Do we need meaning? Does the Church provide that meaning?

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope I get around to commenting on this video- I see it as relating directly to the church and presents in fairly concentrated form some of the most important philosophical points for the church that we can confront and must confront.

What is most important I think is what is NOT said but assumed that one understands philosophically

What is needed is a deconstruction of this video put into terms that the ordinary guy or woman can understand without philosophical training.   If we really understood what is being said, we would be a lot closer as a church into re-defining the Restoration into more 21st century terms.

But I am sure that most here have not even watched the video.  2 hours is a large chunk of time to donate on faith that there is something relevant here.

If you haven't watched it- I recommend you do.   It is important stuff.

I'll be back- Arnold S.

Thank you for commenting on the video. I am glad someone actually watched it. I pointed it to the most relevant part, but I thought all of it was good. Our society needs to be considering these issues now, and we have two Jews and a Canadian doing it, so I doubt society at large will pay any attention. But you are right. The subject matter is quite relevant to the Church. I was hoping to springboard some conversations off of it.

I'll be Bach....  

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Excellent question. Peterson is a genius, truly. Rubin and Shapiro will get there, eventually.

If the GA's push too hard on encouraging traditional values and lifestyles (wife is the homemaker, husband the breadwinner, lots of kids, lots of callings, etc.), I imagine it alienates some people (MGTOW, MRA, Singles (both genders), LGBTQ, people with disabilities, etc.). 

The odd thing is - in each General Conference some GA's speak to those who are not able to accomplish lifestyles that are the gospel ideal. These talks sometimes don't stand out as much because they're given with a lot of humility, in my opinion.

As society continues to crumble and some argue for more of the sickness causing the crumbling, res ipsa loquitur, tabula in naufragio (we are left with but one option): 

The GA's won't likely call all of us away from Babylon which is now everywhere in the world; they will speak around it and imply it, directly and indirectly.  Whether we believe we can last a little longer or leave the crumbling and shrug (an inevitable result of white knighting), is up to us individually.

Peterson gets so caught up in trying to relate minutae, that I have trouble following his big picture. But he does seem to come around to the same place as I do. Peterson kinda has his own jargon you have to learn to be able to follow what he is saying.

As for our leaders it is their responsibility to call Zion out of the world continually. It is a huge responsibility, and one I don't envy. I am not going to offer anything on the job they are doing. That is not really my cup of tea. 

I am more interested in exploring  aspects of authority. Does the Church do some things that drive people away? What can it do better?

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, based on the level of assurance I have regarding the concept that God is no respecter of persons and that if we ask God in faith for wisdom, James 1:5 style, he will manifest the truth to us through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Note that I'm talking about the same level of assurance, the same level of spiritual confirmation, line upon line and precept upon precept.  Not that God is going to  give someone the same level of knowledge that has taken me years to acquire.

Those new to the concept of receiving faith from God are spiritual babies who need spiritual milk before they are ready for the more meaty stuff, although what most people consider "deep" doctrine is pretty much just the basic stuff.

I do understand the trust that a condescending God will bless all who seek Him. It is a pretty wonderful concept. And it would seem logical that God would then give a consistent message. Yet, there are some problems with the presumption that what it appears another person gets from God will be like what we think we get.

[Meadowchik]

Peterson says, closer to the 4-minute-mark, "You have to be in the Judeo-Christian/enlightenment tradition to believe in free speech" because, paraphrasing, free speech is derived from the concept of the autonomous individual, and (implying that) belief in the autonomous individual depends upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And as I have pointed out before, there is enough biological evidence or reciprocity in primates and monkeys to posit that values like the Golden Rule can exist as concepts developed from our own biology. Rev, you have argued that the Golden Rule is more advanced than simple reciprocity and I agree, but who's to say that The Golden Rule cannot simply be a natural result of our biological roots, shared with primates, combined with our advanced natures?

Anyway, I really am not seeing how a value of the individual, or the autonomous individual, is dependent on the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think it can easily be derived logically with some self-awareness.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Peterson gets so caught up in trying to relate minutae, that I have trouble following his big picture. But he does seem to come around to the same place as I do. Peterson kinda has his own jargon you have to learn to be able to follow what he is saying.

Yes, I think he does, which makes it really exhausting trying to listen to him. Also, couching basic core values in partisan terms is very off-putting. It makes it seem like Peterson associates the right with correct though and the left with incorrect thought, which undermines his credibility.

Quote

As for our leaders it is their responsibility to call Zion out of the world continually. It is a huge responsibility, and one I don't envy. I am not going to offer anything on the job they are doing. That is not really my cup of tea.

