Continuing with this series, reviewing the conversation between Jordan Peterson (JP) and Peter Kreeft (PK): How to Combat Hedonism
Peter Kreeft cites something from Karl Marx, apparently Marx’s favorite line from all of literature, from Goethe’s Faust: “Everything that lives deserves to perish.”
PK: That is what I would call absolute evil.
To elaborate on this, from Dr. Paul Kengor, the author of the book The Devil and Karl Marx:
Friends said Marx would chant this. He would recite this–'Everything that exists deserves to perish. Everything that exists deserves to perish.’ This is a philosophy that's about tearing down, burning the foundation, leveling the house, to where you have Marx standing there in the smoldering embers, saying, ‘Now we are ready to begin.’
One need not even limit this perishing to traditional social conditions or even for all living beings as the enemy of Marxism. As Peterson points out, this directly makes God the enemy of Marxism:
JP: This is very contrary to Genesis, where God says – after each phase of creation: it is good.
If it is good, it deserves to live. It deserves this so much that God sacrificed His Son / Himself to ensure this was so. But not according to Marx. Everything that exists deserves to perish. Everything. It is satanic – even jab-like.
PK: If the benevolent God who created the world is a myth, and there is nothing beyond the created universe, then the universe is very much like Rhett Butler: frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. It’s beyond good and evil.
Can there even be such a thing as good or evil if we are the result of nothing but random atoms smashing together randomly? In other words, while everything that exists might not deserve to perish, it also might not deserve to live.
In any case, many modern atheists believe that good and evil can be determined from the stew around us:
JP: There is this idea from the materialist determinists that if we just derive enough information about the nature of things, we could produce an algorithm that would allow us to compute our way forward…
Now, that is naïve….
PK interrupts: Now, that is naïve.
Yes, that’s what I said.
JP: It is naïve, well I think it’s technically naïve. I have talked to some great scientists like Sir Roger Penrose, and Penrose believes that in principle the horizon of the future is not fundamentally from the positions of the past.
Which diverts me to a conversation between Aubrey Marcus and Jonathan Pageau. In this portion, they discuss artificial intelligence and psychedelics. I will skip the psychedelics part, and focus on the portion of the discussion involving artificial intelligence (AI):
Marcus: I wonder if that [complete, supreme AI] could actually find a real understanding and be able to offer an actual shared system of value. That it would come to that conclusion naturally. That it would become not like the old gods that were capricious, but could become the great God – like God itself? That it would understand that love is what actually animates life.
You can imagine Pageau, just chomping at the bit to tie into this.
Marcus: If it really was gathering all of the intelligence of the cosmos, would it not come to the truth – or could it not come to the truth?