters to you and pursuing that; and to do it in a way that can withstand periods of tough times and situations.

      He even, in this speech, goes on to condemn the push of western mental health clinicians that mental health is subjective, and asserts we know it is not subjective - even if you lack the phrasing and language to express it or even the conscious awareness of its objective existence. Existence Exists.

      This persistence of character through tough times and over long periods of time is in accordance with Rand's insistence that happiness is not mere pleasure, but something that you can use to be a more you, you over those times. Yes, he speaks of morality, but doe does Rand.

      Again via Galt's speech:
      ---
      The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live. ...
      “No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.
      ---

      Notice the point here is that to live is an act of choice - a moral choice specifically. Peterson is speaking to taking responsibility for yourself first as your highest moral good and the foundation of your morality and meaning in life. Again, what makes you think these are opposing thoughts?

      As others have said, they are not in lockstep agreement, but neither are they in lockstep opposition. As someone reading and studying both, and of course not in lockstep agreement with either, once you get past the superficial, basically unthinking, reaction to the words used and understand that the meanings under them for much of their individual work is on the same page you find they are far more similar than different, much more aligned than opposed.

      "Who is this guy?"

      Someone who made the same mistake you did. Just as you reacted with a superficial and unthoughtful reaction to what was written or said by him - especially in snippets and quotes - he has with Rand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Probably half of the lurkers here are theists, here just because of Rand's pro Capitalism, leaving out the laissez-faire. They do not understand the outline of Objectivism in Galt's speech which is purely secular with no hint of theism. I am sad to see that religerous revival in the USA is getting its influence into the Gulch.

      The speech is difficult to get through the religeous gobbledygook and BS to find anything useful for rational humans.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        It was contributed to by the ridiculous _Listerine arguments of many assigning homework to go read this or go read that, rather than have an actual logical discussion.

        I recall a ludicrous exchange from my assertion that "Freedom = Responsibility". This is a simple axiom. One can not have freedom if one does not take responsibility for one's actions using that freedom. Nothing could be simpler. Next a 75 round iteration of circular BS ensued, mainly focused on the completely irrelevant subject of "conscripted military service". Whoever that was (do ewe know?) had their ears so stuffed with Ayn's speeches and pictures of her in swimwear that he couldn't listen. Thank your that idiot hasn't resurfaced since COVID.

        Then add the more ridiculous positions condemning Trump, when there is ONLY a decision between Trump and Hillary. NO reasonable Libertarian can believe that Hillary was better for freedom than Trump. Yet, people took out 12 gauge shotgun and fired them at their foot out of spite because Trump wasn't 100% aligned with Libertarians or a dork. WHO CARES? He is better than Hillary. More spiteful nonsense.

        THAT is why this site has transitioned.

        *Listerine because it can't be any good if is doesn't taste terrible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          "...at their foot out of spite because Trump wasn't 100% aligned with Libertarians... "

          Frankly this is so common among Libertarians and libertarians that it represents, in my estimation, one of if not the largest hurdle they have toward moving in the direction of freedom. They practice "perfect is the enemy of better" as if it were a religious commandment to true believers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "Probably half of the lurkers here are theists, here just because of Rand's pro Capitalism, leaving out the laissez-faire. They do not understand the outline of Objectivism in Galt's speech which is purely secular with no hint of theism. I am sad to see that religerous revival in the USA is getting its influence into the Gulch." Hear! Hear! +1
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          I think that Objectivism breaks down at some point and that's why God finds a place in the Gulch. There are religious people which are still attracted to some of Any Rand's ideas. I think we kill God at our own peril. I'm not going to re-write Objectivism! I'll leave it be, good enough to (over-react) away from Collectivism! Total self-interest is the opposite to Collectivism. It can't be good either...or can it? No balance?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            For me it breaks down to Collectivism vs Individualism as the bottom turtle. That said "total self-interest is the opposite to Collectivism" is also a good way to put it - when speaking w/rational people anyway. ;)

            Further, it gets to the heart of why the Leftists have had the success they have: because they are fanatically consistent in their devotion to collectivism by whichever form/name they like - Fascism, Socialism, Racial Supremacy/Racism, Sexism, etc, are all implementations of collectivism.

            As you alluded to, the antidote is individualism - it is the beating heart of Collectivism's enemy and weakness. It is why family must be destroyed, why private property must be destroyed, why "it must take a village to raise a child" and so on; because each of those and more lead directly an inevitably to the recognition of the primacy of the individual in your affairs. (note: Rand did write about this in Anthem, which IMO is a far more important work than most consider it to be for those very reasons. Though admittedly it was my introduction to Rand even it remained my only read of hers for decades.)

            Monotheistic religions, like much of "the right" or "conservatives" or whatever label currently stands "opposite" of the Left, wobbles back and forth between the two. On the one hand they tend to be individualistic, but then they do collectivize based on attributes or "competing religions."

            As I've delved through history looking to see if the terms truly just vary so much to be meaningless over time or if there are common driving factors - roses by any other name smelling of crap or heaven - the common thing on the Left has been collectivist, while the Right wavers around. And this wavering is despite the fact that at least in America, the Right's largest successes have been when they were the most unabashedly and consistently pro-individual and anti-collective.

            And to this, a point that I have made for years about where JBP is factually and demonstrably incorrect on: his assertion that "we know what the Right going too far looks like." Because we don't, really.

            I doubt I'll get any significant disagreement that the Nazis and Fascists of the 20th century to whom he refers were solidly left-wing. So we place them as part of the "Left going too far" category.

            However, if Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism, what is the extreme opposite of Collectivism, what does that look like? To be fair the answer isn't simple. Is a monarchy fundamentally individualist? An empire? A Republic?

            So far, if I were forced to choose, I would conclude the closest we have to what an extreme Individualist government would look like is true anarcho-capitalism as was practiced in the "Old West" (which is earlier than the "Wild West"). Every individual as free to choose, if accepted, which non-geographically exclusive legal system to live by/under/in. The associations were voluntary, had no standing forces, engaged in cooperative agreements out of "enlightened self-interest" you could say. You could leave one for another. You could get evicted (and become an "out-law" - someone living without the protection of a system of laws) from one for failing to abide by the actual contract of membership.

            Behind that I'd place Empire - mostly because "I conquer the most, so I get to say what goes" and hereditary monarchies after. But they have a much weaker position there.

            But even so, what would the "too far" moniker look like? That gets tricky, but I can offer some possibilities. I suspect you'd have to have an emperor with absolute control that wields it to prevent any form of non-familial group associations to be involved in any form of governance - hence Anarcho-Capitalism would be disqualified. Further that emperor would have to enforce maximal liberty.

            Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine such a thing. In part because that would have to be a corrupted implementation, not a "went too far that way" scenario because a pure individualist would have to allow voluntary associations of individuals for self-governance and interest. Contrast that with "too far" on the left simply being really just "too authoritarian" because all collective actions and beliefs are not only acceptable under Collectivism but essential. Thus in my hypothetical above I try to focus on over-application of force/authority to maximize mandatory individualism.

            I can see a decent set of arguments that the Gulch in AS might qualify.

