Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Tom Nicholas" channel.

  1. This video is sociopolitically incorrect in a good many ways, while I don't agree entirely with either Orwell or Peterson. Orwell being a foolish socialist with no consistent backbone, having the "backbone" to criticize everything (when he decided it matters randomly) is worthless when you stand for nothing, Orwell opposed any definitive morality system and had no capability to judge wrongness and immorality invalidating many things by his own worldview. (which all socialists do) Peterson on the other hand uses pseudo-morality and philosophy to justify his so claimed morality and tries to associate it with Christianity, (but do note he is stealing from it, not properly representing it, it is quite cherrypicked) which while more consistent and better then Orwell, is both a deception and inconsistent still. Peterson might have more backbone then Orwell but he still does not have a manner to define his standards by since he lives in the myth of neutrality. The question never asked is "who is the authority". However Peterson is correct about a few things even despite not often defining them. (however he has defined and demonstrated their case and existence, post-modernism and anti-moralism being the most blatantly demonstrated, unfortunate that he has no decent correction or addressment since he's still a neutralist) "present in the apocalyptic style of Peterson’s prose, his unshakable belief in the individual and fear of the collective and the manner in which he continues to see “reds under the bed”, parsing everyone he disagrees with as not only a “postmodern neo-marxist but as akin to a foreign agent working to destroy his beloved “Western culture”” But you never actually presented this as not true. The opponents he faces (or actually acknowledges and addresses) have all been postmodernist neo-marxists working at destroying such that. In the least, many of the common oppositions to Peterson are postmodernist and neo-marxist arguments, there's even a good many here, one of the most common being there is no definition of a common "Western" culture, which I will in fact instead call Christ-aware culture since that's more accurate. (not Christ-adherent culture as demanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19) Yes this does in fact exist, I will demonstrate its case and your complete misunderstanding of the past 2000 years. (and so too even educate you on some of the pre-Christ era) But first we must accept that postmodernism, as in the rejection of an objective worldview, is already logically invalid in all manners of legitimate thoughts. Neo-marxist refers to rejection of individualist principles which are a core basis for all men to be facing towards liberty and responsibility. Your argument against Peterson in regards to Orwell is probably correct in most manners since Orwell is, like George Washington, held in too high a regard for a historical individual (ironically, or perhaps hypocritically enough) and was wholly incorrect on many positions and really only adept at supposing the basics of a surveillance state. Though the interpretations pulled have not been demonstrated to be wrong nor unintended, more so just in conflict with Orwell's other positions. That's really a refutation of Peterson in that case though its made to be one here. "Yet, what is “Western culture”? The phrase is certainly thrown around a lot, and most of us have a vague idea of what someone is referring to when they use it. But what we find is that, as soon as we try to define it with any real degree of specificity, it proves to be quite a hazy concept." Not really, I'll explain down below. "Now, like many others who use the term, Peterson doesn’t seem to have ever offered a clear definition of what he believes “Western culture” to consist of. He’s never explained where its geographical limits might lie, who it includes and who it doesn’t." No, this is quite a manipulation of what he has said. This completely ignores many of his lectures and talks specifically on the nature of both the west and what he believed its origin lies in, that being Christianity. (I don't believe it however, I know it to be true) He's made multiple videos years before on how its defined, just because he hasn't made a clear video titled "How to define Western Culture" in more recent times in some analogous form (which you are practically assuming he would do which blatantly disregards his character and how he addresses the question, not to mention he rarely repeats topics he's already addressed in a video form) is quite disingenuous. Peterson has defined the concept moderately enough to at least point at a foundation for what he considers "Western Culture" to be. Calling it vague; (or "not offering a clear definition" which is called being vague) requiring a geographical limit which it doesn't even need, this academic outlook is a bad worldview to address Peterson by despite being an academic, he's not operating as an academic but a philosopher, your perspective of him here is foolish to say the least; and who is and is not to be included which it also does not need for much the same as before; is quite reductive and seeks instead to handwave the facts and ideas without actually addressing them. "morality […] predicated on the idea of God’. To Peterson, then, “Western culture” appears to refer to places and people that have been influenced by Christianity." How can you claim its vaguely defined and does not refer to a specific places or peoples when in the literal next statement you make its quite clear (as he does quite often in fact make so) that he's referring to Christianity? You do realize this is contradiction of your previous claim quite directly, and you don't refute that its a clear definition, refuting it as perhaps a valid definition, (which I will refute you in a moment) but that makes the "being vague" and "being socially or geographically" when you then say such is in fact deceptive. It has no basis in truth when you do such things. "Now, although I’m perhaps being generous here in taking this as a definition, this is actually far more specific than many other definitions of “Western culture” which" Why are you presenting this as a definition here then? And no its not "being generous", it is literally what Peterson has explicitly defined before. This is intellectually lower then a nitpick, its of no substance to say except to attack Peterson. "On the point of homogeneity, Christians have spent as much of history tearing chunks out of each other as sharing in the body of Christ and, despite sharing a sacred text, differing denominations extract wildly different modes of morality and being from the Bible." This is blatantly immoral and deceptive as a statement. You assume that man has an obligation to act in a communist "selfless" manner as if individuals or nations either could do this. Christ never demanded such so why do you assume such? You also acts as if the same cultures have never been at war with themselves and never separated themselves? You do realize Japan, China, France, England, even the damn US has fought itself and separated itself many times and still does. Is French not a homogeneitic culture? Is there no shared French identity? What about England or the US? Why do you assume such things of only Christians? What about the atheists? Or Buddhists? How does this argument hold up? And how the hell does differing denominations even refute homogeneity? Do not Americans share differing interpretations of the Constitution? Do not the English and French share distinctions in what they consider their cultural values or interpretations to be? This argument is vapid and hollow. This argument literally makes the claim that there is no such thing as culture, no homogeneity does not define culture, least of all in the sense of sharing a lack of opposition and fighting. What kind of claim is this? Either assign your points consistently or don't assign them at all, you don't get to cherrypick for your arguments. "the religion has been integrated into feudalism, empire, fascism and various forms of capitalism." I can make the same foolish argument too. Germans have been integrated into a feudal society, into an imperial society, into a fascist society, and into a capitalist society. Where does a Judo-Christian cultural identity stand in distinction to the German culture? It seems like you really just wanted a reason to pick at Christianity, there is no reason to do this otherwise. Especially when you don't even understand basic Christian precepts. Also just because multiple denominations exist does not in turn mean we do not share a common standard, some of them are wrong and heretical to it, but any actual Christian (not so claimed, which is another thing you don't seem to understand a thing about, claims do not represent fact, to claim to be Christian does not make you such just like claiming to be French does not make you French, there is an objective standard you need to hold to which you seem either willfully or ignorantly ill-informed about) "In fact, making the case for such homogeneity and continuity would require sanding off the details to such an extent that it would be at the cost of our third presupposition: distinctiveness." This argument also literally argues culture does exist, you can't have homogeneity and distinctiveness treated like such and then say to make an argument for one means the other is invalid. That's literally a logical contradiction. This is quite double standard.
    2
  2. "For, at that point, how distinct is Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions, or any other belief system for that matter?" Only a Christ-adherent culture could've devised a liberty mindset enabling the US, and its specifically because of that shared consciousness that Europe was able to even make an attempt at adopting those principles. (despite failing to) The only reason non-Christians were even able to get close to such an attempt was because they were emulating the United Kingdom. Look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or former Hong Kong. Literal historicity reasons they appear and feel "Western" is because Japan used the UK as a basis for its entire society after the Meji Restoration. (to which the US further accelerated when they took Korea and Japan) China doesn't feel "Western" despite everything because it did not adopt the Christ-awareness to do so. Every other non-Christian culture did not adopt such mannerisms to this day and will never do so. (India being much like China even despite being part of the British Empire) That aside what demonstrates distinction of Christianity from other Abrahamic religions (aside from it has an objective and moralistic worldview of justice and forgiveness that no other religion has, which is actually the most impportant) is things like the Reformation, which did not happen in Islam nor Judaism and could not have either. The results of the Reformation changed everything, and it happened because of the nature of Christianity. (being the fault of Christ alone) Where in Islam they burned dissenting accounts, and in Judaism they sheltered the dissent when it did exist, (and never copied it down) in Christianity it was continuously taught to preserve and spread dissent, copying and preserving every documentation they could even when they were wrong. We know more of both the adherents and heretics then of anyone else in history. This is why the Bible has so much extra surrounding it, its why Catholics and Orthodox (and beyond, even the Coptics have many things like that) have so many legends and documents that go beyond the Biblical text, its why we have non-canonical text, its why there are so many distinct yet recognizable translations, its why its the most widely published and sold work in the world, and its why we have so many denominations compared to Islam which only has a handful and Judaism which only has even fewer. Its also why we have the more definitive evidence of Christ's life and the life of his Disciples in comparison to pretty every other historical figure that came centuries after them. And not to mention only four Christian denominations (maybe five if you count it that way, I'll explain in a moment) have ever been in a seat of notable national governmental power. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists are the four major denominations that's had more than one country of adherence that was at or near the status of being a great power. The Coptics in Egypt and Ethiopia or the Armenian Oriental Orthodox have never been significant or nationally adherent for long, and most especially did not contribute to common Christ-aware culture today. The only debatable case of the fifth Christian denomination is the Chalcedonian or Nicenean (they're basically the same, just Chalcedonian is more commonly accepted but further down the line in history) which is the precursor to pretty much every Christian denomination that currently exists and ruled over the Roman Empire since about the 2nd century. (and is the reason that Europe became Christian in the first place) The reason I say maybe is because its kinda inflating the numbers and could just as easily be separated into all the other prominent denominations mentioned. The fact you make an argument that "Western culture", or Christ-aware culture as it really is, is not well defined (despite every single European or European-inspired law being explicitly based on such) and has never existed is such an empty and foolish argument ignoring historical and sociopolitical fact its a wonder if you aren't just blind and deaf. You do realize the only necessity for cultures is a shared recognized consciousness right? The West shares a common outlook not shared anywhere else, which is why capitalism came to exist and individualism was held in high regard, also being the basis for any moral principle. To handwave everything as "its just a Red scare" (despite the fact being scared of going socialists is totally justified) is so disingenuous its a wonder how one could be taken seriously.
    2
  3. "For, at that point, how distinct is Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions, or any other belief system for that matter?" Only a Christ-adherent culture could've devised a liberty mindset enabling the US, and its specifically because of that shared consciousness that Europe was able to even make an attempt at adopting those principles. (despite failing to) The only reason non-Christians were even able to get close to such an attempt was because they were emulating the United Kingdom. Look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or former Hong Kong. Literal historicity reasons they appear and feel "Western" is because Japan used the UK as a basis for its entire society after the Meji Restoration. (to which the US further accelerated when they took Korea and Japan) China doesn't feel "Western" despite everything because it did not adopt the Christ-awareness to do so. Every other non-Christian culture did not adopt such mannerisms to this day and will never do so. (India being much like China even despite being part of the British Empire) That aside what demonstrates distinction of Christianity from other Abrahamic religions (aside from it has an objective and moralistic worldview of justice and forgiveness that no other religion has, which is actually the most impportant) is things like the Reformation, which did not happen in Islam nor Judaism and could not have either. The results of the Reformation changed everything, and it happened because of the nature of Christianity. (being the fault of Christ alone) Where in Islam they burned dissenting accounts, and in Judaism they sheltered the dissent when it did exist, (and never copied it down) in Christianity it was continuously taught to preserve and spread dissent, copying and preserving every documentation they could even when they were wrong. We know more of both the adherents and heretics then of anyone else in history. This is why the Bible has so much extra surrounding it, its why Catholics and Orthodox (and beyond, even the Coptics have many things like that) have so many legends and documents that go beyond the Biblical text, its why we have non-canonical text, its why there are so many distinct yet recognizable translations, its why its the most widely published and sold work in the world, and its why we have so many denominations compared to Islam which only has a handful and Judaism which only has even fewer. Its also why we have the more definitive evidence of Christ's life and the life of his Disciples in comparison to pretty every other historical figure that came centuries after them. And not to mention only four Christian denominations (maybe five if you count it that way, I'll explain in a moment) have ever been in a seat of notable national governmental power. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists are the four major denominations that's had more than one country of adherence that was at or near the status of being a great power. The Coptics in Egypt and Ethiopia or the Armenian Oriental Orthodox have never been significant or nationally adherent for long, and most especially did not contribute to common Christ-aware culture today. The only debatable case of the fifth Christian denomination is the Chalcedonian or Nicenean (they're basically the same, just Chalcedonian is more commonly accepted but further down the line in history) which is the precursor to pretty much every Christian denomination that currently exists and ruled over the Roman Empire since about the 2nd century. (and is the reason that Europe became Christian in the first place) The reason I say maybe is because its kinda inflating the numbers and could just as easily be separated into all the other prominent denominations mentioned. The fact you make an argument that "Western culture", or Christ-aware culture as it really is, is not well defined (despite every single European or European-inspired law being explicitly based on such) and has never existed is such an empty and foolish argument ignoring historical and sociopolitical fact its a wonder if you aren't just blind and deaf. You do realize the only necessity for cultures is a shared recognized consciousness right? The West shares a common outlook not shared anywhere else, which is why capitalism came to exist and individualism was held in high regard, also being the basis for any moral principle. To handwave everything as "its just a Red scare" (despite the fact being scared of going socialists is totally justified) is so disingenuous its a wonder how one could be taken seriously.
    1