Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Covington Lawsuit and Tucker Carlson (Pt.2) | Robert Barnes | LAW | Rubin Report" video.
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielvincent1153
Your original claim was that Peterson was saying the same thing that Cortez was, that it is OK to play fast and loose with facts in a good cause. Your Peterson quotes don't equate to that. He has been lauding the metaphorical lessons learned from what he regards as the foundational myths of western society. That's not the same as advocating saying something is literally true when it is literally not. What was expressed by Nietzche is presumably what he said before that sentence.
Nietzche did say:
To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!"
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?
from Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, s III.12, Walter Kaufmann transl.
Metaphysical world.-- It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.
from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, s.9, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error.
from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.121, Walter Kaufmann transl..
"So I would say" that is clearly NOT attributing the following to N, as you seem to imply by omitting the context. He is expressing his own idea.
"The ethical pursuit supercedes the scientific pursuit with regards to truth claims" That's meaningless on materialistic terms, because the ethical is meaningless on materialistic terms, but why do you assume he is a materialist? If the ethical is valid, that is if the qualifying claims of morality to objectivity, universality, and transcendence are true then BY DEFINITION it is the judge of all things. What is there IN SCIENCE that would keep a scientist from doing evil? And if the ethical is invalid, on what basis do you condemn liars, as you seemed ready enough to do?
"There are truths other than the literal, and perhaps even more truthful than the literal truths"
This is the whole basis of literary fiction, fable, and metaphor. That a lesson can be taken from a story (a moral or a factual lesson) when we indulge in our "willing suspension of disbelief" (to use Coleridge's phrase) as if from personal experience - without our having to make the mistake, or hazard the experience. Peterson finds in some stories the distilled wisdom of the ages because the idea conveyed by them is helpful.
You asked earlier if I had watched any of Petersons debates with Harris, I did watch part of them, it was painful to watch because they were speaking to cross purposes. Harris was implying that Peterson was being disingenuous for contradicting materialism. If you have listened to the first Rubin conversation with Peterson and Ben Shapiro, it should be obvious that Peterson is NOT a materialist. If I had to guess, and since Peterson does not come out and say I suppose that he is an agnostic. What Peterson was saying to Harris may well be meaningless on Harris' assumptions, but Peterson does not share those assumptions.
1
-
1