            For me, I see monotheistic religions as a means for many to unconsciously try to assuage the dissonance of family, and even government, among individual nature. As noted above, family leads to and promotes individualism - "my spouse" and "my kid" are examples of this. It forces a recognition of the individual and that sense of primacy and agency.

            Religion forms a group for social structuring, but that structure reinforces and reminds us of our individualism - and often by making use of family as a key component. Perhaps this is why you've noted what you describe as "why God finds a place in the Gulch" - and why that would be an argument against ban Objectivist government being "going too far on the right".

            Nothing I've ever read about Objectivism asserts that a person who believes in some form of deity that cannot be proven cannot be abided in an Objectivist Gulch. After all, as she pointed out one's belief in dragons doesn't mean they exist, however perceiving an actual dragon would mean they exist. Thus, since God (by whatever definition) either does exist or does not, it is possible that we have yet to perceive objectively the existence of a God. For Rand, faith is an affront to reason because it is a believe in absence of or even contrary to objective facts. However, if provided with the perceptuals proving objectively the existing of God(s), you cannot have faith because you have proof.

            As Peikoff noted, we can discover new objective reality that would constitute a recognition of - thus preventing belief in the Randian (and others') sense - of God(s). And when you get into it, it seems to me that Rand's main objection to religion was the abandonment of reason to the appeal-to-authority of a being not proven to exist instead, not to the non-existence of god.

            Thus her protagonists could believe in a god, so long as they don't base their actions on the mystical commands of god(s), In my view Robert Sawyer does a good job of portraying a race of beings with a view of god that I think would be compatible with Objectivist axioms in "Calculating God."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Collectivism vs Individualism is an easy choice! Individual!

              I don't see Objectivism on any spectrum between Right and Left. I don't like the R vs L single axis. At least a 2D axis like the Power axis from Anarchy to Authoritarian (up and down) and the Social axis from Individualism to Collectivism (right to left).

              About "We know what the right going to far looks like..." is about his assertion that the Left accepts NO limits and expects to be unchecked while on the far far Right (and of course far far Left) there are obvious things where we can say Stop. But it's not about the stop-point on the Right. It's all about the fact that the Left has no defined stop-point for itself. 100% collectivism is the goal, and it is lied about.

              Wavering-Yes! True! But maybe wavering leads to truth while sawing away at something wrong just leads to...more wrong.

              Proof of God eliminates Faith in God yes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                Hmm, look like my comment from my phone never made it. Oh well, now it'll just be one instead of two. ;)

                First the easy one: "We know what the right going to far looks like..." is explicitly about German and Italy in the early 19th century. He has said this on multiple occasions, usually by way of immediate phrasing such as "we saw that on full display in the 19th century" - which is clearly not a reference to China, Japan, US, or even Russia. He has made that connection many times directly.

                This is, in my estimation, his most egregious core error. He has also said in more detailed discussions that he is referring specifically to the use of ethnicity or race as a determinant of value or merit. Yet this is clearly a left-wing thing not seen on the right. Not merely within the context of collective vs individual, but in pure political terms as well.

                By every rational judgement those governments were left-wing:
                * They were socialist (Fascism is a subset of Socialism) not just in name but in policy and actions
                * They were explicitly anti-capitalist
                * They were explicitly anti-libertarian
                * Both of their leaders were dyed in the wool of Marxism (yes, Hitler didn't like Marx but also explicitly stated that in his view what Marx failed to grasp was that race and class were synonyms - the rest of Marx' political thoughts he essentially agreed with sans global vs local)

                We would also agree that China and Russia were not right wing either for almost the exact same reasons. There were little fundamental differences in philosophy of government between those countries, this it isn't reasonable to say that two of them were Left and two were Right.

                Something key to understanding this is that we have to eliminate the commonalities to define the differences. For example, some try to claim he is talking about greed - but greed knows no distinctions here. Greed is either inherently there for all systems or it is a unique qualifier or categorizer. We all, I am sure, know that individualists can be "greedy" just as much as collectivists can. So that can't be an identifier of when one side "goes too far" because it would also be true for the other side.

                In order for the phrase to carry useful meaning it has to be not merely unique to either side, but emblematic of it. For example, a dictator is not inherently or exclusively Left or Right - you can have that form of government in either case. Thus you can have a Socialist, Fascist, or Libertarian Dictatorship. (Technically Communism is anarchic in that aspect so you can't have one there; Communism isn't a governmental form by definition - the structure is not that different from anarcho-capitalism but the expectations and reasons are opposites).

                And the "too far" phrase is a way of saying "extreme" as in "extreme left" versus "extreme right." This also means that the extreme characterization has to be based on what either side fundamentally is. Extreme hot is characterized by being more hot, for example, not less hot. So to be extreme left or extreme right means to take the primary and unique-to-that-side characteristics and amplify them.

                And since we are talking about governments using those ideological categories, how authoritarian said government is is not a valid qualifier as that has to be a factor on either side. Thus the issue with defining a too-far right government.

                In part there is the argument that the far right government can't actually be a government. At the extreme of individualism we have no-governance over others because the epitome, the core concept, to individualism is that the individual is the source of all agency and sovereignty. Thus to take that to the extreme means one individual cannot have control over another.

                This is why I'm not convinced of the hypothetical emperor example as valid. By definition in that context that isn't a far-right example because to enforce control over groups of people based on that group membership is the opposite of individualism. Thus even a dictator/emperor prohibiting voluntary group associations for any form of governance would not really qualify as right-wing but left-wing. The ultimate group control dynamic is "me" vs "everyone else". Indeed we see this in other writings/speeches of Peterson's where he sees one half of it.

                He talks about intersectional and how when you take that to the extreme, you wind up with the individual as the smallest possible minority because not even identical twins are perfectly identical in every way and experience. So in that sense we have on one side "Me vs everyone else" (the largest group controlled by the smallest group) and the other where everyone is a group of one - ie. individualism.

                This is why while authoritarianism is not uniquely one-sided in this context, it is strongly unavoidable on one end and impossible on the other. The left tends more authoritarian for other collective reasons as well. Fore example with control being group based, the more free people are to change their group, the less control you have.

                For this consider AnarchoCapitalism (AC) again. In the implementation in the Old West (not the Wild West!) you could get kicked out of an association, could be allowed in, and could choose to leave. This places an inherent limit on authoritarian power creep because when the frogs get too warm they jump out of the water pot. As a result, the left always gravitates to groupings you have no say in. Today we call this Identity Politics. And that it is being enshrined in American law and jurisprudence and has been for over a century is a massive stain on the American government and body politic. Specifically I am referring to the "protection" of groups based on immutable characteristics - ie. groups you cannot change your membership in at will.

                Which brings us to " But it's not about the stop-point on the Right. It's all about the fact that the Left has no defined stop-point for itself."

                I think this is precisely backward. Maximal collectivization of people in control systems is the stop point on the left. But what can be the stop point on the right that still qualifies it as on the right and not a reversal of direction? No matter how you break up the grouping on the left, they are still groupings. Be they arbitrary ("people who vote for X vs Y" or "personal identity") or on immutable characteristics (race, gender), group control is still group control. But again what would that same extremity be for the opposite?

                For the right: we can sum up a core concept around rights as "my right to swing my fist ends when it meets your nose" to use a common expression for it. Meanwhile the Left's version is "your right to swing your fist ends when your group isn't in control and mine is."

                Thus if we classify Left and right based on the one consistently distinguishing characteristic - the collectivism of the Left - there is a clear end point at the extreme left, but not one on the right; all examples I've found offered or considered myself are examples of a course reversal, not pushing the accelerator down harder heading to the right.

                Collectivism may or not be the explicit goal - I don't think many on the left even think about it as such. However it is the objective character of the Left and the underpinning of their entire set of ideologies. It is unavoidable. However, and again the contrast strikes me, for individualism is is explicitly about individuals - individualism isn't hiding under a blanket with something else written on it.

                And that, I think, is a key factor in why it isn't being fought for at large. It is assumed safe and not thought about as the basis of expressions. Which is why the Left can slip their poison pills into language and law. For this let's look at one last historical example and how it could have played out differently.

                Let's look at "gay marriage" or "gay rights." Right away I hope by now you react to the terms with an awareness that they are inherently group based. That is key. For this I will speak using my political positions. In my view two consenting adults can engage in whatever courtship, legal, and living arrangements they want - to get married as it were. Why? Because they are individuals with individual choices and are not forcing another into it. That is the individualist argument.

                However, the Left didn't take that route - and that was actually intentional. They went, as they always do, with it being based on a group - gay marriage and gay rights - with the group being gay, In fact they doubled down on the collectivism when they shifted it to "you can't discriminate because they/we are born this way" - aha, an immutable group! Now as to the intentionality I mentioned: the major proponents of it explicitly stated they did not want to allow polygamy because that group was seen as even more unpalatable than gay people were and they didn't want that group to have the same rights. And yes, the individualist argument would be against criminalization of polygamy. And that fact was explicitly stated as a reason they didn't want to argue from an individualist position.

                Now lest that be seen as an academic or semantic argument, consider some real-world possibilities that expose it as a faulty foundation (not to argue them just as illustration). What if next five years from now we discover/determine that it is not immutable? What if it really is changeable or "a choice." Now what happens to your legal validity? It evaporates. That isn't entirely hypothetical, we see that contention within the "trans" arguments. If anyone can "be a woman" for legal and social purposes, then being a woman is not immutable. And with the foundation of "protected classes" being immutable characteristics then that can no longer be a "protected class."

                Contrast that with the individualist argument. With that argument nothing changes in that scenario because foundation hasn't been swept away. Consider, ok one more historical reference, slavery versus indentured servitude. Slavery is seen as "evil" because the individual had no choice in being or becoming a slave, while indentured servitude was a choice. Even today America accepts indentured servitude (the military is the big example here), but not slavery. And the argument there is still individual.


                And to close it out:
                "Collectivism vs Individualism is an easy choice! Individual!"

                Yes, virtually every mentally competent individual when given that explicit choice for themselves will make that choice. The crux of the matter is that they are not being presented the decisions in those terms. And by that being the case they are thinking in collectivist terms, which means the collectivist will usually win because you're dealing in their terms. To support that assertion I'll simply point out that during the 'gay rights debate' era I would talk to people who were initially opposed to "gay marriage" but frame it as individuals consenting adults. When I did that every single person I did that with supported the law not prohibit it - the banning of which was a collectivist law in the first place (group A can do X but not group B)! Even a couple of pastors "converted" to not banning it in law while still being individually opposed to it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Nice.

              I would simply say that actual society lives in the middle between extreme collectivism and extreme individualism. Individualism taken to its extreme turns everyone into hermits or monks while collectivism taken to its extreme turns everyone into clones (see Kurt Vonnegut Jr's Harrison Bergeron). Society lies somewhere in the middle because society can only exist where there are shared norms and expectations. That was one of the things Peterson was pointing out in this speech: that much of mankind's happiness lies in being of value to other people. And that's psychologically objective and measurable.

              To me, the quintessential role of religion is illustrated in my favorite quote from Jurassic Park: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should." The simple problem is that without religion - without some kind of notion of God - you can't answer the "should" portion of any ethical question. A simple illustration: derive human equality (of station) based only on the extrinsic qualities of mankind. It can't be done. It's one of the reasons I find the atheistic approach taken by Rand to be ... incomplete. I understand her antipathy toward the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church and their hypocrisy is truly a disincentive. But Rand falls prey to guilt by association in concluding that because those two religions fail to live up to their own standards that by extension God doesn't exist. (As a corollary, good can not exist without evil, so if God doesn't exist, neither does the devil. Who benefits from that misconception? The devil.)

              I would also point out that faith is very different from belief. Faith is to act on one's beliefs regardless whether one knows the outcome or not. And everyone does that. The real question lies in whether or not any particular belief is reasonable. And for that one has to be willing to dive into not only that belief but the accompanying beliefs and structures which go with it. There is a reason why religion is a lifestyle: it is an entire building - not just one stone.

              I think Rand had a lot of very good ideas. I believe free enterprise is the best expression of human nature both in commerce as well as personal intercourse. I believe people should be individually free to make choices for themselves based on the best information they can find. I abhor tyranny in its myriad forms. I value the individuality of every person for the uniqueness that is them wholly separate and distinct from the uniqueness which is me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                I think I addressed much of the characterization if "extreme" in my other post so I'll just comment here about this comment:
                The simple problem is that without religion - without some kind of notion of God - you can't answer the "should" portion of any ethical question

                I absolutely can, it is literal child's play. Children and monkeys derive a sense of right and wrong based on interactions and how they react to them or feel about them. My grandson has learned (and is learning; he is only 3 so far) to be kind and treat others ethically based entirely on his experiences and how he reacted to them. A classic example is parents teaching kids to not bite each other by biting them and asking how they liked/felt about getting bitten. It may take some more than others (my brother for example had to get bit repeatedly for the better part of year before he learned it), and some may never learn as they don't dislike it. But it can be done.

                Monkeys do the same thing. You can see ethics in their behaviors and they have to religions or beliefs in a deity.
                (insert caveat about morality vs ethics here)

                If we accept the "existence exists" then it has a right to exist, and this none other have a right to make it not exist without sufficient cause. Ethics determined when that sufficient cause has been met. One doesn't need a god to determine that, even though some rely on what they think their God said on it.

                Ok, I cant resist, on more for the road. ;)
                As a corollary, good can not exist without evil, so if God doesn't exist, neither does the devil. Who benefits from that misconception? The devil.

                So I take it from your terms you are referring to the Judeo-Christian mythos. In that scenario my first comment is to finish the sentence with " - if the devil exists" because it is otherwise incomplete.

                But then I must joint out that in that mythos, the devil serves god's aims and exists at his pleasure just as we all do. Therefore, in your scenario God also benefits, and benefits ultimately. After all you did assert "good can't exist without evil", so neither can God exist without the Devil, and in the JC mythos God is the supreme driver and arbiter, and the Devil is needed to provide the contrasting option for humanity to exercise free will - "God's created gift to mankind". Thus ultimately that which benefits the Devil still benefits God.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  "I absolutely can, it is literal child's play. Children and monkeys derive a sense of right and wrong based on interactions and how they react to them or feel about them."

                  People aren't monkeys, however. Further, you are arguing the hedonist's philosophy then and not Rand: that logic plays second fiddle to how one feels.

