'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Philosophy in present times

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Philosophy in present times    Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:57 am

Great stuff:


 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:04 am

"Our choices determine the destiny of the world... You get nailed when you make a stupid decision, because you're altering the structure of reality, and it'll snap back and take you out." --Peterson

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:15 pm

I like that formulation.
Kinda fits to astrology.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:57 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
"Our choices determine the destiny of the world... You get nailed when you make a stupid decision, because you're altering the structure of reality, and it'll snap back and take you out." --Peterson

Well, I like this quote. Very Taoist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 29
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 56
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:41 am

Stupid used to mean "mentally slow," and at one time used to describe a degree of retardation. Today, they don't even use retardation anymore. I think the PC words for it are mentally challenged.

Looking at the quote from a Charles Darwin view, it seems to make sense. Only the smart and strong survive. But this brings up the question.... is there such thing as "dumb luck?"
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:15 am

Yes, I think there is such a thing as dump luck. I generally refer to it as good fortune but it's the same thing. Being in the right place at the right time, planned or unplanned.

If we want to be rained on we must go to where it is raining.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:38 pm

This starts getting interesting around 18 minutes, and seems to fall to shit around an hour or so. I stopped listening at an hour 20 min.


 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:42 pm

If one of us had been in that conversation things wouldn't have devolved like that. What is lacking is a proper philosophical context, to avoid pointless categorical disagreements and to unite the scientific will properly under the 'psychological' truth that is, as you hear in that conversation above, struggling from both sides to break free, but can't quite do so.

This "'psychological' truth" is, of course, self-valuing and the daemonic.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson


Last edited by Thrasymachus on Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:28 pm

Possible better continuation:


Harris: You can't deny that the weaponizing of smallpox would represent a truth.

Peterson: Yes absolutely, there is a truth, or a set of facts, that is required to be understood and actualized in order to be able to weaponize smallpox. But what I am saying is that there are greater and lesser facts, greater and less truths.

Harris: Ok, so if I am understanding you here, you are saying that facts are facts, and that the totality of all fact might be called "truth". But in addition, that within that domain of all facts, "truth", there are greater and lesser facts, which corresponds to a greater or lesser degree of truth.

Peterson: Yes, absolutely. What I saying is that, and I agree with you about what you said just there that the totality of all facts is what "truth itself" means, in the broadest sense, or perhaps in the most scientific sense, but in addition to understanding this we also need to be able to look at particular ranges within this totality and realize that certain facts, or certain collections of facts, rank higher or lower based on a certain standard.

Harris: And what standard would that be? Because so far you have seemed to be saying that Darwinian selection and survival is the most fundamental standard.

Peterson: Well what I really mean to get at, is that when I said "reality is that which selects" what this really means is that certain truths, or facts if you like, are more significant, have more meaning and more reality based on how comprehensive they are; based on how many other facts they subsume under themselves, and based on the significance and far-reaching consequences that usher from those facts. Part of this significance and broader totality of consequences includes whether or not we will survive. So survivalism is indeed nested inside your sort of realism, or materialist realism, but there is also a larger category here: that even given the let's call it scientific or empirical fact that survival and Darwinianism is nested inside of a larger realism, realism itself is also nested inside of a larger metaphysical space that we might call the universe of meaning, in which certain truths or facts acquire substance and potency, meaning and significance, based on the degree to which those truths lead to something. If the invention of weaponized smallpox leads to the annihilation of humanity then it is indeed correct to say that the weaponizing of smallpox was indeed true, and based on facts that made such a task possible, however we can't stop there, we need to go a step further and say that this truth failed to rank higher than other truths which could have allowed for the persistence and expansion into actuality of even more truths, including in this case of course our own survival.

Harris: So you are claiming that even realism is nested inside of, what seems to be, its own rank-ordering and with respect to a certain kind of "metaphysical" significance?

Peterson: Well yes, but to be even more accurate, we need to isolate facts and truths and see how fundamental they are, which means we need to do a phenomenological reduction here on par with Husserl and try to eidetically identify the root of a fact, to find its necessity, and to see on what that fact depends and to what other facts it is linked.

Harris: Ok I think I am starting to see your perspective here, and I don't think I necessarily disagree. To me, materialist realism is quite close to Hussal's own phenomenological project, because while on the one hand we can always say that a fact is a fact and regardless whether or not any living beings are around to comprehend that fact, this fact itself, of knowing this, of stating that 'a fact is a fact regardless...', is itself also just another fact within the larger totality of facts.

Peterson: Exactly. And what is so interesting is that facts are infinite for this very reason, that not only do you have an individual fact like "such and such technological process in molecular biology will yield weaponized smallpox", for example, but you also have to say that it is a fact that "such and such...", basically you need to say that, of any fact at all, it is also a fact that that fact is the case. And then you open up a whole other universe of facts, derivative or meta-facts, which are facts about facts. This is why I was invoking Nietzsche earlier, because Nietzsche points out, correctly I think, that some facts are "just facts" while other facts are facts about facts, meta-facts if you will... and if we follow a kind of Platonic metaphysical example here, or Husserl even, we find that there are also facts about the fact which are about a fact, and all the way up and up, without end. Nietzsche was interested in climbing the ladder as high as he could, to identify the most summative and therefore fundamental of all facts. And if that is the project we and philosophy and science ought to be pursuing, then we must abandon so-called individual or merely self-sufficient facts, like whatever it takes to create weaponized smallpox for instance, as occupying a lower rung in the totality of all facts.

Harris: I like how you express this idea, and it seems we now agree that a fact is a fact regardless of its utility value to us or to anything else. Even if smallpox were to be synthesized in this way and ends up killing all humans, it is nonetheless a incontrovertible fact that such-and-such a process of producing that smallpox was indeed true. But now you're bringing in a larger concern, and claiming that even though this is true, there are larger or more comprehensive truths, and that these latter are even more important. I find that interesting, because of my own interest in morality.

Peterson: This gets at the concept of self-valuing, which is also a fact. Self-valuing is the idea that all beings, whether we call them alive or not, exist in a way that they are self-valuing, namely that they hold themselves as the standard for their activities and interactions. So a human being values itself by acting and interacting in certain ways that implicitly, necessarily, hold that human being itself, as precisely what it is, even if it doesnt know what that is, as the core standard of measure and of value. Because if a human being did not do this then it would quite simply perish almost immediately. And this self-valuing logic also holds for any thing whatsoever, even fish and rocks and hydrogen atoms.

Harris: Then you are invoking Nietzsche here and attempting to condition realism to a larger moral principle, which to me seems somewhat similar to the notion of the will to power, which is also a survivalist notion.

Peterson: Yes and no. Survival is indeed necessary, but for one thing it is not sufficient, and for another thing it is not comprehensive. Survival does not encompass all that a being is, and indeed surviving is more like a secondary side-effect of that which a thing is. Darwin recognizes this when he realizes that selection is fundamentally driven by the contingent environmental conditions to which a living thing is subject. But it goes even deeper than that, because regardless of those contingent environmental conditions and contexts it is always the case that any being, whether or not it survives, was attempting to act and interact in such a way where it held what it is as a standard for those actions and interactions. A fish values water more than air, and a fish that attempts to value air over water will die. A rock values the distribution of force across its molecular bonds in such a way that maintains the integrity of the rock as structure, and when it is unable to distribute force in that way, for example if the force is just too strong for those chemical bonds, then the rock breaks apart, or melts, or whatever.

Harris: Now you have identified a subtle distinction here between living and nonliving things, because the rock is either able or unable to self-value, as you say, but a fish or a human seems to be able to make a kind of choice regarding its activities and interactions, and could possibly error in that choice even if the environment doesn't create too great a force upon it, such as was the case with the rock that shattered or melted.

Peterson: Exactly right. This is also a Nietzschean or Platonic observation, because living things rank higher on the continuum of being, on the standard-order of "power" or of what is meaningful. Namely that living things have access to a whole new category of facts which stuff like rocks have no access to. The rock has no choice but to be a direct consequent of whatever its environment throws at it, although even despite this it is still the case that the rock is valuing itself, namely that that which the rock is, a certain molecular composite of chemical bonds and structures with certain physical properties for example, is going to act and interact with the imposing environmental forces in a predeterminate way, and that way is precisely that way which maximizes the chance of the rock remaining what it is, but within the bounds of what is possible for the rock to do. A rock has no option to, say, shift its angle to deflect an incoming force, because a rock has no muscular structure to move itself, no bone structure against which to generate kinetic force in its muscles to create such movements, and no sensory apparatus and corresponding neurological systems to integrate incoming data from the environment to determine that it should move itself like that. But a fish or a human does have those systems, which means the fish and the human have access to a whole new realm of reality. And this access gives them an increased range of possible values, although somewhat ironically it doesn't mean that the fish or the human will survive longer than the rock will survive, in fact often it is the exact opposite.

Harris: So maybe living things are more contingent and fragile precisely because they have this newfound capacity for understanding their environment and changing their behavior accordingly?

Peterson: Well a living thing, ok any thing that has the subtle and highly complex inner structure able to for example possess eyes, a brain, muscles and bones, is necessarily going to be far more molecularly complex than is a rock, because the living thing needs to have all the lesser biological structures in place to even have eyes, muscles, etc. That involves DNA, and so many other things too. So it isn't that the fish or the human is necessarily less survivable than is a rock merely because the fish and human have greater access to truth, rather there is a correlative element here that isn't directly causal: namely, being able to have that greater access entails that a being is far more complex and conditional in its own 'materiality', to use your term, and therefore will have a lot more requirements that go along with maintaining and sustaining that materiality. But I think this goes hand in hand, and in a way evolution can be thought of as the process by which beings become so much more complex and conditional that they are required to "survive" in new and more demanding and precise ways than other things which are not as complex and conditional. A human has far more precise requirements to continue existing than for example does a rock, or does a hydrogen atom to use an even more extreme example.

Harris: I find this all quite fascinating. We seem to have combined our respective positions on "what is truth" into a larger purview, where not only is Darwinian selection nested inside realism, and realism is also nested inside a kind of selection principle too, but that this bi-conditional or dual structure is itself nested inside an even larger space, the space of the rank-ordering of truths with respect to a common principle of logic the you call self-valuing.

Peterson: I think this is the case. So we are both correct here. Morally speaking, we are realists that are always striving for a higher and more comprehensive picture of reality, so that means we both become more survivable and more exposed to new dangers, but all that is secondary; what is primary is that, the very fact that we are "always striving for a higher and more comprehensive picture of reality" is itself actually just a secondary expression of a more primary fact, namely that we are climbing further up the ladder of being.

Harris: So a proper philosophy would take all of this into account, and assign proper places to facts, and would always seek the larger purview of facts not only because that is going to make us have a greater change of survival, because sometimes it will also expose us to new dangers like the possibility of weaponizing a synthetic smallpox virus, but simply because that is exactly what it means for us to be us. Self-valuing requires that we keep pushing upward in this manner, expanding the sphere of our survivability and our mortality. This seems to explain how morality is so contentious and difficult to universalize, because every moral step, if your theory is correct, would be a step that both increases the moral "good" while also in the same way increasing the moral "bad", and morality itself is the attempt to reconcile these together.

Peterson: Yes, to reconcile them together but in a very special way: in a way that not only includes and incorporates both the good and the bad, and not only implicitly or explicitly organizes goods and bads relative to each other and relative to contingent environmental factors, but also in a way that corresponds to the very climb into the universal itself, our continuing subsumption of lesser facts to greater facts. And further, what I was saying before about rank-ordering certain facts within the totality of all facts, the standard by which this is done is not merely with regard to that totality or to the climb or fall within it, but is actually necessarily grounded in that being which is actually doing the rank-ordering. Because this brings being back to itself, in Heidegger's sense of man as "that being for which its own being is an issue", we see that any being capable of attaining this high space within the totality of facts, within truth, is going to still be self-valuing, and therefore will rank-order not only with respect to the facts and fact-ranges at its perception and disposal and the various 'objective' thresholds and comprehensivities of those facts or ranges, but more importantly or at least as importantly it is going to be doing this rank-ordering still based on what that being itself is, its own values and requirements for existing.

Haris: Damn, now you have blown my mind completely. I need to rethink everything. We should work together and change the course of philosophy!

Peterson: Yes I think we ought to do that, and we can do it.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1281
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:54 am

Someone once said something like, you should not expect different results if you continue doing the exact same thing over and over again.

I stopped getting married after three failed attempts.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:03 pm

Goddammit but I just fucking love this guy. Peterson I mean. Edit: Mil0 is great too.


 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:40 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:
Goddammit but I just fucking love this guy. Peterson I mean. Edit: Mil0 is great too.


Fantastic.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:46 pm

He explains exactly why I want Milo as press secretary.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:41 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
He explains exactly why I want Milo as press secretary.

He would undoubtedly be the best press secretary in history.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:43 pm

When someone like Peterson already exists and has millions of interested followers, you realize that someone like Zizek is already 100% irrelevant.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:50 pm

'Zek (kek) had value in bringing up a new vigor for theoretical psychology. But he never was a psychologist himself, he is rather autistic in fact - as it appears. He does not learn about human realities very well. Rather a matrix exists in his mind through which he wrings humanity and comes up with interesting sounding sentences, which spark thought in an intelligent human encountering this style for the first time.

Peterson is actually a kind of Socrates. I mean that in a good way.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times    

Back to top Go down
 
Philosophy in present times
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: