Jordan Peterson definition of God

Homepage Forums Theism Jordan Peterson definition of God

This topic contains 37 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26133

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    They are monitored by the group.

    Also, by their own self.

    #26134

    Self monitoring? But you just said that a monotheistic God is the chief monitor of reputations. Why bring gods into it if the Individual and the Group are doing the watching.

     

    #26138

    Davis
    Participant

    Simon the two authors you quoted are psychologists (and one is also a linguist). They are not philosophers nor do they speak with authority in philosophy (as you alude to) nor in ethics. It’s one thing to say “I read two books about this topic by two psychologists” it is another to say that these concepts are well established in moral philosophy. That is utterly false. I studied all the main branches of moral philosophy and several very particular ones and I did go to a Catholic University so I had to study religious morality from Hebrew commentary, to Thomas Aquinas to modern theology. I have never heard those terms before except used in very different ways both outside of ethics and philosophy. I also really don’t understand what you mean by most of your definitions. You’re leaving out a lot of context and the definitions, like Peterson’s, are somewhat vague.

    #26140

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It’s within the branch of moral philosophy called evolutionary ethics.

    #26141

    Evolutionary Ethics is a branch of modern biology, not moral philosophy. Its finding can be discussed in moral philosophy but it is researched as a scientific subject. It is an interesting area to read up on. Here is the basics.

    #26143

    Davis
    Participant

    Simon, could you please quote an actual philosopher who has used any of those terms in a philosophical work. Name of philosopher and name of philosophical work where they clearly and unambiguously use those terms. You seem to be confusing the study of ethics in other fields with moral philosophy, which is done strictly within the confines of philosophy by PHILOSOPHERS. Biologists, psychologists and philosophers deal with ethics and morality in a VERY different way. I’ve never heard of those terms in the field of philosophy and I’d be quite interested to read it, if you can find a quote (remember, by a philosopher, someone with a graduate degree in philosophy who preferably is a professors if not who at least publishes a philosophy book via a university press or in a philosophical journal published via a university.

    #26145

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Here is the basics.

    While morality in the normative sense is not an empirical phenomenon to be explained, there are still important questions to ask about how evolutionary theory may bear on it.

    I would disagree with this.  We can find what we like or dislike morally by examining ourselves, each other, and the human race in general.

    #26185

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Here is the basics.

    I’m normally pretty sniffy about conventional moral philosophy, but from what I can see, this seems to me pretty much on the nose.

    Evolutionary ethics cuts down 100 pages of this kind of dense theorising to about 3 pages of straightforward instruction.  The real questions are, what should I do, and why?  Or rather, what do we do, what should we do, and why, to both questions?

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.