These are excellent admissions. — Thorongil

Just what planet are you from? You are a native English speaker right?

White people are largely invisible to themselves in a way that different toned ethenticities can never be. I don't think many white people consider themselves privileged because their view of themselves in aggregate is too entwined in the culture they dominate.
— Cavacava

Is this a virtue or a fault? — Bitter Crank

No. It's a privilege.

Privilege isn't an action done to someone by another, it's an aspect of social being, a meaning of states or actions present in society. In the context of the police, for example, this is defined in being of a racial groups associated with crime. Even if the police have no racist intentions, the mere fact of a society in which manifests (for various reasons), as association between race in crime defines the presence of other racial groups over this one. It's defined in the social situation of belonging to a race associated with crime, including in instances of just policing. (i.e. cops have no racist intentions, but people for that community are justly subject to police actions, as a result of acts of crime in that social context).

The question of privilege is one of describing a social relationship, not just pointing out some act of injustice. Many acts of injustice are a part of it, but sometimes, maybe even quite often, privilege is a feature of states and actions that are, for that moment, just or valuable. In these cases, it not question picking out some individual action, telling people to stop and then killing home for it. It's about a wider social context. The injustice and change being the circumstances which produce the disadvantage in the first place (e.g. remove poverty within a community, so they don't turn to crime, etc.).

But why is suffering "just" the nature of life? That's a cop out.

Exactly. Peterson and co. just treat the cause of suffering as being the fault of or caused by no one, or if anyone caused it it's the people who are being hurt by it caused it. Nope, there's no such thing as a prejudiced system wherein some people are given preference for reasons other than competency.

Vulcan, of course.

But why is suffering "just" the nature of life? That's a cop out. — Noble Dust

Because we don't control every bad thing that can happen to us, nor can we control it. Obviously.

Exactly. Peterson and co. just treat the cause of suffering as being the fault of or caused by no one, or if anyone caused it it's the people who are being hurt by it caused it. Nope, there's no such thing as a prejudiced system wherein some people are given preference for reasons other than competency. — MindForged

Well let's see... suffering. You love someone, they don't love you back, you get sick, you suffer pain, you get bored, there are diseases, illnesses, handicaps, there are accidents that can occur, you lose loved ones, etc. Need I go on? This has nothing to do with society, it's suffering that is intrinsic to the nature of existence.

Exactly. Peterson and co. just treat the cause of suffering as being the fault of or caused by no one, or if anyone caused it it's the people who are being hurt by it caused it. — MindForged

Where does "Peterson and co." say if anyone caused suffering, it's the people who are being hurt by it causing it?

I'm asking why life is suffering, if that is indeed the case. I think there's an argument to be made for the idea, whether or not it's correct, and that argument would presumably be important within the discussion, but Peterson doesn't seem to make any argument about why life is suffering.

Because we don't control every bad thing that can happen to us, nor can we control it. Obviously. — Agustino

See above.

I'm asking why life is suffering, if that is indeed the case. — Noble Dust

One explanation is provided in Genesis: Adam and Eve were expelled from the G of E for their disobedience, and because they were no longer innocent. Life went downhill very fast once we were expelled. Of course, if they hadn't been disobedient, we wouldn't exist.

Another explanation is provided by various: Life is unsatisfactory; happiness is not in the cards.

Yet another explanation is that people are neurotic: we can find ways of being miserable even when we have everything we need.

Hobbes pointed out that life can be nasty, brutish, and short.

Finally, we have limited capacity to make silk purses out of sows' ears. Many of the bad things that happen to us just can't be papered over. The truth that life often sucks shines forth from within the compost heaps of our existences.

The Garden of Eden seems to be the only explanation there; the other options are just observations or descriptions. The question is what the source of individual human suffering actually is. I think it's fundamentally not in our control, as Agu and Peterson say, but that's because developmental factors like parents, teachers, socio-economic status, etc., are not in our control initially. The question now is how personal autonomy is developed/attained. If someone is never given the tools to develop autonomy, then who has caused the suffering they experience because of a lack of autonomy, for instance? Are all individuals unequivocally responsible for their own actions 100% of the time, and thus for their own suffering, or no? This is where I think Peterson goes too far; or rather, doesn't consider the deeper issues there. Autonomy is achieved from a specific kind of conscious awareness of personhood, which is not something everyone develops fully, I don't think.

Buddhists claim that life is suffering because we are ignorant of our true nature. Emptiness is our true nature, so they claim, and because we are ignorant of this nature, or rather don't realize it, we suffer due essentially to grasping onto that which can't be grasped. Why can't anything be grasped? Because everything is empty.

The Garden of Eden seems to be the only explanation there; the other options are just observations of descriptions. — Noble Dust

The G of E story is the prime explanation of all our misfortunes, and since it is archetypal, everything else is going to seem like a footnote. That life is unsatisfactory or that we are neurotic is as foundational as the story of Adam's and Eve's expulsion from paradise. It only lacks the nicety of narrative form.

Bad things happen in life because we are fragile and nature is rough. We are neurotic -- slightly crazy -- and we create at least some of the unsatisfactory reality from which we suffer. Our fears and fantasies can lead us into very bad decisions which create suffering. The war on Iraq strikes me as neurotic on our part. We had been stabbed in the World Trade Center and somebody, by God, was going to pay dearly. It might have made more sense to attack Saudi Arabia, since most of the 9/11 terrorists had connections there. But, since when did crazy make good decisions?

developmental factors like parents, teachers, socio-economic status, etc., are not in our control initially. The question now is how personal autonomy is developed/attained. — Noble Dust

Yes, autonomy is an important issue, as is how we attain it. But autonomous individuals are as subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as any one else is.

The G of E story is the prime explanation of all our misfortunes, and since it is archetypal, everything else is going to seem like a footnote. That life is unsatisfactory or that we are neurotic is as foundational as the story of Adam's and Eve's expulsion from paradise. It only lacks the nicety of narrative form. — Bitter Crank

Those phrases don't "only" lack narrative form, they lack narrative form. There's a huge difference between an archetypal story that illustrates experience, and a simple observation that "life is unsatisfactory". Anyway, that's all I meant by mentioning that the Garden of Eden story was the only explanation that you offered.

Bad things happen in life because we are fragile and nature is rough. — Bitter Crank

I guess I'm engaging in this thread at all because I actually want to ask "why are we fragile?" and "why is nature rough?" I'm having a toddler moment. I'm not satisfied with these placations and admonishments about how "shit happens", etc.

we create at least some of the unsatisfactory reality from which we suffer. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. But that relates to the issue of autonomy/development. When we create our own suffering, are we doing it because of developmental lack, or does everyone do it, no matter how "developed" they are? What the fuck does it mean to be "developed"?

But autonomous individuals are as subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as any one else is. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the idea is that they're better equipped to handle the barrage. If that's so, then judgement of actions can't be universal.

Bad things happen in life because we are fragile and nature is rough. — Bitter Crank

There's a very simple empirical argument against this kind of apologism.

P1. Stress, great displeasure and depression are evolved responses.
P2. Stress, great displeasure and depression are very harmful to the survival of the individual.
P3. Humans evolved through a process of evolution through natural selection.

C1. From P1-3, if the natural state of humans was high levels of stress and depression we would either have died out, or e would have had to evolve ways in which they were not so harmful to our survival.
C2. It cannot be the case that states which cause high levels of stress and depression are the 'natural' state for humans.

Of course if you want to discard an entire planet's worth of empirical evidence in favour of some black magic mumbo-jumbo designed to subjugate the uncritical masses, then carry on, I apologise for the interruption.

P1. Stress, great displeasure and depression are evolved responses. — Pseudonym

So what?

P2. Stress, great displeasure and depression are very harmful to the survival of the individual. — Pseudonym

So what?

P3. Humans evolved through a process of evolution through natural selection. — Pseudonym

So what?

C1. From P1-3, if the natural state of humans was high levels of stress and depression we would either have died out, or e would have had to evolve ways in which they were not so harmful to our survival. — Pseudonym

What does natural mean here, in relation to evolution?

C2. It cannot be the case that states which cause high levels of stress and depression are the 'natural' state for humans. — Pseudonym

So what is the "natural" state?

So what? — Noble Dust

Its a logical argument disputing the idea that we've 'always' struggled against the cruelty of nature and 'always' will, there is no "so".

So what is the "natural" state? — Noble Dust

The state in which we evolved, hunter-gatherers.

Its a logical argument disputing the idea that we've 'always' struggled against the cruelty of nature and 'always' will, there is no "so". — Pseudonym

Yeah I know; so what?

The state in which we evolved, hunter-gatherers. — Pseudonym

So what? Hunting and gathering for what purpose? To promulgate more hunter gathers, to promulgate more hunter gathers? So what? They all die.

I don't understand what you mean by "so what?". One could reply "so what?" to every proposition. Is there some reason you've singled out my propositions for such treatment?

I guess I'm engaging in this thread at all because I actually want to ask "why are we fragile?" and "why is nature rough?" I'm having a toddler moment. I'm not satisfied with these placations and admonishments about how "shit happens", etc. — Noble Dust

Much of individual life is 'fragile'. Toughness and resistance to nature's roughness is found in groups more than individuals. It isn't just us. Everybody in the animal kingdom can't be the top-predator, can't be extremely resistant to being eaten, can't be impervious to every run-of-the-mill threat that comes along. We may be strong and really tough, but some little virus comes along and cuts us off at the knees. All of us species have survived because we reproduced abundantly enough to keep ourselves in business over the hundreds of millions of years we have been around, in one form or another.

Monarch butterflies can't be at once light, beautiful, and strong enough to migrate many hundreds of miles YET be armored enough to not be eaten.

Some people think we are "no longer animals". We transcended all of that stuff by becoming very smart, and having language, and philosophy, and all that stuff. We certainly are an odd animal in our specialization.

Agreed. But that relates to the issue of autonomy/development. When we create our own suffering, are we doing it because of developmental lack, or does everyone do it, no matter how "developed" they are? What the fuck does it mean to be "developed"? — Noble Dust

We are indisputably animals, and "no longer animals as such". The rock bottom core of our "human problem" is that we are animals who imagine that we have transcended our animal nature. Tech, bio, and mens don't always jive. Most of us spend at least some of our time in a fantasy world. I'm not knocking it--it's a necessary retreat from life-as-we-know-it. But then, in the middle of our happy fantasy, we get rudely jerked back into reality.

It's such a pain in the neck.

I just meant to highlight that the promulgation of hunter-gathers is meaningless if there's no telos that gives promulgation a purpose beyond itself. Sorry if I was uncharitable.

But if you consider uncharitability to be undesirable, then promulgation can't be your main motive.

I hear this kind of argument so often and yet have always failed to understand it properly. I have little hope that an Internet forum is going to break decades of mystery for me, but on the off-chance - what do you mean by "meaning/purpose"?

It always seems when people use these terms against naturalism they seem to be looking for something other than happiness (on the grounds that we can just ask "well, why persue happiness?"), but when we find that something (let's call it X, but quite frankly it's almost always God) it seems inexplicably we can no longer ask "why persue X?".

I hear this kind of argument so often and yet have always failed to understand it properly. I have little hope that an Internet forum is going to break decades of mystery for me, but on the off-chance - what do you mean by "meaning/purpose"? — Pseudonym

A meaning or a purpose is inherent to any argument, fundamentally. So you can't even make whatever argument you're trying to make here without one. Meaning or purpose is inherent, but not always acknowledged.

something other than happiness — Pseudonym

Now, that's actually interesting. I've thought for awhile now that I and others with similar views don't actually want "happiness". But, what might we want, other than happiness? Is there something else to desire, other than happiness?

. So you can't even make whatever argument you're trying to make here without one. Meaning or purpose is inherent, but not always acknowledged. — Noble Dust

Yes, I'm making the argument here because it makes me happy to clarify things and arguing with intelligent people is one way to do that.

I could construct an evolutionary story to explain why clarifying ideas is likely to make me happy - clearer ideas are more likely to lead to innovations which could increase the chances of my tribe surviving in a changing environment. Having an evolutionary story helps to reassure me that the happiness I could get from this objective is the best, and there isn't greater happiness to be had from a different set of objectives.

I seek this reassurance because it makes me happy to know that my objectives are likely to provide me with significant happiness in the long term. Again, the story I can use to explain this is that some objectives require periods of unhappiness to achieve them, in evolutionary terms, it makes sense to assign at least some effort to checking that there is likely to be some reward at the end of the process.

But, what might we want, other than happiness? Is there something else to desire, other than happiness? — Noble Dust

Well exactly. If you don't even have an alternative, what is it that makes you think happiness isn't it?

So evolutionarily obtained happiness is your meaning or purpose? Within your moral life, which will end in your death?

Well exactly. If you don't even have an alternative, what is it that makes you think happiness isn't it? — Pseudonym

I didn't say I don't have an alternative.

So evolutionarily obtained happiness is your meaning or purpose? — Noble Dust

Yes.

I didn't say I don't have an alternative. — Noble Dust

I'd be interested to hear what it is (unless it's God, I've heard that one already).

Yes. — Pseudonym

What good is an evolutionarily obtained happiness if it ends at around 70 years old? Who gives a fuck?

unless it's God — Pseudonym

Nvm then.

What good is an evolutionarily obtained happiness if it ends at around 70 years old? Who gives a fuck? — Noble Dust

What good is happiness if it doesn't end? It's the fact that we're going to die that makes it worth doing anything. If we were to carry on eternally, what would be the point in doing anything, you'd always be able to do everything an infinite number of times anyway, there'd be no point in 'now' at all.

What good is happiness if it doesn't end? — Pseudonym

>:O It's a fucking scam.



That's the classic mortal view of eternity; eternity viewed through a mortal lens; "heaven would get boring!" 6-year-olds understand that, and ask that question.

An actual eternity might very well be something else entirely (to begin with, onotologically, a realiy that exists outside of time, where "boring", for instance, would have no meaning). It requires an intuition and an imagination to consider the possibility.

But we're not talking about a 'possibility'. The 'possibility' exists that after my life persuing evolutionarily derived happiness I somehow spend an eternity in bliss. That would be lovely. I don't see what that's got to do with meaning or purpose. Both 'meaning', and particularly, 'purpose' suggest their opposites exist. If your 'purpose' is an eternity of bliss then how do you know you're not going to get that anyway? How do you know that any particular set of activities are going to bring about that objective?

So now, when we get to religion, we're no longer talking about a 'possibility' requiring 'imagination'. We're talking about an actual human being claiming to know what people 'should' do in order to achieve this bliss. Doesn't sound very imaginative to me, sounds pretty determined.

But we're not talking about a 'possibility'. — Pseudonym

I was, just then.

The 'possibility' exists that after my life persuing evolutionarily derived happiness I somehow spend an eternity in bliss. That would be lovely. I don't see what that's got to do with meaning or purpose. — Pseudonym

You're confusing the points of my argument. Meaning and purpose only obtain teleologically; otherwise it's just a nihilistic sham.

So now, when we get to religion, we're no longer talking about a 'possibility' requiring 'imagination'. We're talking about an actual human being claiming to know what people 'should' do in order to achieve this bliss. Doesn't sound very imaginative to me, sounds pretty determined. — Pseudonym

I'm not making those claims; sounds like you're assuming I'm "religious", whatever that means to you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you live your life assuming there's no afterlife, and then come to find that you do have a "heavenly" afterlife awaiting you, then obviously I would be as happy as you would be, for you. And presumably, I would have the same life. We would be buddies in heaven. I'm hopeful this is the case. That's both a sarcastic and sincere comment at the same time.