|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 7, 2019 9:28:51 GMT 1
Fine stuff:
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 7, 2019 12:05:06 GMT 1
Before I commit 2 hours of my life, who are these people, and why should their opinions interest me?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 7, 2019 12:45:19 GMT 1
Before I commit 2 hours of my life, who are these people, and why should their opinions interest me? I suppose you could call them public intellectuals - remember when there used to be people like Bertrand Russell, Malcolm Muggeridge, Kenneth Clark, that sort of chap? And Germaine, Edith Sitwell, that sort of gal? People who thought deeply about what was important in life, and modern culture, and could communicate those thoughts? These days such a species has virtually disappeared from cultural life - leaving behind only the scientific materialists, like Dawkins and Cox, who should be no one's idea of a thinker, or comedians like Fry and Gervais, who although amusing and full of charm, are even worse philosophers than the so-called scientists. Peterson has built an enormous presence on the internet through his lectures on the modern crisis of nihiism, especially amongst young people, caused primarily by the dominance of secular leftism in the West, and the dearth of any philosophical defence of the values that built and once sustained it. Shapiro ditto, though he's done so more from a political, rather than a psychological, approach - he presents a defence and advocacy of traditional but now almost defunct conservatism. What I expect you'd call the right-wing. Rubin is a more of a traditional "liberal", in the American sense, and has again built a very influential internet presence through his fireside debates with leading political and philosophical figures. Why are they worth listening to? "Committing" any amount of your life is putting it way too strong, I would say. They're worth listening to, and considering, is all I'd say. You'll disagree with their view, no doubt, but it might be worth a portion of your brain-power wondering why, exactly. At the moment many of your views are seriously mistaken, I can tell you that much from my limited experience of your philosophy - working out how you disagree with contrasting views, of depth and quality, and why, is how you correct and improve them. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 8, 2019 10:51:33 GMT 1
Whilst the earliest known written document is a builder's invoice, the earliest known personal letter is I believe a complaint by a Babylonian to his friend on the modern crisis of nihiism, especially amongst young people, caused primarily by the dominance of secular leftism in the West, and the dearth of any philosophical defence of the values that built and once sustained it.
So that's two hours saved, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 8, 2019 11:09:46 GMT 1
Whilst the earliest known written document is a builder's invoice, the earliest known personal letter is I believe a complaint by a Babylonian to his friend on the modern crisis of nihiism, especially amongst young people, caused primarily by the dominance of secular leftism in the West, and the dearth of any philosophical defence of the values that built and once sustained it. As I said, many of your beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. The earliest known written document is not a builder's invoice, it's a description of the solar system, both astronomical and astrological - and it's Sumerian, not Babylonian - and of course the rest is self-satisifed disinterest. You could have said: I wish to remain in unthinking ignorance, thanks, believing the complete nonsense my deluded parents taught me - or nothing at all indeed: I don't think I would have been unduly perturbed. Instead you asked me a number of questions, for apparently no purpose at all. Which is curious, given your apparent time-deprived inability to multitask. Me, I listened to it while kayaking, a paddle being a more than adequate substitute for ears that are otherwise busy. |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 8, 2019 12:14:43 GMT 1
You know very little of my views beyond that EU membership is not in the best interests of the UK, a tax-funded national health service is a sign of a civilised society, a good legal system defines wrongs, not rights, and by observation, the happiest nations appear to be those with a hereditary monarch, and the world would be a better place with fewer people, preferably vegetarians. I suspect you agree with, or at least are prepared to tolerate, a fair bit of that.
I think we also share a mutual distrust of professional politicians and would prefer to be represented by people with a constituency rather than a party mandate, or those elected on the basis of demonstrable wisdom or expertise.
Not sure I've asked you "a number of questions" apart from why it would be worth my time listening to the three guys you proposed. I've learned a lot from self-made millionaires, Nobel prizewinners, engineers, soldiers and surgeons - basically, people who have actually done something rather than thought about what they think other people think. I gave your guys about five minutes before wondering why.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 8, 2019 12:46:05 GMT 1
You know very little of my views beyond that EU membership is not in the best interests of the UK, a tax-funded national health service is a sign of a civilised society, a good legal system defines wrongs, not rights, and by observation, the happiest nations appear to be those with a hereditary monarch, and the world would be a better place with fewer people, preferably vegetarians. I suspect you agree with, or at least are prepared to tolerate, a fair bit of that. I also know that - you claim to be at least - a communist, and a vehement atheist. Yes - and I'm sure we can agree that a Mercedes is a better car than a Lada. What's this got to do with anything? Apparently, you were one of the few people in the Western world who didn't know who they were. No one does anything in a vacuum: without a working model of the world, without values and an overall worldview of what is important and worthwhile, and why. No society, healthy and happy or not, exists without being shaped by its thinkers. The two guys concerned here have I would wager considerably altered the trajectory of the future development of most of the Western world - it's virtually certain that Hillary would now be President, for example, without Shapiro's very effective opposition to the Democrats' worldview. I also think he managed to almost single-handedly steer the US away from what very much looked like an imminent race-war - both at any rate have done more merely by conveying their thoughts for people of colour than Obama ever even attempted. Peterson has dramatically changed hundreds of thousands of people's lives for the better, by their own personal testimony. Not that either are saying anything that's particularly complicated, or even new (though Peterson's insights into the meaning of religion are genuinely innovatory and profound), or even much beyond common-sense - it only seems that way, their views only seem so extraordinary, because the West has become so thoroughly indoctrinated with the Liberal-Left belief system they oppose, and has proven so pernicious, and to which their views are such a welcome palliative. Beyond that - I greatly enjoyed their discussion, and it crossed my mind that others here might do so too. It is a pleasure to hear such intelligent, articulate, and competent thinkers, freely discussing issues of fundamental importance - whether you agree with them or learn anything is something else. You're not going to hear discussions of this quality and range anywhere else these days, except on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 9, 2019 2:04:56 GMT 1
I saw about a half of it. I didn't disagree with about a half of what I saw/heard them say.