                  BTW - I have a three-year-old right now (and a few others besides). And it's part of the duty of a parent to teach children what constitutes appropriate behavior in society. Those parents who absolve themselves of this duty are a primary reason we have a huge rise in teenage crime, disrespect for others, and a failed sense of self which leads them to question their identity. It's a path to misery for everyone involved.

                  "But then I must joint out that in that mythos, the devil serves god's aims and exists at his pleasure just as we all do."

                  There are djinns in the Persian mythos. There are similar agents in other belief sets, But let's stay with the Judeo-Christian one because it's simple.

                  It's a misbegotten concept that God created the devil. It's an argument which denies free will because it argues that everyone is simply created by God to do what they do and it is all according to His pleasure. It's an argument which is completely at odds with the true Judeo-Christian ethos which states that man is free to choose his/her own future. The harmonic belief is that the devil had his own free will and rebelled and chose a path in opposition to God's. He seeks to entice others onto that path with him: a path of stagnation rather than a path of development.

                  Now part of it you do get correct in that without opposing viewpoints, the true choice available lacks substance and meaning. But if God's purpose is for His children to follow His plan, what does He gain when they follow the devil?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            Please back up your assertion that Objectivism breaks down at some point. "God" doesn't find a place in the Gulch, just people that claim that he/she/it exists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              For a thought exercise: derive human equality (of station) based only on the extrinsic qualities of mankind. I can't do it without relying on intrinsic qualities and intrinsic qualities necessitate a commonality of spirit or soul.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                An honest person and a criminal share many intrinsic qualities, but they do not share a commonality of spirit or soul. So human equality cannot be based on intrinsic qualities either.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  Straw man.

                  I can derive an equality of station among men based on the intrinsic quality that all humankind are children of God. That they act according to their own wills is a matter of individuality and sentience. What I can't do is derive equality of station based on skin color, height, weight, parentage, capability (mental or physical) or any other extrinsic quality I can think of. But yet the nihilist has only the extrinsic to draw from, denying the intrinsic. Thus the conundrum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Um . . . that still doesn’t work. For starters, it assumes the existence of a deity that created humans. (It also implies that atheists cannot derive equality of station among humans.) And even if such a deity exists, it’s clear that the lower animals, insects and maybe plants are also “children of God”. That doesn’t give them equality of station with human beings.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      "For starters, it assumes the existence of a deity that created humans."

                      Yes, it does. That's kind of the point. In order to argue an intrinsic connection, one must acknowledge the intrinsic exists.

                      "It also implies that atheists cannot derive equality of station among humans."

                      Also kind of the point. Nihilists insist that there is nothing intrinsic about humankind. If there is nothing intrinsic, everything is extrinsic. So how does one arrive at an equality of station among human kind using only extrinsic qualities? Therein lies the conundrum.

                      "it’s clear that the lower animals, insects and maybe plants are also “children of God”. That doesn’t give them equality of station with human beings."

                      Two points. One, I am not aware of any Judeo-Christian religion which acknowledges anything other than human beings as children. Creations, yes, but children implies a very specific relationship and connection to deity. Second, sentience/consciousness is admitted even by atheists to be the major factor separating humankind from all other forms of life. So by that quality alone humans are on a separate plane.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                        "In order to argue an intrinsic connection, one must acknowledge the intrinsic exists."

                        That’s not the same as saying a deity exists. “Intrinsic” simply means an essential characteristic, “belonging to a thing by its very nature” according to http://dictionary.com . One can recognize intrinsic qualities without believing in a deity or some supernatural cause.

                        Nihilists insist that there is nothing intrinsic about humankind.

                        You’re conflating atheism with nihilism. All atheists are not nihilists, and certainly objectivists aren’t.

                        "sentience/consciousness is admitted even by atheists to be the major factor separating humankind from all other forms of life. So by that quality alone humans are on a separate plane.*

                        Absolutely correct, and that invalidates the rest of your argument. Atheists consider humans to be connected by an intrinsic quality, sentience/consciousness. No deity is required.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                          "“Intrinsic” simply means an essential characteristic..."

                          You're avoiding the question. The atheist insists that humanity is a product of the extrinsic. So how does one derive the in_trinsic from the _ex_trinsic?

                          "All atheists are not nihilists, and certainly objectivists aren’t."__

                          And your point is what? You still haven't attempted to answer the original question posed. (But I would ask how an atheist would square a disbelief in the supernatural while simultaneously arguing a continuance of intelligence after death...)

                          "Absolutely correct, and that invalidates the rest of your argument."

                          How so? As sentience/intelligence prima faciae varies between individuals, it isn't an equivalency. One would have to prove that the source of that intelligence or sentience was common... Oh, wait. That brings us right back to a commonality of ancestry: the deists' position...
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                            ”The atheist insists that humanity is a product of the extrinsic.

                            No the atheist doesn’t, at least not all atheists. Ayn Rand defines man as “a being of volitional consciousness”. That’s the commonality, and it is intrinsic.

                            ”But I would ask how an atheist would square a disbelief in the supernatural while simultaneously arguing a continuance of intelligence after death...

                            No atheist of my acquaintance argues for intelligence (or life) after death.

                            ” That brings us right back to a commonality of ancestry: the deists' position...”

                            I have no idea what you mean. All of us have human ancestors. Humans evolved from earlier life forms, which had their ultimate beginning in a “primordial soup” of organic compounds. All of this accords with the known facts of the universe around us. No deity necessary.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                              The Miller-Urey Experiment, putting water, SO2, CO2 and NH3 into a glass sphere with a spark, resulting in a green slime after 6 months that contained amino acids, is often cited as the proof of a primordial soup that underwent evolution resulting in life as it is now. It is a compelling experiment, but it only yielded amino acids, nothing else. No DNA. DNA is something entirely different, and it suggests that the DNA came from somewhere else, not the primordial soup. I don't know where from. From another planet, from a God, from a laboratory scientist who built the DNA and ultimately built Earth's life. And who built that scientist? It doesn't make sense that life evolved in the soup and created it's own DNA sequence directing it's own evolution...a book cannot write itself.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Do you really read most of the posts? This is a conservative site now. Post something about abortion and watch.

      However except where invisible friends affect decisions, there are very good articles posted, particularly by FFA.

      Ayn was not perfect either (smoking and screwing around with guys). She made an awesome contribution with her philosophy and communications. However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste. Milton Friedman was more compelling in his positions in my view. Thomas Sowell is a genius as well. JBP is contributing, and demonstrating why these silly incendiary polarizing totalitarian left positions are foolish. This is needed today as well. If Ayn dismissed him, it would be yet another mistake she made.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste."

        That's both inaccurate and insulting. Her philosophy is not "stagnant", and a site dedicated to anything of interest to a sufficient number of people is not a "waste".

        The “about” section of this forum describes it as “the largest active online community focused on the propagation of Ayn Rand's ideas.” So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general. For example, both fishing and chess are (for most people) hobbies, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to post a discussion that’s mainly about chess or other hobbies on a fishing forum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          I've visited the Gulch for many years and it was clearly created to promote the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy and all the discussion that goes along with that. In the early days the discussion was certainly heavily weighted on that topic and Ayn Rand, but not exclusively (fortunately).