I agree, the responsibility to steer the church is heavy indeed.

Quote

I am more interested in exploring  aspects of authority. Does the Church do some things that drive people away? What can it do better?

The church definitely drives people away in the sense that there are people who leave because of unhealthy behaviors and patterns of the church itself--not just the people--and they do so to improve their health, spiritual health included.

There are several basic issues that are unhealthy, like the prevailing sexism, and like the enduring acceptance of historical polygamy, but if I had to pick one basic, core behavior, it would be what I call the hammer of spiritual authority, where, when the prophet or someone else in authority says something, it is considered correct if not also a spiritual mandate. This is a foundational problem that has, in my opinion, been at the root of many of the church's internal problems, and continues to be so today. 

Of course the church teaches that we are all entitled to seek our own answers about a prophetic mandate, yet that is almost always said in this sense, "It's your choice to do the right thing by following the prophet and to seek answers and confirmation to know it is true, " rather than, "the prophet can be right or wrong and here is how, we as a church and as individuals, are entitled to draw our conclusions..." I think that the agurment, "Because God says so" is facile and harmful. Hopefully human beings can find success in rising above it.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, I think he does, which makes it really exhausting trying to listen to him. Also, couching basic core values in partisan terms is very off-putting. It makes it seem like Peterson associates the right with correct though and the left with incorrect thought, which undermines his credibility.

Well, I wasn't so much talking about this particular video. He basically talks in layman's terms, and I think is clear in what he is saying. But try listening to some of his lectures! Peterson is not really talking so much about "right." He is talking about what works. How do we create a life with motivation and purpose? He is a psychologist, and is talking about the subject psychologically with a dab of philosophy here and there. His conclusions do tend to come down on the side of the politically conservative or what many call the right. He finds those values are what give people purpose and meaning in their lives, and without them, hierarchies fail. He finds no other societal structures that "work." He alludes to the natural tendency of men to put themselves in hierarchies. It is obvious to me that he is talking about from a natural and biological perspective, because he talks about why would men do that if they are trying to attract the best mate? Anyway in most animal societies there are hierarchical structures, but of course some animals do not live in societies besides family groups. There are numerous reasons for that. The older members have more knowledge and experience, but in males it usually comes down to the most physically capable who take the lead. In human societies, Peterson thinks it is the most competent. In the Church we tend to see a lot of professionals and the most successful businessmen in the leadership positions, but sometimes it is the average Joe. Even the scriptures indicate that bishops should be married, and have a family. (1 Timothy 3) Why? Because that gives them the experience they need to be able to empathize with parents, and some wisdom in knowing how to approach family issues - wisdom the Catholic Church abandoned long ago. 

Quote

The church definitely drives people away in the sense that there are people who leave because of unhealthy behaviors and patterns of the church itself--not just the people--and they do so to improve their health, spiritual health included.

There are several basic issues that are unhealthy, like the prevailing sexism, and like the enduring acceptance of historical polygamy, but if I had to pick one basic, core behavior, it would be what I call the hammer of spiritual authority, where, when the prophet or someone else in authority says something, it is considered correct if not also a spiritual mandate. This is a foundational problem that has, in my opinion, been at the root of many of the church's internal problems, and continues to be so today. 

I think what you are calling sexism may be the Church's acknowledgment that God has created men and women to be different. The patriarchal order is not one that is going to go away, however, there are issues inherent in it, I think the Church needs to pay attention to. I have seen a tendency among local leaders to ignore the voice of women, and I think that needs to change where it still exists. For instance if a woman gets up to challenge a calling in the bishopric, she should not be lectured on the calling being from God, and dismissed. What if she has knowledge of sexual improprieties? There are valid reasons some people should not hold the office of bishop, and women should not be silenced merely because they are women. So, if you are talking about those types of issues, I agree.

I know some women are very offput about polygamy. What I say is then do not enter it. I believe it unfortunate that at one time the Church believed that heavenly exaltation was dependent on earthly polygamy. It seems to have corrected that view. It certainly is not scriptural. I don't really think it would help matters for the Church to denounce polygamy in all circumstances, but yeah the exaltation through male dominant hierarchy thing was I believe bad for the Church, and led to it being nipped from the sides by various unsavory schism groups. I blame the Church for that, and I am glad the Church has put it in the rear view mirror. That is where it needs to stay. However, I proffer if you look at the issue more from a spiritual standpoint even Yeshua invited as many virgins to the wedding feast as would come. Those who draw people to the truth from other churches/women, are doing the work of our Savior.

