Returning to my journey through Jordan Peterson’s videos, I offer several paraphrased tidbits. I believe most, if not all of these come from his series entitled “Professor against Political Correctness,” but I won’t swear on it.
You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” You cannot derive ethical guidelines from factual knowledge. The reason is that there are an infinite number of facts from which to choose, so which facts are you going to pick? Merely by attending to some and not another you are already using an ethic.
When I hear this from Peterson, why do I think of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics?
Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument.
When two parties are in conflict, they can choose one of two means to resolve this conflict:
Engaging in violence, or engaging in honest argumentation.
Choosing violence to resolve conflict does not strike me as something sustainable for human life on earth (have I just made a value statement, I wonder?). If they choose argumentation, they inherently reject violence as the means for resolving conflict – hence coming to the non-aggression principle.
Ok, I have taken this one about as far as I am able (probably even beyond this); your thoughts are more than welcome on this.
The Value of a Value System
No value system, no positive emotion. The post-modernists complain about a value system, because it includes some people (winners), and excludes other people (losers). So they flatten the value system, so there will be no losers.
When you flatten the value system, you don’t get rid of suffering. When you flatten out value systems you still have the losers; you merely get rid of the winners.
We see the radical left’s attempts and successes at destroying all value systems. But I will focus elsewhere.
Regarding the non-aggression principle: can this be considered a “value system”? Is there some positive emotion that comes from the absence of the initiation of aggression? Perhaps yes, if one were living in Central Europe at pretty much any time between 1914 and 1991.
But even in this case, it still seems to me that non-aggression results in the absence of a negative emotion; this doesn’t strike me as the same thing as a positive emotion. Is there meaningful “life” in this, a life where all we have is the absence of negative emotion?
Does one even require “positive emotion” in life? Who says this is of value?
Well, it strikes me as a very dull, gray life. Without positive emotion, what’s the point?
So, if the non-aggression principle does not offer the possibility of a positive emotion, what does? Is it possible that each of us can hold to our own individual “value system” – without regard to the value systems held by those we interact with regularly – and at the same time be functional in this world? The notion strikes me as silly.
But if the notion is silly, then are we “stuck” living within a value system not completely of our own choosing? No, not at all; not if you are happy living a completely autonomous (and, perhaps, monotonous) life.
So, all that is left is to identify the value system that is most conducive to improving and sustaining life – and for each of us work to develop and improve – and not destroy – this value system.
This is getting messy…a positive obligation. For sure not to be found in the NAP, but there you have it.
And I know I am playing with fire here….
The Truth About University Education
University administrators, especially in the United States, pick your pocket. They rob your future self while allowing you to pretend you have an identity. You can’t declare bankruptcy with your student loans, it is indentured servitude. It is Pleasure Island [Pinocchio].
Why would the university make any demands on students? Why would they chase them out? They are $100,000!
I can’t add anything to this. He nails it.
An Interesting Way to Put It
Are they [extreme leftists] for women’s rights or for destroying western civilization? Find your answer in their support for the Saudis and Islamic fundamentalism.
Anyway, not a single one of these that I felt were worth its own post, just a few interesting thoughts that I felt were worth sharing.