/lit/ - Literature

>>10407685
>My problem is that there are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct
Everything in here is wrong.

>>10407685
>My problem is that there are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles.

>>10407713
>>10407720
Sorry for being too declarative. I should have said my problem is that there are to me only two main conceptions of human ethics that are important in how I think about the world, and they are at opposite poles. Sorry for all the bad wording, mistakes and bluntness but I haven't written in long while and I tend to attempt a bit of grandness when being sincere because it gives me the ability to retract the fact that I was being serious. Again, the two conceptions of human ethics are the most important to me and to most of his followers I'd suppose - though maybe that's too presumptuous, too.

>>10407731
why don’t you just read actual philosophy and stop listening to Kermit for a while anon?

>>10407733
memes aside he's actually a very thought provoking professor.

>>10407741
He’s right tbqf. There’s a super rich history of ethics and their development out there and your understanding of it will greatly benefit from doing a little background reading beyond JBP.

>>10407733
I do, and it's the reason I'm interested in these questions, because I think it's important for me, especially how I think politically. I respect Peterson and his followers here and it's them that I'm addressing, not Peterson's video's necessarily - though his thoughts on the individual and humanism has peaked my interest in this subject.

I only use Peterson to catch the attention of the knowledgeable posters who'd help me. I'm sorry I'm not ironic enough to get you all to hold me higher in your regard. I'd like to just have conversations with the community again because I haven't tried in a while to be sincere.

Believe it or not, this is the closest I come to telling the truth as Peterson says is the best.

>>10407755
Fair enough. It's never good to put yourself in a bubble of one way of looking at things.

Forsure read more before presenting such a shitty concern predicated on such a shitty dichotomy

>>10407801
Shitty concern? That if I were to hold a position of power and was to defend my humanism it would require doing away with my concern for individuals? It is a shitty dichotomy of ethics, you're right there, but I'd like to hear your method of saving one without giving in to the other. I'm sure you could declare whatever you wanted a spook and go back to sucking yourself off, but I'm actually looking for discussion.

---

Pathetic /lit/tles. Come and play in my garden. The statues I'll take you too may even come to life.

>>10407763
Read Guenon and Evola. Peterson wouldn't dare to mention them.

>>10407831
Stop flailing it just looks worse

>>10407831
I'm gonna pasta this in the near future

Literally the stupid man's smart person.

He makes nerds feel important by implicating them in some cosmic struggle for truth and justice.

>Gotta unlock the secrets of civilization and fight the demonic postmodernists! Just like my videogamessss

>>10407685
>there are only two conceptions of human ethics

>>10408080
peterson has some good things to add, mostly regarding group cognition dynamics or clinical observations regarding iterated behavior

hes started to go full retard in defense of his patreon though. e.g. specifying intelligence is completely genetic but then denying racial differences

moreso his fans are mostly dumb af and attach to narratives

>>10407741
I got a lot out of his lectures because I do have some philosophy background, but I think for normies the information he presents is essentially useless, because they'll inevitably project their own ill thought-out ideas onto what he's saying.

For instance, when he sais "treat your kids in such a way that you like them", it works well enough for a well-adjusted individual, but if you're a self-centered, narcissistic asshole it's a license to project your own goals onto your children, and the "sort yourself out"-meme can also turn into a pathology really quickly if you don't understand what the purpose of that sorting is, and where you might want to stop and allow the positive side of chaos to enter into your life and use it to transform the structure you have built.

>>10407914
crisis is ok as a short introduction but here is a superior book reporting in

>>10408098
memerson aside, chaos will always creep in whatever you do

>>10407685
>One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community - which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit if necessary.

These two are not in contradiction.
Utilitarians will kill 10,000 people in order to save 10,001 BECAUSE that one person has major intrinsic value. If you love individuals and their happiness, you want want there to be more individuals and happiness. Sacrifices have to be made in particular cases but that thing that you value increases on net.

>>10408103
and if you're a pathological 'sort yourself out'-fag you'll simply push it out by force instead of asking yourself what it might represent, how you might need to re-adjust your conception of the walled garden.

>>10408104
there is no escaping utility functions though. I have argued countless idiots on this

you might have a different utility function (god is great and commands me to not decide thus letting everyone die) but it is a utility scheme

utilitarians fail because of retarded tabula rasa bullshit and the inability of retards to integrate nash/pareto formulas into their schemes

>>10408113
>utilitarians fail because of retarded tabula rasa bullshit and the inability of retards to integrate nash/pareto formulas into their schemes

Which utilitarians are you talking about?

>>10408108
chaos represents nothing by definition

>>10408113
was he just a moral utility monster?

>>10408116
all of them

no one mentions in iterated violence scenarios that violence is genetic. fucking great. try playing a non tit for tat strategy ith arabs and guess the outcome.

or saving the life of a murderer

policy fags cant put their head on straight. neither can deontologists

the entire field is full of half baked idiots

>>10408119
he a semite. its endemic for them

>>10407831
You have realised that humanism and individualism are pipe dream memes that are easy to pay lip service to as an impotent prole but fall about as soon as shit gets real.

What dichotomy is left? Do away with your humanism.

>>10408117
>t. logical positivist

Chaos is the totality of being which you have yet comprehend. Chaos is a 'real' entity in that you can never fully comprehend being. In realizing that you, as a limited being can never own the truth, any truth, that through cognition all knowledge is transformed, that it remains the same precisely in changing according to its own rules, you no longer need to hold on to any one belief as though the world would fall apart if you allowed it to change.

Sometimes when I hear shit like this I don't even know where to begin. Maybe it would work out best if I take this all the way back to the question of what exactly do ethics and morality try to accomplish. It should perhaps seem suspicious that most moral and ethical theories posit some absolute ideal to which your freedom to act meets with restrictions and imperatives. If we choose the absolute ideal of happiness certain behavioral prospects apply and if we choose the absolute ideal of individualism the same rings true. But what, specifically, makes you metaphysically beholden to whatever absolute ideal? It occurs to me that a common misconception has to do with the notion that morality and ethics has an innate metaphysical kind of status. i.e. upholding the absolute ideal makes you good almost as though the ideal itself had the power to render you as such. Of course this should sound preposterous. A better way of looking at morality and ethics might arise from viewing it as a human invention instead of some kind of access route to metaphysical justification. As a human invention, what can morality and ethics hope to attain you might ask? I would venture that from an evolutionary perspective humanity's capacity to function as a group has often abetted its survival and in order to function as a group the community requires certain assurances from individuals that they will not sabotage the whole for the short term gain of an individual. Conversely, the survival of the species sometimes comes down to the capacities of individuals to act outside of the group in a self interested way. Morality and ethics tends to have different modalities to preserve both of these features. It has fallen to religion and specifically the Christian religion in the west to perpetrate group think under the auspices of morality and ethics. Its moral/ethical invention has involved the innovation of making a 'reputation of yourself to yourself'. In other words, within the framework of religion an individual has an occlusion of his capacities as such because he or she has sublated to an absolute ideal his or her complex of behaviors. The arbiters of the religion do not need to monitor the reputation of the members of its group because they do so themselves through the innovation of morality. (This is why when I hear that the Christian church holds the individual to be sacrosanct I have to laugh.) What the proprietors of group think have occluded you to has to do with the notion that you can act in your own interest and what lies at steak has nothing to do with some metaphysical absolute ideal, but merely your reputation. In a world where people exchange respect to one another like its an economic currency it behooves one to have a currency backed by an absolute value, but this method relies on occlusion.

>>10408357
cont.
It would allegedly diminish anyones reputation within a group to admit to their capacities to act as an individual outside of the order or morality and ethics devised by the group, but of course it is more honest than the alternative.

/lit/
Books & Literature

>>10408373
this is a catholic board

>>10407685
peterson is fine as an entry level youtube philosopher to activate your almonds if youre 19 but the whole cult of petersonand way he seems to think hes like some modern day socrates is just awful. He has some decent ideas (who doesnt) but he completely fails in other important areas and the way he wont even address certain questions shows he knows he fails in these areas but is too cowardly to risk his comfy professorship and patreon shekels by addressing them. Much like anyone, however, listen to them and take the good points but dont blithely agree with everything they say.

>>10408376
So stop posting Scandinavian-Canadian protestant shit.

>>10407685
>the question "What would Peterson do?" comes to me more and more

your first mistake

>there are only two conceptions of human ethics

your second mistake

>>10408080
looool thisthisthis

>>10408080
wtf is that picture? is that real?

>>10408080
Sorry you're trapped in modern consumer mindset and afraid of sincerity and meaning.
You're probably what he's talking about. "Truth, justice? Pssh too corny." That's the postmodern mindset

>>10408080
imagine being famous and having this kind of fans

i'd rather stay welfarian and be discovered postmorterio femme

I've been thinking about Peterson's philosophy and how moral-centric it is.
He genuinely tells people that their actions determine their position in life but to me this seems incomplete.
Can he really believe that life is all strategy and that everything can be mitigated through proper action?
To me what seems to be missing in his philosophy is a vital appreciation for aesthetics.
Which is odd because he often talks about the mystery of music and art, but for some reason when it comes to his general sense of meaning, it's ALL centered around the moral/immoral as a motivating principal.
I've listened to hours of Peterson and I've never heard him speak on the MOTIVATING influence of aesthetic experiences and how they can be much more powerful than morality.
And in conjunction with this, how being the subject of another's aesthetic experience can be completely independent of any moral framework.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10408080
I actually like Jordan Peterson a bit, but this is so true lol

>>10409220
kys senpai

>>10407933
We will take your aesthetic appreciation under concern in due course, but, as to now, I'd like you to see such vigorous, though indeed weak, flailing as the proper method in which a horse is reigned. We thank you for your concern in these related matters.

>>10407945
Please fix our mistakes. We make too many when we're tired. But, thank you. We're honoured.

>>10408080
He also speaks to many about why they blindly follow meme political attitudes. Your opinion here is shows only that you are a conduit, a flesh covered emptiness that information flows through without consideration. We wish to console you on your realisation that even insults cannot originate from your void. Your embodiment of the trajectory of current Western society would almost be noble if you attempted to be more humble.

>>10408085
Already stated that this indeed was a mistaken wording. We are not surprised though that a /lit/tle failed to read much farther. Sad.

>>10408104
We believe you may not understand the definition of sacrosanct. Your defence of making a sacrifice cannot be done if you believe any sacrifice to be unjust.

>>10408140
We have as of yet to acquire a humanism. But we believe it to be a worthy end as we can see from this mountaintop. The desert you speak of is far too dusty and hot to live in and we believe there is much better company involved in rock climbing expeditions. We will take your view into consideration, but please do go back to your shallow pool.

>>10408357
We believe your cynicism to be amusing and your description of the use of appearances to hold an absolute value in itself, though of a detestable quality in a manner similar to some fine cheese.
>>10408365
Honesty as a policy is a bureaucratic nightmare, if we say so ourselves.

>>10408383
We require you to at least read posts if not books.

>>10409083
We shall take your thoughts into consideration when this becomes the subject of conversation. Thank you for participating.

>>10407685
>My problem is that there are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community - which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit if necessary.

The postmodernists and sjws want to destroy the logos itself, they are pure evil. They want to reduce humanity to an homogenous brown mass devoid of all identity. To them, there is no truth, no individuals, only power relationships devoid of all meaning. Soon, everyone will be equal, that is, equally subject to state control and indoctrination. To defeat them, we must recur to extraordinary and superhuman measures. This is War, whiteman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjGDnX4VZBA

>>10409292 >>10409292 >>10409292>>

Not the people you replied to, but who is 'we'?
Also, you seem to reduce Christianity to individualism as ethics (as if even individualism itself is a homogeneous set of propositions) and place anything outside of Christianity, as you understand it, within the confines of collectivism. What?

I've nothing against Peterson, I quite enjoy some of his lectures, event though his pathos is his Achilles heel, as he tends to be pathetic sometimes (to his own admission), but you might want to lay off youtube for a while and read the Bible along with the thousands of years of theological and apologetic tradition that surrounds it. You might want to consider studying ethics even at a sophomoric level, just so you can map out some useful categories when talking about it.

>>>10409326
Next logical step from Peterson is Esoteric Hitlerism. Read Francis Parker Yockey, Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano

>>10407685
Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

Discuss an actual written work, or get the fuck out.

Reported and saged.

>>10409344
We believe you have aptly named the division that is currently important to us and that you fail to address what we find to be important seriously. That we find more information and different accounts seems to be a fine task to complete, but we seek discussion rather than directions to the library.

Does the Church deem the individual to be sacrosanct, and how would a member of the Church deal with a position of authority in which it becomes necessary to defend its existence? Are religious leaders and humanist politicians capable of doing their job without sacrificing one sacrosanct individual? Or does maintaining a good society require one to shrug and apply logic to moral and ethical questions?

What say you? Did you not read Crime and Punishment and think that if only he had of committed the crime for some higher cause he would have been justified?

>>10409422
Crime and Punishment was within our first post, and that you missed its importance only shows your ignorance and ineptness at reading. Thank you for pointing out the hidden centrality of my provocation. You are an asset to the community.

>>10409489
Yeah, C&P really looks to be the focus of this "debate."

Take your TedX talk level thinker and fuck off.

>>10409292
You communicate just like my younger brother when he was 14, except you're trying a lot harder. Unless this is interspersed with bait, but I have a feeling you're new to this board like every other Petersonfag.

>>10409489
>the hidden centrality of my provocation.
lol you're actually bad at writing, don't try again next time. In fact could you use a tripcode so I can filter it because you have consistently posted some of the most obnoxious replies I've seen in months. You are completely unaware of how much you don't know and how obvious it is.

>>10409394
he isnt going to take the step because he believes the holocaust is real. and on top of that, he believes it isnt justified, even though he understands that the kikes are bolsheviks

Fair

I think Peterson has some kind of social problem, some inability to get along with his colleagues. He attempts to shoulder the weight of about 15 different disciplines all by himself, and ends up trying to fit everything into a specific mold. His later Bible lectures seemed especially threadbare and poorly argued, if not approached from an entirely incorrect standpoint.

>>10410370
could you give me an e.g?

I understand the least about the bible of all the things he discusses

>>10409326
Literally humans vs. Orcs - the post
/pol/ needs to leave

>>10409266
>hurrrr durrr

>>10410431
gee, Maybe Tolkien was on to something.

>>10410370
Stop it he knows what hes talking about

>>10409292
this post smells like a fedora
>maybe if I use bigge words a lot they'll think I'm smart
shut the fuck up you pretentious fagginator

>>10410370
He really just do Jungian/Campbell naylsis of the bible, I'd watc that, but as it stands there's just 30 hours of rambling with brief descriptions of the bible

>>10410370
He really doesn't seem to know when he's out of his depth.

>>10409506
We certainly have provoked you. Our aim is not met though, as, although we do enjoy these subtle gestures of healthy male bonding, we'd like to talk offhandedly between each of us so that there in deed can be a focus. Moreover, we have noticed that focus in itself is quite useless until something worthy of debate can arise such as the utilitarian discussion above. What you offer is nothing more than a moan of a child who should have the door closed on him so as to teach him how to quiet himself without the attention from his mother that he seeks. We will indeed not be moved, nor do we think it proper to attend to such infantile gestures anymore. We say no more.

>>10409563
Not fry, nor bait, but lurkers that may or may not be some sort of fish. Maybe it was our strange father from France or our sharp toothed mother that made us so, but we have swam here and there for a time. What of what we have tried have we tried the hardest at if we may ask, as it has been such a long time since someone has called us anything other than soft spoken.

>>10409913
Ah, some of the people whom we've been thinking of these days. Do tell us, why so nostalgic? Why so burdened by history?
>>10410370
Attempts at multidisciplinary views use to be very popular, and some still enjoy what comes from attempts at a totallizing view. The type of academic thinking you're into sounds like Fordism. His project is what more people should attempt to do but wont because of our current culture of attacking grand narratives. None seem to strive towards objectivity anymore and so no merit in their failed attempts at branching subjects. You might be right about him in general, but you should consider these attempts as meaningfully adding to an understanding while not necessarily having the rigour you yourself will give to it one day when you put your lecture series together.

>>10411265
We believe you should not have said, "smells" as the impact is not so great when you then choose only "fedora". Maybe if you had of used a particular stench associated with fedora wearers then the effect would have more impact on your audience - though one can't imagine many church goers having much of a sense of smell given the mothball, ammonia, and body odour present at the most holy of hours.

---

Will none continue to address these important issues with seriousness?

And may we have some more of your music my good fellows? It is so cold in these depths that we take warmth in your reverberations.