Quote

Of course the church teaches that we are all entitled to seek our own answers about a prophetic mandate, yet that is almost always said in this sense, "It's your choice to do the right thing by following the prophet and to seek answers and confirmation to know it is true, " rather than, "the prophet can be right or wrong and here is how, we as a church and as individuals, are entitled to draw our conclusions..." I think that the agurment, "Because God says so" is facile and harmful. Hopefully human beings can find success in rising above it.

I don't really hear the "because God said so." It is obvious to me answers have been sought through the spirit. But men can delude themselves in what God wants. If I were told though "the Lord told me/us" I would definitely pay attention. I don't think I would be hearing some misrepresentation. A prophet that failed to give us the words of the Lord, would subject himself to the Lord's wrath.

What you seem to be saying is that you do not trust the hierarchical order of the Church. But, the point of this thread is that hierarchies are the best structure we have. They are even the heavenly order. Should we defy heaven without good reason? What you seem to be saying is that the scriptures have no authority, and we can rise above them, because we are entitled to live by our own conclusions. Yes, we are. That is the point of agency. But, usually the individual is not that capable of setting up their own morality, and value system for happiness - it becomes, oh, I really want that boat or that yacht, or that mansion....the allure of worldly things is just too strong without a solid moral structure. The scriptures come from a hierarchy chosen by the Lord for a reason. To simply reject that is to decry His wisdom.  

I do see issues with the Church hierarchy, but I believe the best way to approach them is to realize our limits, and live within them the best we can. 

Doctrine and Covenants 121:41

41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

Edited August 30, 2019 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Peterson says, closer to the 4-minute-mark, "You have to be in the Judeo-Christian/enlightenment tradition to believe in free speech" because, paraphrasing, free speech is derived from the concept of the autonomous individual, and (implying that) belief in the autonomous individual depends upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And as I have pointed out before, there is enough biological evidence or reciprocity in primates and monkeys to posit that values like the Golden Rule can exist as concepts developed from our own biology. Rev, you have argued that the Golden Rule is more advanced than simple reciprocity and I agree, but who's to say that The Golden Rule cannot simply be a natural result of our biological roots, shared with primates, combined with our advanced natures?

Anyway, I really am not seeing how a value of the individual, or the autonomous individual, is dependent on the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think it can easily be derived logically with some self-awareness.

Well I have something unusual to say.

I agree with you.

But it really doesn't make any difference because when could simply argue that the judeo-christian ethic is built in biology as well.

Built-in by our loving father.

Or just evolved because we are social beings.

Or both. God invented a world that would naturally evolve us as beings so he created the environments which hone our biological nature. He is the master chess player after all

It really doesn't matter which it is. Pragmatic philosophy says it works so who cares about the rest?

Arguing about it is a chicken / egg debate.

We fit this world , this world fits us. Except for when it doesn't.

Edited August 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I do understand the trust that a condescending God will bless all who seek Him. It is a pretty wonderful concept. And it would seem logical that God would then give a consistent message. Yet, there are some problems with the presumption that what it appears another person gets from God will be like what we think we get.

Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but it is illogical to think God would ever contradict what he has said on the same exact issue and circumstances.  I know circumstances change but in the same circumstances I would expect God to not ever contradict what he has said.

Like for example, if you were to ask God whether or not Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God while in your mind you were thinking about the Book of Mormon and whether or not Joseph translated it by the gift and power of God, I would expect God to assure you that yes Joseph was a prophet when he did that.  And I expect that because that is what God told me, so I would expect him to tell you the same thing.  And yes I also know Joseph didn't always speak as a prophet of God, with God giving me his assurance about that, too.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Peterson says, closer to the 4-minute-mark, "You have to be in the Judeo-Christian/enlightenment tradition to believe in free speech" because, paraphrasing, free speech is derived from the concept of the autonomous individual, and (implying that) belief in the autonomous individual depends upon the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And as I have pointed out before, there is enough biological evidence or reciprocity in primates and monkeys to posit that values like the Golden Rule can exist as concepts developed from our own biology. Rev, you have argued that the Golden Rule is more advanced than simple reciprocity and I agree, but who's to say that The Golden Rule cannot simply be a natural result of our biological roots, shared with primates, combined with our advanced natures?

Anyway, I really am not seeing how a value of the individual, or the autonomous individual, is dependent on the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think it can easily be derived logically with some self-awareness.

