The Jordan Peterson discussion thread

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
So we're right back where we started - everyone creating "their own little bubbles of meaning" and often sharing it with others, including with religions.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I think your comments are valid :)

Post-religion, I still wonder how one deals in consistency. By what standard? Is it a universally applicable standard or is it based on the little bubble of meaning in the moment? If it's based on "meaning bubbles", well then surely it just becomes a power play - i.e. if you can politicize your narrative (bubble) and garner more followers you win, doesn't matter if there's any truth to the matter. Doesn't matter if innocents are hurt.

Perhaps it really is just all about resources and power, utilitarianism. Maybe we should all just choose political sides, even if we feel they don't abide by non-aggression? So support laws and policies that support me and screw fairness?

Hope that makes sense. It's just the sort of thing I pick up on whenever I get my head stuck in political narratives and social media, people seem really all over the place when commenting. It's always about some label like race, capitalism/socialism, social classes etc... but no fundamental way of sorting through those, like non-aggression principle or some universal measuring stick. No agreement.

If there's no fundamental way of measuring who the good guys are (That I can justify without false circular reasoning), then I guess I must just choose a side or narrative either at random or that benefits me and let the wars continue? The good guys are just those on my side then (collectivism in other words), there's no objective good - just relative good for the numbers.
 
Last edited:

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
3,481
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I think your comments are valid :)

Post-religion, I still wonder how one deals in consistency. By what standard? Is it a universally applicable standard or is it based on the little bubble of meaning in the moment? If it's based on "meaning bubbles", well then surely it just becomes a power play - i.e. if you can politicize your narrative (bubble) and garner more followers you win, doesn't matter if there's any truth to the matter. Doesn't matter if innocents are hurt.

Perhaps it really is just all about resources and power, utilitarianism. Maybe we should all just choose political sides, even if we feel they don't abide by non-aggression? So support laws and policies that support me and screw fairness?

Hope that makes sense. It's just the sort of thing I pick up on whenever I get my head stuck in political narratives and social media, people seem really all over the place when commenting. It's always about some label like race, capitalism/socialism, social classes etc... but no fundamental way of sorting through those, like non-aggression principle or some universal measuring stick. No agreement.

If there's no fundamental way of measuring who the good guys are (That I can justify without false circular reasoning), then I guess I must just choose a side or narrative either at random or that benefits me and let the wars continue? The good guys are just those on my side then (collectivism in other words), there's no objective good - just relative good for the numbers.
Everything takes place in bubbles , all contact between different tribes/peoples has followed these rules , some viewed cannibalism as sacred , others as wretched.
In the end , the good guys are those which beat the other bubble so to speak .
There is truth in almost every bubble but we need to distill it internally in order to be a "good" person.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Everything takes place in bubbles , all contact between different tribes/peoples has followed these rules , some viewed cannibalism as sacred , others as wretched.
In the end , the good guys are those which beat the other bubble so to speak .
There is truth in almost every bubble but we need to distill it internally in order to be a "good" person.
If there's no objective good or objective morality then there's no such thing as being a truthfully good person. So to me, good is only that which serves my bubble of meaning. If you call me bad that doesn't mean anything in my bubble, only in yours. And when you want me to be a "good person" I would interpret that as just being whatever serves your bubble/agenda. See the problem?
 

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
3,481
If there's no objective good or objective morality then there's no such thing as being a truthfully good person. So to me, good is only that which serves my bubble of meaning. If you call me bad that doesn't mean anything in my bubble, only in yours. And when you want me to be a "good person" I would interpret that as just being whatever serves your bubble/agenda. See the problem?
I find some things not subjective though , like murder , nobody could say its a good thing under any circumstances but then we have the state execute a serial killer like Bundy and there are "good" people celebrating his death outside.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
I find some things not subjective though , like murder , nobody could say its a good thing under any circumstances but then we have the state execute a serial killer like Bundy and there are "good" people celebrating his death outside.
Yes I agree. So I think this is where we start skirting around ideas such as benevolent universe theory, objectivism or universal preferable behavior. Or similar such attempts at aligning secular ethics. Aligning them with universal statements, thus having imperatives that cannot be logically contested.

The only problem there is these ideas are often heavily criticized, from what I have seen.

What you just said, I agree with, but try arguing that point to others. It's bloody difficult :D
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,604
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I think your comments are valid :)

Post-religion, I still wonder how one deals in consistency. By what standard? Is it a universally applicable standard or is it based on the little bubble of meaning in the moment? If it's based on "meaning bubbles", well then surely it just becomes a power play - i.e. if you can politicize your narrative (bubble) and garner more followers you win, doesn't matter if there's any truth to the matter. Doesn't matter if innocents are hurt.

Perhaps it really is just all about resources and power, utilitarianism. Maybe we should all just choose political sides, even if we feel they don't abide by non-aggression? So support laws and policies that support me and screw fairness?

Hope that makes sense. It's just the sort of thing I pick up on whenever I get my head stuck in political narratives and social media, people seem really all over the place when commenting. It's always about some label like race, capitalism/socialism, social classes etc... but no fundamental way of sorting through those, like non-aggression principle or some universal measuring stick. No agreement.

If there's no fundamental way of measuring who the good guys are (That I can justify without false circular reasoning), then I guess I must just choose a side or narrative either at random or that benefits me and let the wars continue? The good guys are just those on my side then (collectivism in other words), there's no objective good - just relative good for the numbers.
Well, this is way the world and humanity already works, and always has. Look at the vast amount of different social, cultural, political and legal institutions various countries and people have set up over the thousands of years we've been around.

And yet as a species we've still been able to make a lot of progress, including morally. We've also been able to find a lot of commonality between cultures and political/legal systems. So clearly the lack of some 'objective' meaning doesn't automatically mean nihilism or moral chaos, as in the examples I gave. And also clearly indicates that instead of "no agreement", there is in fact a lot of agreement.

Focussing on disagreement can also obscure where agreement actually is. You can (and do) agree with a lot of people about a lot of things, including fundamental moral issues, without agreeing with them on everything. Navigating those differences is part of what makes our civilizations function.

What you've described is more akin to tribalism rather than collectivism, and it's one of the backwards elements of our modern societies, even though it probably helped many people survive as that kind of 'collective cooperation' was crucial back in the day.

You should do an undergrad philosophy course. Could be a fun way to dive into these things with other people without making too big a deal out of it.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
You can (and do) agree with a lot of people about a lot of things, including fundamental moral issues, without agreeing with them on everything. Navigating those differences is part of what makes our civilizations function.
I don't think you know me very well :p Being a free market, non-aggression, individualist, anarchist type - I'm very much in the minority as far as agreement goes (I don't find a lot of like-minded people, but ironically I am more about agreement over coercion than most). Unless there's more like me than I am aware of.

You should do an undergrad philosophy course. Could be a fun way to dive into these things with other people without making too big a deal out of it.
I fear this will make me even more confused :laugh: Time being a factor, wonder if there's something online I can do though. Good suggestion.
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,604
I don't think you know me very well :p Being a free market, non-aggression, individualist, anarchist type - I'm very much in the minority as far as agreement goes (I don't find a lot of like-minded people, but ironically I am more about agreement over coercion than most). Unless there's more like me than I am aware of.
That probably describes most people everywhere, depending what you mean by anarchist.

Bobbin said:
I fear this will make me even more confused :laugh: Time being a factor, wonder if there's something online I can do though. Good suggestion.
 
Top