Jordan Peterson on the problem of morality

[Nilsi]

I don't know how people call this guy "intellectually bankrupt" with a straight face.

This presentation on Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and the "Death of God" is absolutely pristine and elegantly lays out one of the hardest problems in contemporary thought.

[UnbornTao]

Check out something that is real, like Krishnamurti.

[Nilsi]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Check out something that is real, like Krishnamurti.

Did you even listen to the damn talk?

I've actually studied Krishnamurti quite extensively - I even had a picture of him on my wall at one point-, but that's hardly a viable philosophy to build your life on.

If I have an overabundance of anything, it certainly is consciousness and connectedness to reality, so I'm good on that front.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Nilsi

[Devin]

         I disagree, morality is from seeing how even on an individual level one benefits from the greater good for all, and suffers individually if the greater good is neglected.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Devin

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Devin said:

         I disagree, morality is from seeing how even on an individual level one benefits from the greater good for all, and suffers individually even if the greater good is neglected.

Not congruent with my experience.

It's as easy to justify my self-interest as noble and good, as it is to justify subordinating my interest to some collective ideal.

And life gets way better the more you can just look the other way when you externalize harm. 

Never did I ever feel my connection to reality and my awareness of myself suffer from doing something society calls "immoral."

How's that for a red pill?

Edited March 2, 2023 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

20 minutes ago, Devin said:

         I disagree, morality is from seeing how even on an individual level one benefits from the greater good for all, and suffers individually if the greater good is neglected.

You don't even have the balls to go out there and really put your hypothesis to test - you're just repeating some nonsense that society has indoctrinated you with.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Nilsi

[Devin]

25 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Not congruent with my experience.

It's as easy to justify my self-interest as noble and good, as it is to justify subordinating my interest to some collective ideal.

And life gets way better the more you can just look the other way when you externalize harm. 

Never did I ever feel my connection to reality and my awareness of myself suffer from doing something society calls "immoral."

How's that for a red pill?

      I don't mean everyone realizes it on their own, most never do, only a few through history have; Moses, King Solomon, Buddha, Socrates, Aurelias, Khant, Locke, Ghandi, Mandela.

       You have felt the connection, it's perfectly inline with intuition.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Devin

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Devin said:

      I don't mean everyone realizes it on their own, most never do, only a few through history have; Moses, King Solomon, Buddha, Socrates, Aurelias, Khant, Locke, Ghandi, Mandela.

       You have felt the connection, it's perfectly inline with intuition.

Exactly! so what makes you so sure then, that what they are saying is valid, given that there is no rational argument for it whatsoever?

Now we're back to religion and appeals to some supposed transcendent values... 

[Devin]

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Exactly! so what makes you so sure then, that what they are saying is valid, given that there is no rational argument for it whatsoever?

Now we're back to religion and appeals to some supposed transcendent values... 

      It is rational, take Dostoyevsky's murder story for example; You get away with murder, but a woman is murdered, that has wider repercussions, it instills fear in others, which say manifests to distrust for others and fear in general to do things; is a world of scared untrusting people better for you individually compared to a relaxed world of trust?

      For the masses we have laws and punishments, no different than religion effectively, the masses "fear God" in your theory(they don't actually in reality), in our theory they fear legal recourse. In your theory the Clergy "Interpret" God's word, meaning they create the law, In my theory the most persuasive 'leader' leads and creates the law.

     In my theory the leader or collective leaders in a Republic, should usually be relatively very intelligent, because..... to become the leader of the group usually takes intelligence relative to the group. In your theory Clergy are chosen by what? The pope is chosen by a smoke signal.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

     This also goes beyond law as well, the "intelligent leaders" will persuade the followers to behave "morally" as well; respect, manners, helping others, honesty, .......

Edited March 2, 2023 by Devin

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Devin said:

      It is rational, take Dostoyevsky's murder story for example; You get away with murder, but a woman is murdered, that has wider repercussions, it instills fear in others, which say manifests to distrust for others and fear in general to do things; is a world of scared untrusting people better for you individually compared to a relaxed world of trust?

      For the masses we have laws and punishments, no different than religion effectively, the masses "fear God" in your theory(they don't actually in reality), in our theory they fear legal recourse. In your theory the Clergy "Interpret" God's word, meaning they create the law, In my theory the most persuasive 'leader' leads and creates the law.

     In my theory the leader or collective leaders in a Republic, should usually be relatively very intelligent, because..... to become the leader of the group usually takes intelligence relative to the group. In your theory Clergy are chosen by what? The pope is chosen by a smoke signal.

Those are just fantasies. The coin hasn't dropped yet, but I don't blame you - took me quite some time to start fathoming how twisted moral conventions really are; a rather uncanny Realisation, I can tell you.

[Devin]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

 how twisted moral conventions really are

        I'm saying moral "conventions" are manmade, they're not static. What difference do you believe there is in 'God Morality' and "Moral conventions"? They're the same, 'God  Morality' is "interpreted" by men, it's "twisted" by men in the same exact way, there's zero difference, you see it all over over and over, Constantine created modern Christianity, a Roman Emperor.

[Devin]

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Devin