          The "About" narrative also clearly states, "Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate politics, economics, philosophy and more." I would say the "..and more" is partially explained in the "Ask The Gulch!" invitation where it says, "Got a question about Objectivism? Ayn Rand? Politics? Life? Dinner? Or... anything else for that matter." The Gulch is a marvelous forum that wanders freely from topic to topic with serious discussion mixed with great humor. Of course Ayn Rand and her work still applies to many topics in the Gulch, but doesn't have to. There's a lot of knowledge and fun to be had here and most all of it is on a civil level, which keeps me coming back. Contribute as you wish, but always enjoy the ride.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          "So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general."

          How is Objectivism to claim superiority if not in the comparison to other ideologies? I firmly disagree with the notion that only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum because such a claim makes the assumption that the discussion is over. (Where have we heard that before?) I'll just also add that as a paid member of this forum for more than ten years, you're going to have a hard time winning people over if you can't 1) relate to them and 2) build bridges of knowledge between the two of you. If you're so focused on the differences or what makes you right, it's vinegar to flies.

          Any theory - especially one so encompassing as a social theory - should be openly debated and challenged if only to verify its veracity. And there is no better way to do that in my mind than by either bringing up some current event and discussing it in context of what should be or contrasting some other philosophy to Objectivism. Let the merits of any philosophy speak for (or against) it and let's objectively call a spade a spade.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            Please re-read my statement that you quoted. I said “discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism.” I specifically did not say that “only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum”, as you implied. I relate to people on this forum just fine, thank you very much, and one reason I do is that I don’t misrepresent what they say.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Note that I disagreed not with your statement, but with the other. I was agreeing with you and I even quoted the statement I disagreed with to avoid misrepresentation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                Okay, I wasn’t clear on whose statement you disagreed with, and I’m still not. The statement you quoted was mine ("So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general"), and it’s the statement that you’re saying you disagree with. Also, we have both been members here for over 10 years, so I’m not clear which of us you’re referring to.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  I used the quote as a preface to my comments. My apologies if it was unclear. Not sure how to state "I firmly disagree with the notion that ..." any more directly.

                  Congrats for >10 years!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Sorry, still not clear. You disagreed with the quote you used as the preface to your comments, which was my quote. In your prior post you said “I was agreeing with you and I even quoted the statement I disagreed with to avoid misrepresentation.” Since the statement you disagreed with was mine, it appears that you weren’t agreeing with me. (Unless you agreed with everything in my post except that particular statement.) Please clarify.

                    Congrats on your 10+ years also!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Your statement was used to start the post. That's it. You're getting hung up on the quote and failing to read the statement as written:

                      I firmly disagree with the notion that only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          I didn't say it was stagnant. I said (and stand by) dedicated "only" to... MANY others contribute to a Gulch. Ayn's writings are absolutely NOT then only scripture. And, just like I said, many others have valuable input as well.

          If that insults you, it shouldn't. It shouldn't even insult Ayn.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            You didn’t say it was stagnant? Your exact words were: "However, a site dedicated only to her, her writings, and a stagnant philosophy is a waste." How else are we supposed to interpret it?

            And please show me where I said or implied that Ayn Rand’s writings are scripture. What I actually said was that “discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general.” I stand by that statement.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
              I meant, a philosophy that is stagnant, scripture, no longer incorporating new thought, which obviously comes from other people. I did not mean that Objectivism had to be stagnant. I see the issue. sorry for the misunderstanding.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      Christianity and most other religions which advocate a sacrificial altruism just beget a population of the needy, the pitied, the ill, and others for producing more servants to be directed by feel good others and their pocketbooks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        Yup. But even the secular version is no different i.e. Barack Obama "We're all in this together" produces the same outcome.

        I'm thinking that the long term goal of the Globalists is One Planet, One Plantation. Just like the pre-Civil War South, they envision a three-tiered society; Plantation owners, Plantation employees, and Plantation Slaves. Where would the majority of humans fit in?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          Fritz Perls' so called Gestalt Prayer would be more rational than Obama's collectivist nonsense.

          https://www.sabrinasantaclara.com/wp-...

          The way I see things is that Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" is 'free to be moral'. If the free choice to take an action turns out wrong it is considered to be immoral. Non chosen actions when under coercion or not are amoral. Parents, teachers, governments, friends, and others use coercion to direct individuals away from an autonomous life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        There are several sects of Christianity which do, yes, but the plain doctrine advocates for self-sufficiency. So does Judaism and historically they've been one of the richest societies ever.

        The thing to note, however, is that neither in Christianity nor in Jewry is there the sanction for the government to take from some to give to others. In both religions all such "charitable" donations must be given of one's own free will. It's all fine to shriek "altruism" at the top of one's lungs but altruism lies in the methods much more than the outcome: when one uses force (taxes) to collect the money to be given to others it violates the spirit of free will. There is no such sanction against offerings given of one's own free will and choice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          It is more matter of whether one helps by choice or under coercion of some kind. Rand was clear on the issue in that choosing to be helpful in need or in cooperating in projects or raising ones family, etc. is different from following an altruistic philosophic life style.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            Completely agree. And by that definition religions are not altruistic. They only distribute that which was freely given. Only governments have the power to tax, i.e. to confiscate wealth through force, in order to give to another.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              Many religions, past and present, are allied with the state. In some cases they are the state, for all practical purposes. They do not merely distribute what was freely given. In the U.S., many religions are given exemptions from property taxes, forcing taxpayers (often against their will) to pay for the government services that religiously-owned properties receive.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                "Many religions, past and present, are allied with the state."

                Aside from this being a red herring, it is false here in the United States. You have the burden of the argument to demonstrate a church+state partnership and those largely ended before WW I. I can't think of a single non-Islamic nation where the church dictates control of the State with the exception of the Vatican.

                "In the U.S., many religions are given exemptions from property taxes, forcing taxpayers (often against their will) to pay for the government services that religiously-owned properties receive."

                I'm not sure where you get the notion that there are property tax exemptions for religious buildings. Please cite a state in which such is true, because I can't find any in a quick online search. It certainly isn't true in my state.

                But let's go to the underlying assertion that somehow these edifices (and their congregations) are getting something for nothing. As a consequence, those very same congregations are now restricted from freely exercising their right to speech. Until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and the legal interpretations which came with it, religious congregations were the #1 place in America where political debate would take place. Now, those congregations are prohibited _on pain of losing that tax-exempt status
                from discussing politics in any meaningful way. The secularization of America has not been without its casualties and the primary one has been Speech.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  ”I'm not sure where you get the notion that there are property tax exemptions for religious buildings. Please cite a state in which such is true, because I can't find any in a quick online search. It certainly isn't true in my state.”

                  This is your state, no?

                  “Property tax exemptions are available for certain types of nonprofit organizations. Religious, fraternal, educational and certain hospitals are a few examples of types nonprofit organizations potentially eligible for a property tax exemption in Idaho.”

                  https://www.canyoncounty.id.gov/elect...

                  “Nonprofits are required to pay property taxes in Idaho unless they are exempt under Idaho Code 63-602F. Exemptions are available for nonprofits that are organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

                  https://www.hechtgroup.com/nonprofits...

                  ”Every state and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions”

                  https://constitution.findlaw.com/amen...

                  “As much as one quarter or one-half of a typical U.S. city may be made up of tax-exempt property, much of that churches or church schools.”

                  https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/ite...

                  ”Now, those congregations are prohibited _on pain of losing that tax-exempt status from discussing politics in any meaningful way. The secularization of America has not been without its casualties and the primary one has been Speech.”

                  Don’t blame it on “secularization”, blame it on religious leaders looking to obtain government services without paying for them. If they want freedom of political speech, all they need to do is start paying the same taxes on their property that private citizens are forced to pay.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Yeah, that "may" in there is key, though. We won't mention the for-profit hospital system. Let's address the real issue you have:

                    "blame it on religious leaders looking to obtain government services without paying for them."

                    There is your real beef. It's your opinion that religious people are pikers - looters - providing nothing for what they get. Doesn't matter that those are the very people you work with who pay taxes. Doesn't matter that the United States isn't getting torn apart by the practicing Judeo-Christian religious proselyte but rather by the rampant secularization as per John Adams foresight. Doesn't matter that the religious institutions are the ones trying to promote good societal behavior in people at their own cost. No, none of that really matters.

                    "If they want freedom of political speech, all they need to do is start paying the same taxes on their property that private citizens are forced to pay."

                    So let's take this argument in detail, because when one really thinks hard about this, one realizes just how problematic this approach is. If you allow government to tax - and remember the power to tax is the power to destroy - then by granting the power to destroy religious institutions you are granting government the right to destroy opposing thought. You are granting them complete sanction to destroy the First Amendment and the right of people to the products of their own mind. Go down that road if you choose, but if you can not see the very plain implications of such a policy, you will become subject to a tyrant in the blink of an eye.

                    Religious institutions ARE different. Their goods and services deal with human nature and ethics rather than material goods and services. They are the institutions of ideas. As soon as you condone the taxation of ideas, you condone the destruction of free society.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ CBJ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      I'm happy that you now realize that religious property is exempt from property taxes, including in your state.

                      Of course religious people pay taxes on their personally owned property. So what? The only legitimate purpose for such taxes is to pay for government services provided to secure and protect that property. It is not to give a free ride to any group that claims that their worship of a deity somehow benefits society.

                      I'm not sure why you choose this particular forum to express your hostility to secularism. Ayn Rand was totally secularist, as is her philosoply.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
      There must be a better word or concept than "Sacrifice" . We've all sacrificed something at one time or another voluntarily. For our children, Friends, relatives and self . . . all for something better, sense of obligation, responsibility or personal desires.

      It's not exclusive to communism/collectivism/marxism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 2 weeks ago
        "There must be a better word or concept than "Sacrifice" . We've all sacrificed something at one time or another voluntarily. "

        Yes OUC, the key word is "voluntary". I did my undergrad at night while working full time, and, volunteered to join the Army Reserves out of a sense of obligation.

        What Ayn Rand railed against was the non-voluntary sacrifice demanded by the philosophy of Altruism. The demand of Altruism is the requirement that an individual place everyone's needs ahead of their own including starving to death to save the life of a total stranger.

        I can think of maybe three people who have tried it, viz. Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa in Calcutta, and Mahatma Gandhi.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          Yes, voluntary is the key but the creatures we deal with these days on both sides of the fence rail for or against the idea forgetting that.

          It's like many other words and concepts. The other concept that sticks out in my mind is: Rational Self Interest which I like to call: Cellfish; because that is how your body operates.

          . . . and yes (laughing) Rationality is the key.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I can't watch this thing now, but should later. JBP is awesome! He takes on a lot of totalitarian leftists and tears them apart.

    He may depart from Ayn / Objectivism in some areas, but probably 95% aligned with most people here. Ayn is not 100% right. She was a bonehead for smoking. She screwed around a lot with men. I suspect she would take issue with JBP like she did with Libertarianism ... mainly because it distracted some from her.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      "He may depart from Ayn / Objectivism in some areas,..."

      Rand's personality and life style are irrelivant to her philosophy of Objectivism. I have never liked her lifestyle especially what appeared as a cult leader of the Collective.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Right, but like all things, I take her ideas as one of many good ideas, one of the best, and develop my own opinions.

        Rejecting people who agree with 95% of what you do is one of the best examples of foolish spite. Ayn was loaded with it. Some of her strongest supporters here were as well.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
          One needs to be rational about Rand and all the muck for or against her life and work. I find it best to add her ideas into my knowledge base and live my life as best I can.
          I question things like 'man qua man'. what is 'qua man' as an abstraction? Like all knowledge that has to be discovered as has been happening since mankind became self-conscious. There is no general 'qua man' applicable to each individual other than the general conditions for all life although individualism seems most importantly for me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rhfinle 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    My simple version:
    "I have chiggers, therefore I am."
    Anyone who has ever sat in the woods during turkey season, should know this.
    There's no doubt about it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Aeronca 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    "...There is no technical difference between thinking about yourself, and being miserable..." That struck me. Responsibility to others, something not taught to the young anymore, is why they are so miserable. They are taught to think about themselves only. Addicts are self-centered and they are miserable. Addicted to working, miserable. Service to others is a value being lost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      One can look at oneself and others in two basic ways: 1) Primarily as a unique individual whose psychological makeup and talents have never existed on Earth before, and, after death will never exist again. Then, you can add on country of origin, gender, occupation etc.

      Or 2) You can look at yourself and others, primarily, as a member of a class having all the characteristics of that group. Then you can add on minor individual differences.

      People who look at themselves and others in the first 1) way tend to have higher self-esteem and achieve more in life.

      People who look at themselves and others in the second way 2) tend to be altruists who call for sacrifice to each other or for some ideal “We’re all in this together”.

      Shared sacrifice can only lead to shared misery.

      I prefer the first way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        It depends on your definition of sacrifice. Rand used it to mean giving away something and getting nothing. Peterson uses it as giving away something to get something even greater. Very different notions of sacrifice. With the first (getting nothing), yes, you end up with shared misery while the elites party. The second is much more like opportunity costs, however: everyone ends up better off than before by giving up something of lesser immediate value for something of greater value in the long run.

        The mistake is in attributing to Peterson the definitions of Rand. Taken in the context given, Peterson is advocating for a community where everyone contributes and everyone benefits.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          She considered sacrifice as the trading of something of more value for something of lesser value to feel good according to some moral belief for getting some kind of self worth.
          In chess it is carefully considered, when done by choice for later gain, to call it a sham sacrifice.

          The speech lost me in the beginning with the Universe as being intrinsically good. Good only applies to life and not not a non-conscious thing such as an universe
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
            I guess it depends on one's point of view. Rand liked to use her own definitions of words despite them being in common use another way (see selfishness, sacrifice, etc.) and it often created communications difficulties. I think "forfeiture" is a better approximation to Rand's usage. Jordan uses sacrifice according to the common vernacular (such as in chess), which is to indicate an opportunity cost: an immediate result being foregone in anticipation of a greater future reward.

            With regard to the universe being "good," I would suggest that Jordan is again using the common vernacular to indicate anything which furthers a specific "good" purpose is also usually considered "good" to that person. The market uses the term "goods" to indicate inanimate objects which nevertheless supply utility to the user, so I think it rather restrictive to say that only people can be "good." I would completely agree that only an agent force could choose or pursue good, however, since that would be a product of sentience/intelligence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
              'Good' is not an intrinsic property of anything. It is always a value judgement in some context. I would call Rand's approach to reality as always being contextual. That bothers many who like to pretend that a definition of a concept is universal to every context.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                So let's define good. There is good as a noun and good as an adjective. In describing something as "good" (adjective) as I explained above it is in reference to its utility - its ability to aid us in accomplishing some goal. In that "judgement context" as you put it, that valuation is personal as it pertains to that person achieving a goal through the utilization of some object. Is not the universe an object? I would argue that it is - for without it where would we exist? Thus within that context - the same one Peterson is using - the universe fulfills a specific, objective purpose in aiding our advancement. Thus it is good.

                Used as a noun, "good" is a process - a distinct though ephemeral concept embodying the principle of advancement. It's contrary is evil, being that which seeks to prevent such advancement. (This is why progressivism is evil because it seeks to stagnate or repress individual human development.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                  I can not find a definition for object that could define the Universe as an object. Where we exist is not an object. We exist somewhere in a universe but that does not make the Universe be an object by any definition.
                  Evil is not a 'that' which can act consciously by seeking. Evil and good are judgements about things that exist with respect to living things not able to seek anything.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    The Universe is made up of many Objects therefore an Object itself ?

                    If you think of it, Everything down to a certain point is made up of many objects and if we could see infinitely perhaps even things we think are singular objects like protons, electrons and neutrons might also be made up of many objects as well and so on and on.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 1 week ago
                      Expansion was too fast that most of the Universe (that can be considered as a mental object, a concept), about 94 billion light years across, is not all observable and does not affect the observable universe, about 47 billion light years across.

                      The most interesting about the relationship between objective reality and consciousness is how a brain views it with limited input. The brain seems to be able to distinguish real from imaginary. The conscious mind presents stuff from the subconscious to decide on whether to act or not, the free will and moral faculties which are delayed from when the subconscious first created it. Consciousness is a observer and action gate. Playing a song, once learned for a piano, seems automatic from 'muscle memory, probably from spinal ganglia. Consciousness observing for mistakes, freewill, to make subconsciousness make corrections.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                    Human references to the universe use it as a noun: a person, place or thing (object). Scientists refer to the universe as an object when calculating its size or mass. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point.

                    "Evil and good are judgements about things that exist."

                    I don't disagree that this is the adjective sense of the word. But good is also used as a noun (or possibly adverb? maybe an English major can weigh in here...) to describe not a thing or person but an impetus or direction related to progress. I'm not attributing to it any sentience per se. It is a quality of utility to that which is sentient.

                    If you wanted to get down to linguistics, another thought is that because the word "good" is used as a noun in terms of general applicability rather than specific applicability, one could also consider it a "plural" adjective - if that even makes sense. That would be straight in line with its use to describe "goods" in the marketplace.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Concepts are contextual. 'universe', when used, is used in many contexts to denote wholeness or collectiveness. Universal joint, universe of discourse in logic and math, the Universe for all of existence, etc. To be an object there must be something else to distinguish it from. There is only one use of universe in physics as an object. That is in Quantum Mechanics where the Universe is a quantum mechanical object.

                      "Evil and good are judgements about things that exist."
                      I should have said

                      "Evil and good are value judgements about things that exist."

                      Where the judgements are in different contexts. E.g., 'good' depends on the contexts of actions, relationships, usages, etc., and depends on who makes the judgement. Good and evil are not intrinsic to things, but require minds to determine what they are in different contexts.

                      I am not interest in linguistics but rather the contextualism of concept formation in epistemology.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ 10 months, 1 week ago
                        "To be an object there must be something else to distinguish it from."

                        Scientists have noted that the universe is a finite size, thus differentiating it from other empty space, has it not?

                        "Good and evil are not intrinsic to things, but require minds to determine what they are in different contexts."

                        When used as an adjective, yes. But "good" is also used as a noun to indicate something of general beneficial use - something where the object has already been judged by many to be positive. One can also understand it as a past, general judgement (noun) versus a present, specific judgement (adjective).

                        "I am not interest in linguistics but rather the contextualism of concept formation in epistemology."

                        Perhaps you don't understand linguistics, then. My wife graduated in linguistics; it is the study of how human beings conceptualize and vocalize ideas. Words are conveyances of thought and language is the context.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 1 week ago
                          The Universe is not in space but space is a relationship between matter and radiation. There is no outside of the Universe to distinguish it from. Also there is no in Spacetime, which is a relationship between matter and radiation with time a relationship between motion or change of radiation and matter.

                          Good and evil are purely human relationships between humans and and the rest of objective reality and not intrinsic properties but are extrinsic properties which depend on context. There is no good or evil born into human animals but depends upon how one develops his own self, which is self made.

                          I have studied linguistics with respect to grammars and how they convey knowledge but what knowledge is, how it is conceptualized, and its validity is determined by epistemology. There is quite a lot of overlap between them. Words are more a storage method for concepts, while grammar places them in relationships of knowledge for thought and the conveyances of that.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ 10 months, 1 week ago
                            The definitions you cite are self-referencing: products of the way in which you define the universe itself because we don't really have any good ways of categorizing the space beyond the universe. But the fact that we can objectively measure the size of the universe even if we can't currently measure the space beyond is a differentiation in my mind.

                            You don't make any distinction between the universe and reality. I don't assume they are one and the same. My reasoning? One would have to understand the universe in its entirety to assert that it included everything. (One can also bring up the notion of the multi-verse theory, in which each universe is objectively separate and distinct from the others.)

                            "Good and evil are purely human relationships..."

                            I'm interested then, in how you define "good" or "evil." If they are a product of human judgement, does that not render them subjective in nature and thus eliminate objective truth?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by lrshultis 10 months ago
                              A definition is made in the context of what is known objectively. If further evidence is discovered the definition might have to be modified. There is no evidence for anything outside of what is observed and can be inferred from that. It might be possible to consider a quantum mechanical vacuum from which the Universe came as space but then some would want to know where or why it came from or exists.

                              Theoretical speculation about bubble universes multiverses are just, at present, runaway mathematical exorcises with speculation that the math implies real existence. Math can describe only what exists and does not necessarily predict the existence of anything. I remember Einstein cautioning about true math not necessarily having anything to do with reality. Be careful with definitions of mythical stuff. Some have gone out of usage as more rational thought has become popular but some still occupy the mental processes of many.

                              Many times good and bad are subjective to personal taste such as certain foods being the rage but turn my stomach. Good is what is usefully needed in a context of a living thing both for life or satisfying ones desires. Evil refers to one being anti-life of others and depends upon an individual self which is self made. No one is conceived being evil which one of my brother in laws believes. Evil is self made.

                              The size of the Universe is estimated from some standard supernovae brightnesses and the Hubble constant which has two different values from different ways of measurement. That is on going research.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ 10 months ago
                                "A definition is made in the context of what is known objectively."

                                Now that is one that I have to take issue with. Such a notion eliminates imagination. You have to admit that if one accepts such a statement, one is ruling out hypothesis and conjecture entirely. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

                                "There is no evidence for anything outside of what is observed and can be inferred from that."

                                Going to challenge this one as well as a completely meaningless statement. No single human being can observe everything or infer everything. Are you saying that unless you "observe" it that it doesn't exist? What if I observe it and you don't?

                                "Good is what is usefully needed in a context of a living thing both for life or satisfying ones desires."

                                So you are taking the standpoint that good is purely subjective then? An unusual stance to take from an Objectivist, don't you think? Not only that but if one's desires determine good/evil then one is not a rational or empirical being but a hedonist.

                                Now I happen to agree that no one is conceived being evil. We agree that one becomes "evil" through a litany of evil choices: doing => becoming. But again this goes back to what really is good vs evil. If good is merely fulfilling one's desires, then no objective/independent morality exists for, say, murder.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by lrshultis 10 months ago
                                  "Now that is one that I have to take issue with. Such a notion eliminates imagination. You have to admit that if one accepts such a statement, one is ruling out hypothesis and conjecture entirely. Are you sure that's where you want to go?"

                                  That does not rule out those mental processes. They are valid when based on rational concepts, meaning some relationsip to objective reality. Math is objective due to being related to the brain activity which is also part of objective reality. Take the very basic concept that is the abstraction from the identities of perceived entities, considered as a set. Mentally a a binary closed operation on the set depending on some common identity of the elements of the set producing the concept of a groupoid or module. That is perfectly objective. Objectivity does not just concern relationships between mater and radiation activity. It includes all that exists including brain activity with the interactions between neurons and other brain stuff that encodes memory. Subjectivity is the acceptance emtionly of thought completely unconnected to what might and could exist, i.e., contradictory of existence. Reason must be logical to be have any validity.

                                  "Going to challenge this one as well as a completely meaningless statement. No single human being can observe everything or infer everything. Are you saying that unless you "observe" it that it doesn't exist? What if I observe it and you don't?"

                                  An example of unreason is to define without reference, such as to something outside of existence by making up such as outside of the Universe which is defined as all that exists in hopes of finding a cause for existence making up different dimensions or supernatural gods to control lives of others by fear. That is a violation of causality.

                                  The human brain can to a great extent distinguish between real and imaginary. Research is on going about that.

                                  "So you are taking the standpoint that good is purely subjective then? An unusual stance to take from an Objectivist, don't you think? Not only that but if one's desires determine good/evil then one is not a rational or empirical being but a hedonist."

                                  Good is perfectly objective in that it pertains to individuals and their relationships with reality and between each other. It is pro life while evil is anti life. Good and evil are not some kind of innate something placed in humans by some supernatural non-being at conception, but are self made virtues for seeking or destroying certain values of individual lives.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          "Peterson is advocating for a community where everyone contributes and everyone benefits"

          This sounds so wonderful, why hasn't it been tried and proven successful?

          Plato's Republic, Thomas More's Utopia, and Karl Marx's Manifesto Of The Communist Party have been suggested. Only Marx's ideas have been tried and proven to be failures.

          Yet, century after century, some men keep advocating for the impossible.

          Socialism, in all its forms, Sucks. In theory and in practice, the people always suffer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            "This sounds so wonderful, why hasn't it been tried and proven successful?"

            Because one has to get past the platitudes and get to the underlying precepts to determine if something is going to work. Marx' stuff fails because it proposes inequality: communism always fails because it creates a tiered society.

            Peterson isn't advocating for socialism, and if one spends any time listening to him, one finds that he patently rejects it in favor of personal accomplishment, self-actualization, and personal growth. It's right here in this speech as well. He doesn't advocate for some low-minded slog through life, but in exploring and finding meaning from top to bottom. But he realizes that this process doesn't happen in a vacuum - that part of what gives life meaning is how we help each other to succeed.

            Bag on Peterson all you want, but if that's all you have to offer, you're missing out on everything that the conference was about.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Abaco 10 months, 3 weeks ago
              Very interesting! Read this a couple times. Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside). Peterson isn't advocating for socialism. That said, rising tides lifts all ships. Right now the approach to help those of the lower tiers (the Proles) is to steal from the successful by the threat of force and give it to the Proles as though Uncle Sam is giving them a loving gift. Brilliant.

              I once attended a meeting at my friend's house - a "town hall" meeting with Congressman Vic Fazio. I asked him if there was any chance we'd get a flat tax from DC as that had entered the national conversation. He winced and said that doing away with the mortgage deduction would harm the housing industry. I quickly replied, "If you tax me near the rates being proposed I'll go buy another house." (insert cricket sounds here). Haha!

              Peterson is an excellent example of "you know your over the target when you're getting the flack"...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                "Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside). "

                Yes, this is something he actually harps on quite a bit much to the dismay of the hit-squad person interviewing him at a given moment. He repeatedly illustrates that inequality exists in all systems, and that this is because we are not all identically equal (as opposed to equal under the law); intelligence, work ethic, motivation, skill, natural talent, and even luck are not evenly distributed. Because of this no system can be devised that eliminates inequality.

                That view, IMO, meshes precisely with the Objectivist axioms. It is based on a perceptual bases (it always exists) and this leads to the concept of inevitability due to the underlying reality (such as how it exists is all animals, and even microorganisms). He then proceeds to dismiss that as an object that can be had and should be the goal of any economic or political systems.

                He then proceeds to explain that the most rational hierarchy is one based on capability, competence, and thus merit - which IMO also dovetails into Objectivism as well.

                " I quickly replied, "If you tax me near the rates being proposed I'll go buy another house." (insert cricket sounds here). Haha!"

                Nice! I used a similar argument when involved with politics years ago (and I am most likely not original in it): "I'll donate 10% of my income to charity, minus the percentage the government takes from me, so if you take 5% I only give 5%. Take more than 10 and I give nothing."

                Man, the looks on people's faces were a sight to behold! >.<
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 10 months, 2 weeks ago
                "Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside)."

                Well said. I think one thing is that capitalism, however, doesn't prevent one from moving between tiers. That's the American dream: starting out with nothing and eventually winding up with a home with a white picket fence and car in the driveway. You can't get that from socialism because socialism installs the not-so-proverbial glass ceiling on progress. (It also supports incompetence. See Hunter Biden.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "They are valid when based on rational concepts, meaning some relationsip to objective reality."

    Which is ... what exactly? You define it as anything in the "universe" but no human being can possibly comprehend the entirety of the universe under such a definition. It's an arbitrary and meaningless statement. We are constantly exploring "objective reality" or what you would term "the universe" but we've not even come close to a comprehensive understanding. To rule anything out is an act of sheer hubris; subjectivity at its finest.

    "Subjectivity is the acceptance emtionly of thought completely unconnected to what might and could exist, i.e., contradictory of existence."

    No. Just simply no. Because again, you'd have to understand all of existence in order to say something didn't comport with existence. A much better definition of subjectivity is a human-contrived thought. It's that simple. A thought only becomes "objective" when it can be measured against something real.

    "Good and evil are ... self made virtues for seeking or destroying certain values of individual lives."

    "self-made" = subjective when the "self" being referenced is a human being. If you want an objective virtue it - just like distance - must be grounded within a standard external to humanity. As soon as one originates any definition with humanity, objectivity goes out the window. And that's entirely my point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo