It's all a bit sad, really. As are his defenders. — Banno

But what is really sad is that so many people would rather (selfishly) perpetuate lies than face the truth.

This is exactly it, and tragically these young people don't have the resources to place him in context as an intellectual. There is nothing there. Even in the domain of psychology this guy is a joke. The amount of revolutionary research and progress in psychology, in the last 20 years alone, is breathtaking. Peterson exemplifies and embodies none of it. He is still trying to preach the moth-eaten narrative that will power is the agent of human psychological salvation. We know this is nonsense, many other factors are at work. Like I accurately said, he's a conformist and a reactionary. But what is most tragic is that he's not turning out thinkers, he's creating more like himself, those who mindlessly validate the status quo. It should be noted, this is the direct opposite of what it means to be a thinker. — JerseyFlight

Your whole argument from the OP onwards is indistinguishable from biased naïve opinion, which you are quite welcome to of course; but it is not philosophy.

Lol .. its your OP!!

Your argument seems to take the form:

Some of Peterson's statements are akin to nihilism
Therefore Peterson is a nihilist
Nihilism is bad
Therefore Peterson is bad.

So what? This sort of argument could be applied to any original thinker who thinks outside the (stultifying) norm.

Marx's statement is already a fact. Social necessity has rendered the restructuring of private property absolutely imperative in order to meet the needs of society. — JerseyFlight

Really? Perhaps you could compare your OP with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

↪A Seagull For you, repeatedly asserting "all truths are descriptions" without any suporting argument counts as philosophical thinking? — Banno

Of course.

Can someone quote something from Asif that had any sort of philosophical thinking going on? — creativesoul

"As I have already stated above all truths are descriptions. And some descriptions are false.
The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true."

Also in his debates with Tim Wood, my sympathies are entirely with Asif, as Tim would post some absurd non-sequitors that were little short of ad hominems.

This has serious consequences when it comes to the reality of class oppression. Here the analysis takes us into tragic places, systemic poverty has a negative outcome on the positive development of our species. When we begin to analyze this in terms of class, we learn that those who should be most helping the species, are often adding to their oppression. — JerseyFlight

While I mostly agree with your opening paragraph, this paragraph is problematic. What I have learnt ios that if you want to mix it with the 'intellectuals, you need to be rigorous.. and it is not so hard for a serious thinker. But this paragraph makes broad generalisations and sweeping conclusions that are, presumably, based on your own experiences of a specific locality and culture. It is not philosophical.

I am suggesting you read his writings. And I want to add, read the cartesian doubt. — Caldwell

well then I suggest you come up with your own arguments, rather than arguing by proxy.

I can't -- not to you. Doubting is a first-person account. You can do meditation on what doubt is. But don't lay down step by step proof of doubt. — Caldwell

Well then it is probably not true.

Wittgenstein did try to explain our doubting. — Caldwell

Really? So what?

Doubting is innate. — Caldwell

Really? Prove it!

How did doubt begin? What are its origins? — TheMadFool

Certainty is the default conclusion. Doubt began with greater intelligence and the exploration of alternative possibilities.

My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored. — Hippyhead

Life is a game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Life is full of pain, joy, happiness and despair.

Suffering only occurs when a person opts out of playing the game.

I take your reluctance to debate in plain English as a consequence of your fear that your smug illusion of correctness might deflate.

2.8k

↪A Seagull Go ahead and argue in bad faith, that makes you look bad, not me. — Pfhorrest

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. — A SeagullAnd how might you do that? You take for granted your concepts, not realizing that at different times and places people have held different concepts on how the world works and what it is.

I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others. — A SeagullTo this, Nazi Germany. — tim wood

Do you have a point? If so what is it?

Or if you have a non-rhetorical question, I might try to answer it.

PS It is well known in debating circles that the first person to brink up Nazi Germany is the loser.

↪A Seagull I’m not going to repeat something you can just scroll up and read. — Pfhorrest

I can't find anything remotely relevant, so I will just have to take your answer to the previous question as a 'no'.

Yes. Have you not been following the rest of the thread? — Pfhorrest

not really. What is your method?

Being 'correct' is also subjective, at least in matters to do with the real world — A Seagull
That's just your subjective opinion. (But that doesn't mean it can't be incorrect). — Pfhorrest

What do you mean by 'correct'? Is it a useful term? Do you have some objective process by which correctness can be determined or evaluated?

If you don't, then correctness is entirely subjective and delusional; its only benefit is to bring a degree of personal and smug satisfaction.

Pain is obligatory, suffering is optional.

To me Philosophy is purely about Describing the world and experience to understand both. — Asif

Totally agree. The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. Only when that is achieved can one seek to improve the world. Too often people go straight to morality and say 'you should do this, you shouldn't do that' without any clear understanding of what they are talking about.

The "proof" for a philosophical assertion is does it describe something you recognise as accurate or plausible? And this judgement is always Subjective. — Asif

I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others.

I think it may be useful for this topic to look at what philosophy is not.

Here are some suggestions:

Philosophy is not the devotional following of what philosophers past have declared to be philosophy, whether they be Plato, Aristotle or Kant.

It is not what has been written about philosophy.

It is not about playing with words to arrive at some banal (or absurd) conclusion. e.g. A is B, B s C, therefore A is C.

It is not about creating some fictional world that has but little relevance to the real world.

That is a subjective opinion. — A Seagull
That doesn't mean it can't be correct. — Pfhorrest

Being 'correct' is also subjective, at least in matters to do with the real world; being 'correct' in axiomatic systems such as mathematics is different as theorems can be proven within the system.

but I would be really interested to know what you think about it — Congau

Why? What are you trying to achieve? Do you want to understand the relationship between humans and other animals or do you just want to arrive at some trite conclusion or perhaps a banal justification for your previously held views?

If you are wanting to understand the relationship between humans and animals, you would do well to realise that cows are your cousins, albeit distant ones.

The existence of disagreement doesn’t make something subjective. — Pfhorrest

That is a subjective opinion.

I would rather hope you could manage more than that one-liner. — Congau

I like one liners.

observed that in Flatland, digestive systems could be a problem. — tim wood

There are some animals for whom the mouth and anus are the same orifice.

The idea of omnipotence is a joke.

You are a very nice person! — Hippyhead

Lol. Not really!! I just try top be honest. :)

As for your deep thinking, the proof is in the pudding..... of your future posts.

Killing a human being means killing a unique life, a unique consciousness and unique hopes and dreams. An animal seems quite similar to other animals of its species and although you think your dog has a unique personality, you must admit it is not that different from other dogs. Animals hardly have any complex consciousness of their own existence, and as to hopes and dreams the cow is probably content to eat juicy grass in the same green field tomorrow, and your dog probably has no other ambitions than falling asleep on your couch.
I could be wrong about all this, — Congau

Yes you are, it is all a made-up story in your head.

I type on the forum to persuade myself I am a deep thinker. That's my story about myself that I am telling myself. — Hippyhead

Well done! :) We need more deep thinkers..

I think a lot of philosophers had personal agendas that underpinned the structure of their philosophies. For some it was religious, or as you point out for Plato it was political, others have social agendas (Marx) etc etc. The underlying motive for Kant was to refute Hume.

I think one has to realise that the ancient philosophers were grasping at ideas out of virtually nothing, like Thales' 'all is water' and Plato's forms, they are starting points for the development of further ideas. To consider that they are somehow sacrosanct or perfect is ridiculous.

I also learned that people who like to discuss philosophy love to turn any conversation into a different conversation that they’re already very practiced at having — Avery

lol

Following your request to return to the OP...

Please help me identify this belief system. — Avery

Why do you want your belief system to be 'identified'? Presumably because you want to integrate your ideas with other pre-specified ideas on the topic....

But maybe this is not possible. As has been discussed in other threads, mainstream/academic philosophy is incredibly close-minded. Of course they will try to classify and belittle ideas which do not fit in with the mainstream paradigms.

Perhaps you are better to develop the ideas for yourself; though that can be a lonely, albeit fulfilling, road to travel.

That said I am mostly in agreement with you. And for those who wo8uld try to force-fit such ideas into the popular framework of morality, I would argue that the whole idea of morality as an essential foundation to ethics is one that is fatally flawed.

If you are trying to contribute to philosophy however, be warned. In my experience, academic philosophy is an old and set in its ways institution. And like any old institution, it has its red tape, and a surprisingly closed mindedness. — Philosophim

That was my experience too.

The old codgers don't seem to realise that philosophy is a paradigm and that academic philosophy is long overdue for a paradigm shift.

It's confusions like this that have caused me to stop using the word "moral" altogether in most speech — Avery
Yes, I can sympathise with that, but I think if one were to avoid using words whose definition consisted of loose, fuzzy collections of properties one would quickly run out of words! — Isaac

Yes and that would be a god thing; people would start discussing and thinking about what is real rather than getting lost in fantasy.

The problem with Kant is that he does not make those assumptions explicit, nor does he make his arguments clear. — A Seagull
What assumptions does Kant not make explicit? — David Mo

What assumptions does Kant make that are explicit?

I don't think so. Between a nonsense and a reasonable indication, there's a lot of space. — David Mo

People didn't used to think that arguments for a flat earth was nonsense it was obvious the Earth was flat.

Your argument is solely one of popular agreement, (or at least a lack of dissension), It is not in any way a rational argument.

It is more akin to a religious argument... eg : read these sacred scriptures ( of Kant), believe them and you will be enlightened.

Philosophy is based on assumptions ( without assumptions one cannot say anything about anything). The problem with Kant is that he does not make those assumptions explicit, nor does he make his arguments clear. The result is not so much philosophy as a sub-branch of philosophy.

"Proof" in a broad sense. — David Mo

Well then your proof belongs to the same category as the proof that the Earth is flat.

Lol