Not just self-awareness, but societal awareness - perhaps you are including that? What I am saying is that Christ is the ultimate embodiment of that awareness. I can derive that logically. Looking at the world I see two basic types of leaders - those who lead through fear, force and intimidation, and those who lead by inspiration and love. We find that the first leads to evil. Christianity teaches that is Satan's way. Why? Because it seeks to take away our freedom to make other choices either by deceiving us or by coercing us. Yeshua led through pure example. He showed the action of love. If we love others, we will lay down our life for them, He says. So, He is the leader of the love movement. He is the ultimate embodiment of that kind of love. 
And I think this is a place the Church has not yet understood. The Church now currently believes that God will tell them what they need to do to become exalted, and that only the prophet will receive that, so the Church waits. What if God has already told us? What if we just need to learn to choose our path for ourselves? What if there really is no greater secret God needs to tell us that He hasn't already done? What if our leaders are simply those who choose to embody those principles? I proffer this is a place the Church hasn't yet understood. The Lord doesn't choose His leaders by being commanded. It is not by imposing His authority on us. It is by who chooses to follow Him. Here the earthly hierarchy becomes irrelevant. It is just here to teach us. It preserves His word and disperses it to the people. If I am not going to make it to the ultimate exaltation because I don't believe Young that I can't make it without embracing earthly polygamy then so be it. But, I rather think that maybe it will be the other way around. This attitude that God can't reveal His secrets to me because I don't have "authority", is disturbing. That is not my God. My God looketh upon the heart.

Isaiah 30:20

20 And though the Lord give you the bread of ^aadversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not ^bthy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy ^cteachers:

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not just self-awareness, but societal awareness - perhaps you are including that? What I am saying is that Christ is the ultimate embodiment of that awareness. I can derive that logically. Looking at the world I see two basic types of leaders - those who lead through fear, force and intimidation, and those who lead by inspiration and love. We find that the first leads to evil. Christianity teaches that is Satan's way. Why? Because it seeks to take away our freedom to make other choices either by deceiving us or by coercing us. Yeshua led through pure example. He showed the action of love. If we love others, we will lay down our life for them, He says. So, He is the leader of the love movement. He is the ultimate embodiment of that kind of love. 
And I think this is a place the Church has not yet understood. The Church now currently believes that God will tell them what they need to do to become exalted, and that only the prophet will receive that, so the Church waits. What if God has already told us? What if we just need to learn to choose our path for ourselves? What if there really is no greater secret God needs to tell us that He hasn't already done? What if our leaders are simply those who choose to embody those principles? I proffer this is a place the Church hasn't yet understood. The Lord doesn't choose His leaders by being commanded. It is not by imposing His authority on us. It is by who chooses to follow Him. Here the earthly hierarchy becomes irrelevant. It is just here to teach us. It preserves His word and disperses it to the people. If I am not going to make it to the ultimate exaltation because I don't believe Young that I can't make it without embracing earthly polygamy then so be it. But, I rather think that maybe it will be the other way around. This attitude that God can't reveal His secrets to me because I don't have "authority", is disturbing. That is not my God. My God looketh upon the heart.

Isaiah 30:20

20 And though the Lord give you the bread of ^aadversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not ^bthy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy ^cteachers:

To your last point first, I certainly can appreciate your insistence that divine insight transcends any boundaries of authority.

Second, I agree with your point about inspiration and love, and I include scientific discovery as a very significant form of inspiration. 

 

[Meadowchik]

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, appearances can be deceiving, but it is illogical to think God would ever contradict what he has said on the same exact issue and circumstances.  I know circumstances change but in the same circumstances I would expect God to not ever contradict what he has said.

Like for example, if you were to ask God whether or not Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God while in your mind you were thinking about the Book of Mormon and whether or not Joseph translated it by the gift and power of God, I would expect God to assure you that yes Joseph was a prophet when he did that.  And I expect that because that is what God told me, so I would expect him to tell you the same thing.  And yes I also know Joseph didn't always speak as a prophet of God, with God giving me his assurance about that, too.

And there are some Baptists in Texas that read the Book of Mormon, prayed over it, and feel God told them it was not what you say it is, who also believe that God would tell you what they think He told them.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have something unusual to say.

I agree with you.

That wouldn't be that unusual if you look at the entirety of board history

Quote

 

But it really doesn't make any difference because when could simply argue that the judeo-christian ethic is built in biology as well.

Built-in by our loving father.

 

Well then it wouldn't just be the Judeo-Christian ethic, it would be a human ethic.

Quote

 

Or just evolved because we are social beings.

Or both. God invented a world that would naturally evolve us as beings so he created the environments which hone our biological nature. He is the master chess player after all

It really doesn't matter which it is. Pragmatic philosophy says it works so who cares about the rest?

 

Who cares? I suppose the folks who want to convince the rest of us that pretty universal human values depend upon their religious traditions? What could be in it for them? (A question older than the nations, eh?)

Quote

 

Arguing about it is a chicken / egg debate.

We fit this world , this world fits us. Except for when it doesn't.

 

The point is that one can use the value and discard the association without assuming the value itself won't work on its own merits.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And there are some Baptists in Texas that read the Book of Mormon, prayed over it, and feel God told them it was not what you say it is, who also believe that God would tell you what they think He told them.

Does that really matter to you, though?  If God has told you the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture, does the fact that some people say it isn't make any difference to you?  It's God's word against their word.  Who decides what is right, for you?

I don't concern myself with wondering why those Baptists in Texas would be saying what they're saying.  I just know they are wrong about what God has said about that, based on what God has told me about it.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I wasn't so much talking about this particular video. He basically talks in layman's terms, and I think is clear in what he is saying. But try listening to some of his lectures!

I have listened to Peterson before, but you might have skipped the first few minutes of the video where he does a typical meandering that certainly does not seem accessible to laymen's terms, here's the quote I was talking about, starting near the 4:00:

Quote

A lot of the vitriol is, see I was...I just finished reading another book on post-modernism, an Oxford book on post-modernism, and on Derrida in particular, and like there really was an attempt on the part of the postmodernists and and this is allied, I think, with their fundamental Marxism to demolish the idea of the autonomous individual. So, for example, one of the things that's really interesting about the current free speech debate is that it really isn't a debate, because you have to be in the Judeo-Christian /Enlightenment tradition to believe in free speech, because to believe in free speech, you have to believe that there are autonomous individuals who have their own viewpoints who can spontaneously generate creative ideas and then who can engage in an active dialogue in a...in a in a manner that that, that consider of fundamental goodwill and truth, and that you can change each other's opinions and that you can come to a negotiated agreement. You have to believe all of that, including the autonomous individual. In that concept, the logos which is, what dirt Derrida was so so...what he criticized so heavily, that idea of logo centrism: you have to believe in the autonomous individual and the postmodernist and the neo-marxists they don't they believe that. The individual is a mouthpiece for a power assembly and that there's no such thing as free speech.   ((Taken from auto-generated transcript, punctuation MY attempt to relay his spoken word accurately.))

So basically, Peterson is saying that the vitriol directed at him is because the left does not really believe in the existence of free speech because it does not believe in the existence of the autonomous individual. It seems like he uses a ton of unnecessary and non-layman-terms verbiage to convey a relatively straightforward argument. And, going on my other experiences listening to him at other times, and true to his reputation, this is typical of Peterson, atleast when a straightforward argument is scrutable, which to the dismay of many, is not always the case.

Quote

 

What you seem to be saying is that you do not trust the hierarchical order of the Church. But, the point of this thread is that hierarchies are the best structure we have. They are even the heavenly order. Should we defy heaven without good reason? What you seem to be saying is that the scriptures have no authority, and we can rise above them, because we are entitled to live by our own conclusions. Yes, we are. That is the point of agency. But, usually the individual is not that capable of setting up their own morality, and value system for happiness - it becomes, oh, I really want that boat or that yacht, or that mansion....the allure of worldly things is just too strong without a solid moral structure. The scriptures come from a hierarchy chosen by the Lord for a reason. To simply reject that is to decry His wisdom.  

I do see issues with the Church hierarchy, but I believe the best way to approach them is to realize our limits, and live within them the best we can. 

 

I've lived in less-religious European countries for over a decade now. I just don't see my secular friends abandoning their values for stuff.  I would say that living a decent life that respects others is obviously a more peaceful path and an optimal path. I don't think religious belief's love and inspiration does a better job of keeping people on that path. I think that the regular old love and inspiration of religious and nonreligious alike, is what does it!

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Does that really matter to you, though?  If God has told you the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture, does the fact that some people say it isn't make any difference to you?  It's God's word against their word.  Who decides what is right, for you?

I don't concern myself with wondering why those Baptists in Texas would be saying what they're saying.  I just know they are wrong about what God has said about that, based on what God has told me about it.

It does matter to me. It wasn't easy growing up Mormon surrounded by Baptists in Texas. But it did teach me what it feels like to not be respected and to be laughed at for my beliefs when I was a guest in someone's home or at their church. It also taught me what it was like to be loved and appreciated and welcome by those who didn't believe in Mormonism. There were varying experiences. Anyways, what it means to me is that, if I am to expect respect of others for my beliefs, I would respect them and the existence of theirs. I would realize that it is a kindness to presume that their perspective is as important and as real to them as mine is to me. And it would mean to apply this at a spiritual level. If the conscience and the light of Christ given to every man is real and the experience with it is sacred, than who am I to impose my perspective? I'm certainly not them. So, do I share? Sure? Do I assume they're not getting the real message on their own or that I have it for them? No.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It does matter to me. It wasn't easy growing up Mormon surrounded by Baptists in Texas. But it did teach me what it feels like to not be respected and to be laughed at for my beliefs when I was a guest in someone's home or at their church. It also taught me what it was like to be loved and appreciated and welcome by those who didn't believe in Mormonism. There were varying experiences. Anyways, what it means to me is that, if I am to expect respect of others for my beliefs, I would respect them and the existence of theirs. I would realize that it is a kindness to presume that their perspective is as important and as real to them as mine is to me. And it would mean to apply this at a spiritual level. If the conscience and the light of Christ given to every man is real and the experience with it is sacred, than who am I to impose my perspective? I'm certainly not them. So, do I share? Sure? Do I assume they're not getting the real message on their own or that I have it for them? No.

I think most of us, most people, would rather feel accepted by other people than rejected by them.  But we should also feel that we need to stand for something rather than being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine or belief about how we should be or what we should think.  And God is who we should look to for how we should be and how we should treat other people.

For a long time when I was growing up I equated having "respect" for others and what others think with the idea of having a "high regard" for them and what they thought.  And I wondered, how can I possibly have a high regard for what others think when I know for sure that they are wrong about something they think?  Surely I'm not supposed to think they are right, or could be right, when I have no doubt at all that they are wrong.  Soon I came to realize that I could still treat other people with kindness even if I did not agree with them, and I could also just accept the idea that they hadn't learned what I have learned about something without me feeling like I had to be the one to try to teach them.  That they could eventually learn for themselves with God being the one to teach them, just as God was the one who taught me.

I do know a lot about things that God has taught me but I no longer feel a burden to try to be the one to teach other people what God has taught me.  I still share some things, sometimes, but I don't stress out about it or feel as if I just have to be the one to teach others.

God can do his own work, and I just like to help out when I feel that I can.

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So basically, Peterson is saying that the vitriol directed at him is because the left does not really believe in the existence of free speech because it does not believe in the existence of the autonomous individual. It seems like he uses a ton of unnecessary and non-layman-terms verbiage to convey a relatively straightforward argument. And, going on my other experiences listening to him at other times, and true to his reputation, this is typical of Peterson, atleast when a straightforward argument is scrutable, which to the dismay of many, is not always the case.

Let's take that down to its basic layman level.  From his side of things, he is perfectly right.   I am not saying he is necessarily "right" in the sense that he is preaching ultimate truth, I am talking about him having a perfectly valid point from his point of view- which is very difficult to debate once you understand it.

What he is talking about is called the "contingency of the self" in high-falutin' terms

Put very simply, it is the idea that language itself programs the way we think and turns us into little social robots who follow mass thinking and simply go on without a thought in our heads that is original.  One might think in terms of "political correctness" for example which is in fact Marxian in its origin, where people were put into the Gulag for "incorrect thinking" and were treated as if they were mental patients.   When you see people shouted down in universities because they are not "correct", this is an example of that

So taking that a step farther, if we are all programmed by language and other socializations, then the individual subject- the subjective person existing on his own and thinking for himself no longer exists.

You can google "death of man" and see what you get.  The idea got its moniker because it parallels Nietzsche's account of the "death of God".  Nietzsche of course was one of the originators of these notions like the thing I quote constantly- "there are no facts, only interpretations".  Interpretations are paradigms created by human society in human language, through which we are supposedly programmed.   

And so the death of man means we are robots programmed by society and language and IS a leftist idea.

Marx: Change society and you change mankind.  Eliminate capitalism and people will no longer be selfish and we will all live and play together like nice children.

It doesn't work of course.

Here is one site that discusses it and quotes one of the major definers of the concept, Michel Foucault:  https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/michel-foucault-on-the-death-of-man

Quote

 

"When one analyses the language of man, one doesn’t discover the nature, essence or freedom of man. In their stead, one discovers unconscious structures which govern us without our noticing or willing it" (Michel Foucault). 

"...as soon as one realised that all human knowledge, all human existence (…) are trapped within structures, i.e. within a formal system of elements which obey formal relations that anyone can describe, man so to speak ceases to be his own subject. (…) One discovers that what makes man possible is at the end of the day a set of structures, structures that he may be able to describe but of which he is not the subject or the sovereign consciousness" (Michel Foucault) 

 

So solving the riddle of the death of man hypothesis is a major contention point in philosophy

I have quoted Chantal Bax's book "Subjectivity After Wittgenstein" here several times- and I think she has solved the problem.

But that is a whole discussion beyond the purposes of this forum anyway.   https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441127327/

Quote

 

About Subjectivity After Wittgenstein

Although Wittgenstein is often held co-responsible for the so-called death of man as it was pronounced in the course of the previous century, no detailed description of his alternative to the traditional or Cartesian account of human being has so far been available. By consulting several parts of Wittgenstein's later oeuvre, Subjectivity after Wittgenstein aims to fill this gap. However, it also contributes to the debate about the Cartesian subject and its demise by discussing the criticism that the rethinking of subjectivity received, for it has been argued that the anti-Cartesian turn in continental philosophy has lead to a loss of a centre for both ethics and politics. By further exploring the implications of the Wittgensteinian account of human being, this book makes it clear that a non-Cartesian view on the subject is not necessarily ethically and politically inert. Moreover, it argues that ethical and political arguments should not automatically take precedence in a debate about the nature of man.

Table of contents

1. Subjectivity, Wittgenstein and the Debate About the "Death of Man" \ 2. Wittgenstein And/As Philosophy: A Constructive Reading of Wittgenstein's Method \ 3. Inner and Outer, Self and Other: Wittgenstein's Post-Cartesian Subject \ Intermezzo: The Inner as a Locus of Morality: The Ethical (In)Adequacy of Post-Cartesian Subjectivity \ 4. Wittgenstein on Interiority and Religiosity \ Intermezzo: The Self as a Locus of Autonomy: The Political (In)Adequacy of Post-Cartesian Subjectivity \ 5. Wittgenstein on Community in On Certainty \ 6. Wittgensteinian Subjectivity and the Nature of Debate about the "Death of Man" \ Bibliography \ Index.

Reviews

“"Wittgenstein is widely acknowledged to have mounted a sustained and, if successful, devastating challenge to the view of human subjectivity that belongs to the traditional discourse of European modernity: the broadly 'Cartesian' view of Man as a rational thinking subject. But at what cost? Can we make sense of concepts central to contemporary ethics and politics - concepts of rights, of autonomy, and of responsibility in particular - if we do not retain that conception. Rejecting it can seem tantamount to a rejection of those central concepts. In this important new study Chantal Bax offers a compelling account of why a Wittgensteinian understanding of the fundamental sociality of the human subject encourages rather than discourages us to engage with questions at the heart of our ethical and political lives." - Simon Glendinning, Reader in European Philosophy, European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK” – 

 

Put at it's most basic level:

Peterson got it right so neener neener.  There IS such a view , and an important one espoused by the Left.

In fact this is my major departure from Rorty, not that anyone cares. 

Put into LDS terms, agency wins and we ARE "actors", not always that which is "acted upon".  The subjective individual exists, the Judeo Christian basis for personal responsibility wins, and all is right with the world.

But we have to get educated or we are just "laypeople" floundering around following every wind of doctrine.

He could go for "scrutable" but then his words would have no more clout than a comment on this board. 

If he did not use the terminology he uses, people would just think he is pulling this stuff out of his.... mouth to put it in uneducated terms.

But he is not making this stuff up, and he has to use the terminology to establish that he knows what he is talking about.  He has to quote philosophers etc

And he does.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...the thing I quote constantly- "there are no facts, only interpretations".  Interpretations are paradigms created by human society in human language, through which we are supposedly programmed. 

i wish you would stop saying that but I suppose you have been programmed to say it and now you just can't make yourself stop it, sometimes!

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Put into LDS terms, agency wins and we ARE "actors", not always that which is "acted upon".  The subjective individual exists, the Judeo Christian basis for personal responsibility wins, and all is right with the world.

But we have to get educated or we are just "laypeople" floundering around following every wind of doctrine.

I think what you mean is that what you call the "Judeo Christian basis for personal responsibility" wins.  You could call it something other than that if you chose to but I suppose you like how you have been programmed to say that.

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...he has to use the terminology to establish that he knows what he is talking about.  He has to quote philosophers etc

And he does.

Almost thou makes me want to become a philospher rather than simply someone who thinks philosophically, sometimes.

[mfbukowski]

A start toward understanding political correctness.  The entire essay is about how to achieve "correct" thinking.  These are some random quotes from the boss, Chairman Mao.  I used to carry my own little copy of the Red Book so I am pretty familiar with this stuff.

Quote

Later, the Chinese revolution again suffered severe setbacks at the hands of the enemy, because adventurism had risen within our Party. When we liquidated this adventurism, our cause advanced once again. Thus it can be seen that to lead the revolution to victory, a political party must depend on the correctness of its own political line and the solidity of its own organization.

Quote

For instance, when the capitalism of the era of free competition developed into imperialism, there was no change in the class nature of the two classes in fundamental contradiction, namely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or in the capitalist essence of society; however, the contradiction between these two classes became intensified, the contradiction between monopoly and non-monopoly capital emerged, the contradiction between the colonial powers and the colonies became intensified, the contradiction among the capitalist countries resulting from their uneven development manifested itself with particular sharpness, and thus there arose the special stage of capitalism, the stage of imperialism. Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution precisely because Lenin and Stalin have correctly explained these contradictions and correctly formulated the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution for their resolution.

Quote

 

As Lenin pointed out, Marx in his Capital gave a model analysis of this movement of opposites which runs through the process of development of things from beginning to end. This is the method that must be employed in studying the development of all things. Lenin, too, employed this method correctly and adhered to it in all his writings.

In his Capital, Marx first analyses the simplest, most ordinary and fundamental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity) society, a relation encountered billions of times, viz. the exchange of commodities. In this very simple phenomenon (in this "cell" of bourgeois society) analysis reveals all the contradictions (or the germs of all the contradictions) of modern society. The subsequent exposition shows us the development (both growth and movement) of these contradictions and of this society in the [summation] of its individual parts, from its beginning to its end.

Lenin added, "Such must also be the method of exposition (or study) of dialectics in general." [9]

Chinese Communists must learn this method; only then will they be able correctly to analyse the history and the present state of the Chinese revolution and infer its future.

 

Go ahead and read the article.  

Pretty chilling stuff when you know what it means that due to the "correct" point of view, the "adventurists" could be "liquidated".  Independent thinking had to be "liquidated".

This has to be my favorite.   Does this sound like free speech to you?

Quote

As already mentioned, so long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. At first, with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows us that the contradictions between the correct thinking of Lenin and Stalin and the fallacious thinking of Trotsky, Bukharin and others did not at first manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but that later they did develop into antagonism. There are similar cases in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. At first the contradictions between the correct thinking of many of our Party comrades and the fallacious thinking of Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and others also did not manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but later they did develop into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism. Therefore, the Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate. But if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism.

Also note the source.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

Edited August 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Almost thou makes me want to become a philospher rather than simply someone who thinks philosophically, sometimes.

Good.  Amateurism in philosophy leads to confusion.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Good.  Amateurism in philosophy leads to confusion.

Everything leads to confusion when not understood correctly.

Or do you suppose everybody understands when people talk in philosopherese?

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Everything leads to confusion when not understood correctly.

Or do you suppose everybody understands when people talk in philosopherese?

Why should I?  If you don't read German, don't read articles in German.  If one is going to comment on articles in German, one needs to speak German.

If philosophy is not important to you, study articles in your own field.

I never post anything on biochemistry. 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why should I?  If you don't read German, don't read articles in German.  If one is going to comment on articles in German, one needs to speak German.

If philosophy is not important to you, study articles in your own field.

I never post anything on biochemistry. 

 

I like it when I can learn about what is called "German" from someone who not only understands "German" but can also translate what he knows into English, which is a language I understand.

It's similar to what I do when I talk about the "gospel" with people who don't seem to understand some "gospel"  terms. 

Faith.  Repentance.  Inspiration.  Revelation.  God.  

I can talk about what I know so that even those who don't know what I know can understand me, although it means I need to spend a little time to explain things.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I can talk about what I know so that even those who don't know what I know can understand me, although it means I need to spend a little time to explain things.

Yep.

What do you think I am doing?  You did not understand the video presumably, so I am explaining it.  Since no one else is explaining it, if you do not understand me, then we are getting nowhere.   Time for lunch. 

I will be happy to quit wasting my time.   But there are others who might understand.

[Ahab]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

What do you think I am doing?  You did not understand the video presumably, so I am explaining it.  Since no one else is explaining it, if you do not understand me, then we are getting nowhere.   Time for lunch. 

I will be happy to quit wasting my time.   But there are others who might understand.

Why do you think you are wasting your time?  Why would you think I do not understand you?   Why do you presume anything about my understanding of that video?  Why haven't you eaten lunch yet?

Why?  Why?  Why?  Why does the whole world want to understand why?  At least you are asking instead of presuming something, except for what you are presuming, presumably.