However, the hyper, ego- and motor-mouthed-driven nature and pattern of it did make me wonder, like alan, why I was watching.
Tonight, I caught the interview with Rowan Williams on Newsnight. Certainly not an ego-driven motor mouth. In fact on occasion I thought he was going to:
- decline to answer; or
- sleep.
Pauses - even long ones - are a Good Thing, and I hope Peterson and Shapiro watched it. However, they may have brain implants that speed other people's speech up in their heads.
(I'd engage with the origins-of-writing thing, having studied it at great expense on books and bookshelves - but no-one can ever pin down what was the first example, can they? To say otherwise would be unscientific, and that would be a Bad Thing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 11, 2019 6:31:44 GMT 1
I saw about a half of it. I didn't disagree with about a half of what I saw/heard them say. However, the hyper, ego- and motor-mouthed-driven nature and pattern of it did make me wonder, like alan, why I was watching. An example of the ego-driven nature? I couldn't disagree more. He's certainly not as articulate and fluent, if that's what you mean. I've attended three of his lectures - not really by choice, after the first mind-numbing experience - so don't need to have seen the one you're referring to to say he's also habitually full of hot air and woolly thinking. Frankly, in retrospect, I find it hard to see the point of him - and I think I'd say the same about the present incumbent too, judging by his record so far. I'm not just talking about the interests of the Church or churchgoers - I mean, full stop. I suppose there might be someone, somewhere, that they've done some good for - but, generally, for the world's collective body of thought or wisdom: complete wastes of time. Why? Are you saying their thoughts were flowing too quickly for you to follow? You do have a pause button. One can be reasonably confident, within a few centuries anyway. Precise dating of clay is not possible, to be sure. But there is no known symbolic text from any civilisation that pre-dates the Sumerian - and the Creation tablets are, stylistically, if not the earliest, certainly amongst them (with the caveat that there are still many thousands of them that have yet to be studied, let alone deciphered.). If your studies have in any way suggested otherwise, kindly share your knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jan 11, 2019 20:15:59 GMT 1
Are you saying their thoughts were flowing too quickly for you to follow?
No. For me, after a while, the relentless ‘unnatural’ machine-gun delivery became off-putting.
(I put unnatural in inverted commas, because you might say it's natural for them; but it's not part of normal discourse. Parallel to the readability issue.)
As for the early-writing example issue, I can’t comment on the astrological etc link; but, reflecting alan’s point, I believe the driver for the early and continuing development of writing was more everyday – ie, trade/business.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 12, 2019 6:23:59 GMT 1
Are you saying their thoughts were flowing too quickly for you to follow?
No. For me, after a while, the relentless ‘unnatural’ machine-gun delivery became off-putting. (I put unnatural in inverted commas, because you might say it's natural for them; but it's not part of normal discourse. Parallel to the readability issue.) Fair enough, each to his own. Personally, I find nothing off-putting or abnormal about their delivery - on the contrary, actually. To find such linguistic competence and forensic accuracy is refreshing. Their speed and grammatical correctness of speech is merely a close Mercury-Jupiter combination in their personality structure, with s closely aspected Mars, giving fluent thought vigour and confidence: it's not that unusual: one in a hundred people, roughly - Jean was a good example. On top, they're very highly educated, with deep academic interests and a capacity for independent thought - which makes them more unusual, I guess - maybe one in ten thousand or so, maybe more. Hmmm...I doubt it. Marking tokens certainly pre-dates Sumeria, but there's an important development from sign to symbol, and trade does not require such a step (and the earliest known example of such tokenistic marks, that are in any way interpretable, are records of the phases of the Moon). The Sumerian map of the solar system (something that mysteriously includes Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, incidentally) is, as far as I'm aware, the earliest known (for sure, by contextual dating) instance of such conceptual symbol-making. Your assumption that such matters and concerns were not "everyday" is not justified - on the contrary, it would have been their most pressing noetic concern, imbued by everyone with the deepest possible significance. I'm happy to explain why if you're interested. |
|
