ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, December 04, 2018

The truth is spreading

And it's not going to help Jordan Peterson's career survive. An article in Demokracija openly calls him a false prophet.
First problem with Peterson that woke me out of my trance and forced me to reevaluate what this professor of psychology is even talking about, was his stance on the usage of personal pronouns. If in the past, he claimed that the problem were the many pronouns people were making up, he now claimed he doesn’t have any problem with the individuals and their pronouns, only with the law which would compel him to use them. That was the same Peterson who not long ago insisted he was ready to go to prison because of his refusal to use preferred personal pronouns.

Every video of his I saw, every tweet I read, every lecture I listened to only confirmed what I already knew at this point. Still, I kept convincing myself that it cannot be so. After all, the progressive left hates him, after all, Peterson says in his 12 Rules for Life to stand up straight, after all, Peterson advocated for the truth.

It turned out all of that was just a big lie. To stop fooling myself, two other events were needed. The first was a debate Peterson had with the youngest of the so-called four horsemen of atheism, philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris. The problems started right at the beginning of the debate when they couldn’t settle on the definition of truth. Harris claimed there is objective truth while Peterson tried by all means to defend the claim which was one of the craziest things I have ever heard. He claimed that truth is, according to evolution, something which helps the individual survive. When you think of it, Peterson’s definition allows that even a lie is truth as long as it helps you in pursuit of your own interests. How do you believe someone who claims that truth can be anything?
Meanwhile, the Lobster Cultists are desperately trying to prevent people from reading Jordanetics.

James E Moore, December 3 2018
Vox Day about as accurate as Vox News
For all the hoopla he claims his book is of little substance.

Folke Hermansen, December 3, 2018
Badly written and intellectually dishonest
As someone who has a genuine understanding of Peterson's work, this book is filled with misrepresentations and false conclusions.

I guess it just depends upon what you mean by "genuine", "misrepresentations", and "false". But it can hardly surprise anyone who has actually read Jordanetics that Jordan Peterson fans would lie about the book. After all, they are following the example of a man who habitually speaks with a forked tongue.

When you read this, keep in mind that this article in the American Thinker is actually supposed to be a defense of Jordan Peterson against Jordanetics:
The whole point of the revolution begun by Kant is that we can’t know “objective truth.”

For Kant everything we know comes through our senses and then gets processed by our brains and gussied up into a theory of the world. Thus, we cannot know things-in-themselves, prior to our sense impressions.

But the loss of “objective truth” is not the end of everything, it is just the beginning.

For one thing, it allows Carl Jung to experience the history of religion as the history of mankind trying to make sense of the world -- the meaning of life, the universe, and everything -- given the state of human knowledge about life, the universe, and everything at the time.

In his book Jordan Peterson tries to make sense of the world with everything from Biblical exegesis to Nietzschean aphorisms and Jungian analysis, with Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn thrown in for good measure. And, of course, his Biblical analysis compares God the Father and Christ the Son with Osiris and Horus, the Egyptian father-son duo. He would, because he’s a Jungian, and Jungians believe that you can bring together the religious beliefs of all ages to discover the truth.
And the only thing you need to know about Kant is that he was wrong, completely and utterly wrong. His entire life's work was an unnecessary attempt to square a philosophical circle. The objective truth exists regardless of our ability to correctly perceive it at any given point in time. And the Jungians are not merely wrong, they are mad. That's not you make sense of the world. That's not how you make sense of anything. And more importantly, that's not how you "discover the truth," that's how you end up molesting children, drinking blood, and chanting nonsense in fake languages in order to magickally exert your will upon the world.

I wonder how many Jordan Peterson fans understand that in following the 12-Rule Path they are quite literally rejecting the core philosophical basis for the science they think they love?

How can anyone who is sane possibly defend a man who "advocates for the truth" when, by his own account and according to his defenders, he does not believe in the existence of "the objective truth"?

Labels: ,

60 Comments:

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei December 04, 2018 5:21 AM  

The whole C-16 kerfluffle that launched him is a perfect epitome of Wee Petey: he spoke boldly, lost spectacularly, then just pretended none of it ever happened. Lobsters have shorter memories than goldfish.

Blogger Rhys December 04, 2018 5:38 AM  

It's like he's trying to trick the civnats by using their language - "it's not the pronouns that are the problem, it's the legality".

Blogger Unknown December 04, 2018 6:04 AM  

Folke Hermansen are most probably not the real name of the person complaining.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 04, 2018 6:12 AM  

"And the only thing you need to know about Kant is that he was wrong, completely and utterly wrong. His entire life's work was an unnecessary attempt to square a philosophical circle."

Been stuck on that before, without even reading Kant. It's the top edge of a slippery slope. That it is possible to submit to deception does not mean that it is ever impossible to distinguish deception from truth.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

-Romans 1:20.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 04, 2018 6:14 AM  

"Lobsters have shorter memories than goldfish."

Evolutionarily expedient, I'm sure.

Blogger dienw December 04, 2018 7:00 AM  

OT: we are no longer a Western Nation; nor are we any longer a First World nation:
Simulated dendrochronology of U.S. immigration (1830-2015)

We woke up too late. The God damned (((parasites))) won.

Blogger dienw December 04, 2018 7:05 AM  

A breakdown by state.

Blogger dienw December 04, 2018 7:23 AM  

There is more hope of salvation for Sam Harris than for Peterson: recognition of objective truth is a primary step.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore December 04, 2018 7:42 AM  

@4 I just started reading Postmodernism Explained (Stephen Hicks). From the bit I've read thus far, Kant is depicted as having set the foundations that from which Postmodernism arose.

It's been a challenging read thus far and I don't think it'll get any easier.

Blogger Difster December 04, 2018 7:50 AM  

There's a hilarious Facebook group called the Jordan Peterson Christian Study Group. Go join it for some lulz.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 04, 2018 7:55 AM  

Stop grabbing your ankles for a second, Dien. Nothing's over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Blogger Daniel December 04, 2018 8:05 AM  

Did Folke Hermanson just admit that Jordanetics has consequences?

Blogger Avalanche December 04, 2018 8:12 AM  

@5 ""Lobsters have shorter memories than goldfish."

Evolutionarily expedient, I'm sure."

Must be true then.

Blogger VinceLRN December 04, 2018 8:12 AM  

Even more astonishing is that I have witnessed Petersonites saying things like "Vox is merely doing this as a cash grab and he is untrustworthy"

Being dishonest and pretending they know anything about who Vox Day is.

Anything to defend their Messiah.

Meanwhile Peterson is in bed with Globalists like John Podesta and Rothchild and making $100K per month on Patreon, $400 per ticket on his speaking tour and charging $100 for Personality tests.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 04, 2018 8:22 AM  

Projection. Always projection.

Blogger wreckage December 04, 2018 8:23 AM  

From a strictly materialist/Darwinist POV, Peterson is right. There's no place for a meaningfully perceptible objective truth in a materialist view of neurology, specifically. Objective truths may exist, but there's ultimately no way to interact with them or even perceive them, since the entire system of perception, understanding, thought, even data retrieval, is absolutely and necessarily nothing more than survival expedient and reproductive success.

Of course, that view is opposed to the classical and the Christian understanding of the universe, where either ideal or intelligible forms, or the divine origin of creation and reason, implies not only an ordered universe but a necessary ability of thinking beings to perceive and understand it. Harris, like all the New (and Old) Atheists, is insisting on retaining the Christian and Classical heritage of the West, at the same time as he works full-time to defile and destroy it.

Short version: the argument over truth reveals BOTH to be charlatans, but in this rare instance, it's actually Peterson who's being self-consistent, while Harris parades around, intellectually, in the flayed skin of Christendom.

Blogger dienw December 04, 2018 8:25 AM  

@11 your snark comment really solves the dilemma: there are over 320 million people with the United States, not counting those illegals we don't know about; from the chart, only half of those here are of European/Western descent;it will take a bloodbath of historical proportions for the European stock to take back this country: we will be fighting not only the invaders but the very government as well: the bloodiest fighting will be in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and New Jersey.

Blogger VD December 04, 2018 8:27 AM  

it will take a bloodbath of historical proportions for the European stock to take back this country

Even if that were true, then obviously it is not over. If you're going to whine and despair, that's fine, but go do it elsewhere. We don't do that here.

Blogger VD December 04, 2018 8:28 AM  

From a strictly materialist/Darwinist POV, Peterson is right.

Of course he's not right. He doesn't say "there is no truth", he says "not-truth is truth". Even from his strictly materialist/Darwinist perspective, he does not speak truthfully.

Blogger wreckage December 04, 2018 8:39 AM  

@19 OK, that's a distinction I failed to make. I'll have to chew on that one for a while; my feeling was that Peterson accurately presented a falsehood, while Harris was dishonest and disingenuous in (correctly) defending a truth he has no right to.

Blogger wreckage December 04, 2018 8:42 AM  

@17 People groups have never consolidated and self-sorted into territories on the same continent? It's pretty much what they do, left to themselves, which is why the erasure of culture and meaningful human experience has required centralized control; the Supreme Soviet, The UN, the US legal system....

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 04, 2018 8:42 AM  

"As someone who has a genuine understanding of Peterson's work, this book"

Ah, the dissasociative ablative.

Blogger Akulkis December 04, 2018 8:57 AM  

No, it won't take a "bloodbath of historical proportions."

When the welfare stops and the charities-for-illegals are out of money (and their properties .Burned down), and it becomes open season on anyone looking like a mestizo, Aztec, Arab, etc,, very few of the Invaders are going to stick around to fight. The will "go home' because here is N,OT their home and they know it.

Blogger Jill December 04, 2018 9:05 AM  

As fascinating as Jung's research was, the conclusion of a Jungian worldview is a rejection of Christ because the "Jesus myth" is considered an aberrant one. Jesus completed the cycle when he ascended to heaven to be with his Father. A Jungian doesn't want the cycle to be complete because ritualising it is important to the human soul. Why is it important? Humans have always done it. Why have they done it? It's clearly important. But the same can be said for Jungian anti-feminism. The concepts of male and female are important to the human soul because they've always been important; therefore, feminism is mental illness. Jung spiritualized his research. He was not a pure materialist thinker, and modern-day Jungians are left with a mush-mash of magic without origins mixed with materialistic survival instincts.

Blogger John Regan December 04, 2018 9:19 AM  

I'm not sure we're being entirely fair to Kant here. As I understood him, back when I was a student of this stuff, he did not deny the existence of objective truth but rather argued that faith was at the top of the epistemological hierarchy, over empirical observation and probably most importantly over reason, which he divided into "pure" and "practical".

Kant wasn't my favorite by any means, but I always thought that the extravagant, fundamentally wicked and incoherent denial of objective truth was a fad that mostly came along later, reaching its zenith in Nietzsche and somehow gaining intellectual respectability in 20th century. Prior to all that you just had this guy Hume spouting such stuff, and Kant may have been primarily reacting to him and his "followers".

This is probably a little far afield from the Jordanetics issues, but Peterson certainly has the 20th century amateur epistemologist thing going, which is to say a shallow at best appreciation for the difficulty of the subject and the danger that poses.

Blogger bob kuk mando ( everything has Consequences. that what makes them Consequences ) December 04, 2018 9:45 AM  

some retard in the Anti Thinker
"He would, because he’s a Jungian, and Jungians believe that you can bring together the religious beliefs of all ages to discover the truth."

Satanism is a religious belief. if you listen to Satanists, it is one of the oldest, if not THE oldest of religious beliefs.

therefore, the Jungian method requires the integration of Satanism with all other religions ( such as the child sacrifice of Ba'al Hammon, or the Crowleyian requirement to "experience all things" ) in order to "discover the Truth".

Blogger OGRE December 04, 2018 9:54 AM  

The objective truth exists regardless of our ability to correctly perceive it at any given point in time.

Thats pretty much Kant's entire point. The original article muddles Kant's work with those that came farther down the line and were to an extent based on his own (Schopenhauer, Husserl, Heidegger, from whom followed the post-modernists and post-structuralists which is where the 'no objective truth' position comes in), but nowhere did Kant hold that there was no objective truth. In fact, quite the contrary, and that our inability to experience a 'thing-in-itself' but only to experience our perceptions of it was a limitation inherent to the human mind; it is an epistemological issue not a metaphysical one. Further, a mind not so limited--such as God's--could indeed experience a thing-in-itself.

Kant makes it very clear that our experiencing the sensations of an object is proof that such an object exists externally to us, and that the existence of such external objects is not dependent on a mind perceiving it. (as contrasted to a an immaterialist idealist such as Berkeley.)

I'm no transcendental idealist, but this is ascribing to Kant positions he never made and to which his works would be in opposition. Go much farther down the Idealist line of thought and you can get to the proponents of "no objective truth," but thats not what Kant said at all.

Blogger John Regan December 04, 2018 10:00 AM  

@27 LOL you made same the point I did, just better.

Blogger Paul M December 04, 2018 10:09 AM  

The thing about Jung and Freud is that they were prescientific. Insofar as psychology is a science at all, these worthies are not psychologists. They were armchair theorists. Which is not to say they were wrong about everything - Freud was a fine observer. It's just that the theories he made up to explain his observations were … let's be charitable and say unfalsifiable.

Blogger OGRE December 04, 2018 10:11 AM  

@28 John Regan

ha! I had started my post before you wrote yours, but had to step away for a bit, then posted it without seeing what you had wrote. I wouldn't have said so much if I had seen yours first as you pretty much said what I had meant to say already.

Blogger bob kuk mando ( everything has Consequences. that what makes them Consequences ) December 04, 2018 10:12 AM  

29. Paul M December 04, 2018 10:09 AM
let's be charitable and say unfalsifiable.


so you prefer to only follow those theories which can be proven False?

you do understand the meaning of the "-able" suffix, do you not?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 04, 2018 10:28 AM  

"the bloodiest fighting will be in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and New Jersey."

I'm in Texas, intentionally.

"When the welfare stops and the charities-for-illegals are out of money (and their properties .Burned down), and it becomes open season on anyone looking like a mestizo, Aztec, Arab, etc,, very few of the Invaders are going to stick around to fight. The will "go home' because here is N,OT their home and they know it."

I disagree. Only some of them will go home. Many will consider this to be their home, and won't go anywhere. They will, however, stop winning by flooring the socialism/consumerism/parasite accelerator.

One of the best ways to get rid of many types of parasites is to go into near-starvation and start tightening your belt...

Blogger brokenword December 04, 2018 10:31 AM  

Compare this to what Christopher Langan has to say about absolute truth: "To perceive one and the same reality, human beings need a kind of "absolute knowledge" wired into their minds and nervous systems. The structure and physiology of their brains, nerves and sense organs provide them, at least in part, with elementary cognitive and perceptual categories and relationships in terms of which to apprehend the world. This "absolute" kind of knowledge is what compels the perceptions and logical inferences of any number of percipients to be mutually consistent, and to remain consistent over time and space. Without the absoluteness of such knowledge - without its universality and invariance - we could not share a common reality; our minds and senses would lie and bicker without respite, precipitating us into mental and sensory chaos. Time and space, mind and matter, would melt back into the haze of undifferentiated potential from which the universe is born."

Blogger DonReynolds December 04, 2018 10:32 AM  

There is a objective truth and a healthy mind will want to hew as close to that objective truth as they can. They may not be perfect or even perfectly consistent, given their own mental and emotional capacity and limitations, but the truth should be welcome everywhere, even when it comes as inconvenient or disappointing. The objective truth remains, whether you accept it or not.

Do I know the objective truth about molecular chemistry or biology? How about the path of the stars in the sky? No, I know almost nothing about such things. I leave it to other people to devote their time and best efforts to knowing the objective truth in these matters, because it is not necessary for me or anyone else to know everything. No person can know everything. That is what division of labor is all about and why people can accomplish more by cooperating than they can by acting alone. We actually need each other.

I do not do my own dental work. I go see a man who has devoted years to studying the craft and I pay him to repair my teeth. It does not bother me that I know very little of the objective truth. He has his calling, like everyone else. It is called the Protestant Work Ethic.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 04, 2018 10:39 AM  

"but nowhere did Kant hold that there was no objective truth."

The linked article doesn't say he did.

Here's the linchpin. Did Kant hold that objective truth, though existent, is humanly unobtainable or incomprehensible? That's the very top edge of the slippery slope.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 04, 2018 10:41 AM  

He used to talk about how the demand to use these pronouns was about forcing people to utter falsehoods and how he wouldn't do it. This is what made him famous. Now he won't even defend that.
Even if he were perfectly sane and coherent and good, he is such a coward that he cannot stick to his "principles." His followers are doing the same thing. His Christian followers will sooner or later be forced to lie about Christ.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 04, 2018 10:41 AM  

Azure, where in Texas are you?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 04, 2018 10:45 AM  

San Antonio area.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 04, 2018 10:51 AM  

I'm an hour north of you

Blogger electricsheeple December 04, 2018 11:25 AM  

VD, Do you think that Jung was trying to create a "Post Christian Spirituality/Religion" in the same way that Peterson is now?

Blogger ÆtherCzar December 04, 2018 11:27 AM  

The problem is that non-objective philosophy has even permeated fundamental science with broader influence beyond science to culture and politics. When objective truth is rejected, all bets are off, and anything goes. Alinsky explicitly cited Bohr's quantum mechanical interpretations in support of his progressive political ideology. Alinsky uses Bohr's concept of complementarity - the notion that contradiction is inherent to reality and the opposite of a great truth may well be another great truth - to justify the contradictions inherent in applying progressive ideology. Megan Fox wrote a nice article tying this all together along with some of my own scientific work in a recent article:  Gender-Queer Drag Queen Says Quantum Mechanics Explains Unlimited Genders.

Blogger electricsheeple December 04, 2018 11:32 AM  

The beauty of the "bad reviews" (Peterson defense reviews) are they still help the truth get out. This is a situation where we merely need to have the discussion to win. Peterson would probably rather his followers ignore the book than write negative reviews.

Blogger JFL December 04, 2018 11:36 AM  

About Jung, this article is a must read to understand how nonsensical and dangerous the guy's ideas are:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/jungs-therapeutic-gnosticism

I particularly liked this part, mentioning Jung's "encounters" with a variety of imaginary friends in the depth of his unconscious:

"Many of them seem intent on getting Jung to abandon his conventional belief in any real dichotomy between good and evil, and to recognize that God and the devil are just two sides of a single reality; none of them, however, has any great gift for getting to the point."

Does it remind you of anyone? Hart does a good job pointing out how Peterson is significantly worse than even a classical Gnostic. He's a Gnostic who removed transcendance from the equation, a materialistic Gnostic. The world might be a prison where the fragmentary reflections of God are nowhere to be seen, a hellish place governed by suffering, but unlike Gnostics of old Peterson thinks there's no escape from it and this is actually a good thing.

By accepting and integrating evil you too can rise up the lobsters dominance hierarchies and forget the torment of apple cider by buying fancy suits and touring the world in luxury hotels. It's morality reduced to the acquisition of material wealth and worldly power and an obvious attempt to divert the anger of the alienated masses away from the corrupted, traitorous elites by portraying them as inherently good because of the power they hold. Servants of the prince of this world portrayed as saints.

It's inversion to a degree we've rarely seen.

Blogger Jill Domschot December 04, 2018 11:39 AM  

"He's a Gnostic who removed transcendance from the equation, a materialistic Gnostic." This is a good way of putting it.

Blogger Lance E December 04, 2018 11:56 AM  

At least the lobster cultists know the difference between Vox Day and Vox Media now. That's a major improvement over the first wave.

Anyway, you can't call him a false prophet because his prophecies haven't had any consequences!

Blogger VD December 04, 2018 12:16 PM  

Do you think that Jung was trying to create a "Post Christian Spirituality/Religion" in the same way that Peterson is now?

It appears so, yes. I'll have to read the Red Book to be certain.

Blogger chronoblip December 04, 2018 12:18 PM  

If you want a view on how these ideas got into the church and then grew bad fruit, the lecture "Resistance Is Futile: You Will Be Assimilated Into The Community" does a good job.

https://www.piratechristian.com/fightingforthefaith/2016/6/resistance-is-futile-you-will-be-assimilated-into-the-community

Solipsistic worldviews, not even once.

Blogger Thumos December 04, 2018 12:24 PM  

In light of the transcendental unity of apperception, Kant in his brilliance should have taken things rationally from there, and become a damn monk or a saint, accordingly dropping the empiricist nonsense of the time, which still persists to this day. Kant and especially Plato both help develop theology in important ways even though neither one was a Christian and Platonist ideas have worked to harm the west. But this is expected, as he is not Christ, and neither were the western Christians who took the Platonic tradition too far. The enlightenment empiricism project which ultimately begat Darwin, "no free will" and other nonsense is traceable to Aristotle, so he's flawed like his teacher Plato.

At the end, the truth is in Christ and no man or school of philosophy. Proverbs 1:7 says the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. The Bible also indirectly mentions materialism: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8). True philosophy is theology, it starts with a presupposition of an omniscient, omnibenevolent creator who links together all of reality (including our minds with the external world--which empiricism gives no possible account for), is morally consistent, and demands the same from us. The Ancient Greeks obviously didn't have revelation, which is why Paul went there to tell them what was up.

For these reasons I disagree with Vox saying that Plato is evil and Aristotle is the truth. It's not that simple, they're both highly flawed like any philosopher. (and it was a line during livestream, to be fair, but some people might take that dialectic and run with it, which I think would be mistaken).

Blogger John Regan December 04, 2018 12:49 PM  

@48: Well, this is an interesting comment.

It's important to understand that Plato was largely reacting to Parmenides, who wound up rejecting empirical reality entirely, an extremely odd place to end up from the modern point of view. In so doing, though, Parmenides winds up concluding that there must be some other, unperceived reality that with some notable differences nevertheless resembles in important respects the idea of "one God".

This was all the more uncanny because Parmenides certainly wasn't out to provide any justification for monotheism; he was just trying to establish the primacy of reason over observation.

So Plato comes along later, not outright rejecting Parmenides wholesale but rather according some lesser reality to the observed world whereas Parmenides gave it none, and agreeing with Parmenides that there is some far better but unobserved reality.

And then these Platonic ideas wind up resembling the idea of a fallen world and a heaven.

One thing that is, of course, quite interesting about all this is that these ideas were the product of pre-Christian pagans who by definition weren't trying to demonstrate anything about Christianity, but who nevertheless through reason arrive at some strikingly similar understandings.

So the early Christian thinkers, like Augustine, look at all this and decide that reason trumps observation, and that faith trumps reason.

Modernity inverts this understanding, of course, because it's too Christian-y, even though it begins with non-Christian pagans. So a modern, or maybe post-modern, believes that observation is the top and in many ways the only kind of knowledge; that "reason" is mere pretense and, per David Hume, the "slave of the passions"; and faith is superstitious nonsense.

And we all know what inversion is a sign of, right?

Blogger OGRE December 04, 2018 12:56 PM  

@48 Thumos

Spot on. I'd note that Kant relied heavily on Aristotle in developing his 'categories' of conception. I'd also add that the more philosophy I've studied the more I come to the realization that the human mind is so limited as to be incapable of proving any truth perfectly on its own; only through divine revelation can we have a foundation for determining actual truth.

Blogger OGRE December 04, 2018 1:02 PM  

@49 John Regan

Excellent write-up. The world was created by God such that we can understand it sufficiently but also learn of Him through our interactions with the world. In a sense, Creation itself is a divine revelation.

Blogger mike December 04, 2018 1:10 PM  

If truth were subjective, why so many ppl died defending it? I guess they weren't self-aware enough to try to survive. Objective truth exists but people have limited ways of discovering it in certain aspects. God knows all objective truth. To discover all objective truth is to discover God. Go libtards go...

Blogger MB December 04, 2018 1:12 PM  

When you say something is metaphysical, you mean that it cannot be investigated by physical means.
But this is a mere tautology. As soon as we get direct experience of something and start investigating it empirically, it goes from the realm of metaphysics into that of physics.
For example, we seem to be much closer than Kant was to understanding why extended bodies have mass, what gives them mass, what is the nature of mass. Not to mention weight, which is somewhat understood already.
And, even if our understanding is imperfect, the point is that these notions have been opened to empirical investigation.
What was once inaccessible and metaphysical has become accessible and physical.
So Kant's reasoning about metaphysics only applies to some, but by no means all, types of knowledge.
Analogously, it doesn't apply to revealed knowledge and to most Christian traditions, but only to the most austere and rarefied Protestant or non-homoousian conceptions of God.

Blogger Thumos December 04, 2018 1:17 PM  

John Regan wrote:@48: Well, this is an interesting comment.

It's important to understand that Plato was largely reacting to Parmenides, who wound up rejecting empirical reality entirely, an extremely odd place to end up from the modern point of view. In so doing, though, Parmenides winds up concluding that there must be some other, unperceived reality that with some notable differences nevertheless resembles in important respects the idea of "one God".

This was all the more uncanny because Parmenides certainly wasn't out to provide any justification for monotheism; he was just trying to establish the primacy of reason over observation.

So Plato comes along later, not outright rejecting Parmenides wholesale but rather according some lesser reality to the observed world whereas Parmenides gave it none, and agreeing with Parmenides that there is some far better but unobserved reality.

And then these Platonic ideas wind up resembling the idea of a fallen world and a heaven.

One thing that is, of course, quite interesting about all this is that these ideas were the product of pre-Christian pagans who by definition weren't trying to demonstrate anything about Christianity, but who nevertheless through reason arrive at some strikingly similar understandings.

So the early Christian thinkers, like Augustine, look at all this and decide that reason trumps observation, and that faith trumps reason.

Modernity inverts this understanding, of course, because it's too Christian-y, even though it begins with non-Christian pagans. So a modern, or maybe post-modern, believes that observation is the top and in many ways the only kind of knowledge; that "reason" is mere pretense and, per David Hume, the "slave of the passions"; and faith is superstitious nonsense.

And we all know what inversion is a sign of, right?


Well said, I'd agree. From this it's easy to see why Platonism tends towards Satanism, and has infected the western church and its many heretical progeny. So it's not like it's without ANY basis that Vox would say Plato is evil. It's also funny.

As far as what you're hinting at about the Greeks getting very close to God without revelation, I've always thought that myself, which is why I'm fond of Plato. And in my opinion it's why God sent Paul to Athens and not China or Africa (the other reasons being geographic proximity, and the obvious power of Koine Greek spreading the gospel). We're in a similar position with our knowledge and the lingua franca of the day, with the ability to communicate with the entire planet.

Blogger Thumos December 04, 2018 1:21 PM  

mike wrote:If truth were subjective, why so many ppl died defending it? I guess they weren't self-aware enough to try to survive. Objective truth exists but people have limited ways of discovering it in certain aspects. God knows all objective truth. To discover all objective truth is to discover God. Go libtards go...

Truth must exist by the impossibility of the contrary. To claim it doesn't presupposes that it does. That's how you shut up any SJW sociology adjunct twat trying to push relativism. You also didn't get anything like this during that tedious Harris/Peterson debate. I really cannot stand either of them.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 04, 2018 1:22 PM  

Kant has never made any sense to me. If your senses can't perceive something perfectly, they are still able to perceive them correctly according to their ability. A colorblind person may see a green apple as brown, but that's not because he's seeing a brown apple; he's seeing a green apple correctly insofar as his dichromatic vision is able to display it in his brain.

Blogger OGRE December 04, 2018 1:31 PM  

@35 Azure Amaranthine

The linked article doesn't say he did.

No, but it muddied it up real good and but the ultimate blame on him. And unfairly so.

Did Kant hold that objective truth, though existent, is humanly unobtainable or incomprehensible?

No. He was explaining how we do gain knowledge of an external world. He took issue with both the Rationalist and the Empiricist views and found them each lacking. In essence he synthesized the two into his transcendental idealism; but contrary to the label he had a very realist view of the world. But he recognized that our ability to have knowledge of the world was inherently connected to our being things existing in the world:

I am conscious of my own existence as determined in time. All determination in regard to time presupposes the existence of something permanent in perception. But this permanent something cannot be something in me, for the very reason that my existence in time is itself determined by this permanent something. It follows that the perception of this permanent existence is possible only through a thing without me and not through the mere representation of a thing without me. Consequently, the determination of my existence in time is possible only through the existence of real things external to me.
Critique of Pure Reason


That's the very top edge of the slippery slope.

Possibly. Its part of the path that leads to that end, but we can say that about a whole host of other ideas. We could lay blame with Descartes or Hume or Aquinas or Aristotle or Thales just as easily, as all are also part of that path. But its not real fair to blame Kant for the work of others, even if their work is derivative of his, when Kant's positions were in direct contradiction to theirs.

Blogger Argus Bacchus December 04, 2018 2:17 PM  

"As someone who has a genuine understanding of Peterson's work,..."


Best joke of the day so far.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd December 04, 2018 5:07 PM  

partially OT: Camille Paglia is seduced to the lobster cult.... https://spectator.us/camille-paglia-hillary-trump/

Blogger John Regan December 04, 2018 9:04 PM  

@54: I don't see how Platonism leads to Satanism. What am I missing there?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts