Philosophy Archives - More Letters to the Corinthians

Aphorisms

Andrew is a philosophy major who went to this school, that school, and another. I think he also teaches. Recently, he wrote a book about aphorisms. Those short little sayings that get passed along through generations like pieces of advice. But what’s special about this form of literature is that their meanings are open to interpretation.

Then there’s a second part. A lady walked into a bookstore and felt angry. There was simply too much to know. How could anyone digest all of these books? Does acquiring knowledge really have to be this hard? That’s why another purpose of the aphorism is to act like a summary for passing along wisdom.

Nietzsche

Let’s use Friedrich Nietzsche as an example. He said, “If a temple is to be erected, a temple must be destroyed.” This saying is often attributed to his view on communism. The first rule of commie is to crush all religion, pursuing loyalty to the state and this ideology instead. Those reds have no time for faith.

Anyway, there are many interpretations for this quote. What if you recently joined a gym trying to create a new self? Couldn’t this mean “in order to become healthy me, unhealthy me must die?” I think so. And it could be applied to other instances to mean all sorts of things. That’s the idea behind an aphorism. Someone crunches down a topic into a sound bite so that you, the reader, can learn. And it’s great. So now that you get the idea, let’s end with the first one ever said.

Know thyself

As you know, Western culture started with the Greeks. And the Greeks built an oracle at Delphi to speak directly with the gods. Guess what was the first thing they heard? “Know thyself.” And again, this could be interpreted a number of ways.

The official explanation is to know the part of you that is human and the part of you which is divine. So the oracle said there’s a little piece of God built right inside us. Kind of cool when you think about it. So cool that during the formation of the Catholic Church this nugget was placed at the centre of Christianity.

There you go, you just learned two new things: what’s an aphorism and “know thyself.” Remember them deeply because you don’t want to be messing with no oracle.

Buddy Jordan

We’ve finally hit the tipping point. Today, more people know about Jordan Peterson than don’t (at least among my friends). So it’s time to give this man an introduction. Hopefully, one that provides a framework for better understanding. First off, he’s hard to understand and this guy needs to be broken into parts.

Prof

Initially, Jordan was a free psychology professor on the web. And just like the world has leading experts on gold, we have them in psych. Jordan is an expert in two areas: why we do bad things (e.g., Nazis and commies) and archetypal stories including those from the Bible. (An archetype is a recurrent symbol in art, literature, or mythology—like the mythological archetypes of good and evil.)

Like most professors, Jordan is well versed in a number of disciplines and he’s smarter than most. Why? Because he’s dug deep into his specialization and connected the dots.

As a young man, he visited Europe and got hung up on the ills of the early 1900s. So much so that Jordan had nightmares until he figured it all out. This experience plays a major role in his beliefs. He’s also an expert at illuminating old stories, including some from the Bible, and says, “maybe you can learn something from your dead ancestors.”

Postmodernism

Jordan’s now extended himself beyond mere intellectualism to promote what he feels is a dignified belief system. And his passion for this project is great. To understand, you need a quick summary:

Piaget said people are deeply rooted in their belief systems (axioms).
Western Civilization was built on the axiom of capitalism, democracy, and Christianity.
Modernists were the people who designed our Western system.
Liberals and progressive conservatives took it further. They brought in adjustments to capitalism (like the welfare state) and lightened the effects of Christianity. Most people today agree with these changes.
Postmodernists take it another step. They’re attempting to alter capitalism to favour those who’ve been oppressed, and then want to eliminate religion completely.
Jordan opposes both spouts of this ideology. He says favouring the oppressed is all bunk. Capitalism, by definition, is unequal and you’ll only ruin what we’ve got. Attempting utopia is what the communists tried and that was a murderous disaster. He’s also opposed to the idea of crushing the Lord. His alternative is to redefine spirituality through natural psychology, philosophy, and a bunch of old stories.
Nietzsche said as religion falters, society has to develop its own set of rules.
Jordan says don’t let postmodernists do it. They can’t be in charge.

Complicated, with two parts. First let’s deal with religion. Back when we were all churchgoers, getting out the message was easy. Every Sunday you’d visit the village priest and he’d assign you a purpose. Those days are gone. Today’s theologians go on speaking tours and write books. Jordan is offering a new twist. He doesn’t sell you on dogma (Church rules), he goes straight for the spirit. Never asking for faith, he uses only reason. And he tells many stories from long ago, written well before religion, plus a few from modern day (e.g., Disney movies). To him, Biblical stories are just part of the mix and he rarely mentions the word God.

Net result: audiences all over the world are listening because Jordan is filling a hole. He may not be our modern day Jesus, but he’s a good village priest. It’s unique what he’s doing—so competent and complete—and a lot of people are grateful. To my knowledge, he’s the only person doing this. So bully for him. One’s belief system is a big part of life, surely worth discussing. So again, bully for him.

Politics

Make no mistake he’s also political, though not in the traditional manner. Jordan is opposed to postmodernism, which associates him with the right. But he’s not mad at the likes of Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. His fight starts with Justin Trudeau.

It’s not about gay marriage, doctor-assisted suicide (called MAID), or legalizing dope. He’s nuts over forced political correctness, new-style feminism, and a host of socially oriented changes. He sees much of postmodernism as being based in Marxism (which scares the heck out of him) and figures with leaders like them, we’re headed for less.

It’s a cultural revolution as societies around the world plot their new courses. Are we going the way of postmodernism—which has infiltrated government, education, and the legal system—or will we generally stay put? It’s a big idea and a big fight. That’s why lefty protesters always show up at his talks.

Now everything for him doesn’t revolve around politics. He’ll also debate popular atheists over the belief in God (not the weird parts). So it’s a two part approach, which of course makes him more confusing.

Summary

Intellectuals defending belief is nothing new, getting involved in politics is. It’s really not their field. As a result, old Jordan was ransacked. The dirty game of campaigning targeted him early and he’s been labelled with all the regular anti-conservative stamps (like, racist, fascist, and puppy-hater).

Don’t kid yourself, slander is done on both sides. Making truth near impossible in a world of fake believe. But now that you have a framework to see Jordan for what he is—free professor, mentor for your own world views, and political activist resisting new change—take what you wish and leave the rest. But please, let the man speak.

Note: Here’s his wiki page (it’s good) and a previous article about him. You can also watch him at Oxford. If you’d like more on postmodernism see Social Control and Left is for Liberal.

God Is Dead?

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher born during the 1800s. His father, a Lutheran pastor, died when he was 4. During his early years, he too studied to be a minister but lost faith partway through. Instead, he pursued a career in thought. Nietzsche is known for the phrase “God is dead.” Perhaps the most misunderstood expression ever said. He is also credited with devising the term nihilism, where nobody cares about anything.

He recognized that religion’s authority over ethics was diminishing. That as society increased in ways of education, it outgrew the need for traditional faith. He said the first result would be nihilism (where nobody cares about anything), followed by a period when society comes up with its own moral code. Excited about this last step, Nietzsche didn’t die an atheist.

Rather than being told by religion what to do, people would become the masters of ethics. And though this proposition sounds liberating, it was also a large step. One that would require years of implementation and came along with risk. As a result, he forecast religion would initially be replaced by ideology, which would culminate in the death of millions. This came true by way of Nazis and commies. Fortunately, his next step is also coming true but there is always a catch.

Caveat

Throughout history philosophers have wrestled with the idea of ethics. The human struggle between reason and inner animal, plus the wishes for the whole over the desires of self, are everywhere in writing. And though Nietzsche didn’t say this, the concept of central control enforced by the notions of heaven and hell worked well for much of the population. It was only around 10% who rebelled.

Today, those numbers are reversed in modern nations. Here, 90% enjoy the idea of society creating its own set of rules but we still have to deal with the rest. Generally speaking, most get swept up in common culture. So if everyone else is doing it, they’ll usually go along. But there are exceptions. Like hard drug dealers born in Canada don’t see the conflict in choosing the material benefits of money over the spiritual burden of caring for the whole. So in some cases, society would be better served with a stricter code of conduct (which is why places like Iran haven’t yet converted).

Today

Looking back, the world has changed plenty over the past 200 years. Everything is different when you have financial means and access to education. Nietzsche lived at the front end of this revolution. And though he said some wonderful things, devising a moral code is a whole whack of work.

It’s like we’re living in a virtual courtroom with various outlets acting as attorneys. They tout their one side and we have to judge. It’s hard work being a judge because you have to listen to both stories. (And there are so many cases.)

A natural reaction is to simplify, but if you cling to political positions things don’t always line up. Parties often switch sides and fight among themselves. It’s better to look at topics on an individual basis. In the US, they’re experts at party-style conflict. Professional debaters thrive on showing only one side of the story. And though this method may be deemed acceptable, it’s currently not easy for those who speak up.

Summary

Nietzsche’s message came by identifying with human nature. People need something to believe in. And without motivation, folks tend to give up. Removing the perceived positive influence of religion leaves only politics for guidance. So the famous Marxian quote “religion is the opium of the people,” must be rewritten to substitute ideology for faith. Unfitting for democracy because any theory can get elected.

As we’re losing confidence in religious institutions, the masses have stopped listening to theology. Popes and pastors are losing their status, so these duties are falling on us. And while it appears we’re always fighting, actually we’re not. We’re just forging the future together and this is how it looks.

Every time an issue presents itself you have three choices: join one side evangelizing their story, become interested in the topic by exploring all options, or practice nihilism (where nobody cares about anything). Whichever you choose, God is not really dead. She just wants us to figure this out.

There’s a good BBC program called Genius of the Modern World. Season 1, episode 2 is about Nietzsche.

The Soul

I was once stuck on an elevator with two very different people. We were there for hours and needed conversation but nobody knew what to say.

Charles was a wealthy, healthy, executive from New York, and Ernie a chubby trucker from the sticks. We tried cars, but Charles had a Bentley and Ernie a pickup. We tried music, but Charles liked Beethoven’s fourth symphony and Ernie said Willie Nelson. We tried women, but Charles enjoyed $1,000 a night escorts while Ernie liked to roll around in mud. After getting nowhere, I finally asked about what we had in common. “What do you guys think of beauty?” and, “Who do you find to be interesting?” Once we tapped into the right stuff we talked for hours (and even went for coffee after being rescued). Just goes to show, people aren’t that different.

Human condition

Do you know the expression, do bears s#!% in the woods? That’s the bear’s condition. We humans have our own and it includes body, personality, and soul. Everyone knows about the first two but few of us understand soul. What is it? And why is its reference always so spooky? Your soul is every non-body part you own that isn’t personality.

Our personalities say if we’re highly creative or social, and dictate how we act out in nature. Souls then hold the results. The soul’s job to observe, experience, and absorb—it’s your reflective self. Open your eyes and gaze into a photo. That feeling doesn’t go into personality, it enters the soul. So even if you’re an atheist, you have one.

Souls hold calculations, impressions, and knowledge. Everything that helps generate opinion. Feelings, thoughts, personal pleasures, and pain—this isn’t personality. Like bodies, personalities are just a way for getting around and they’re a dime a dozen. It’s souls that are interesting. That’s why the board game Funny You Should Ask flopped. It spent too much time on, which is your favourite colour of jellybean (body)? And how much do you like camping (personality)? None of which queried the soul.

Packing slips

We enter this world with an item list, like a packing slip coming from a warehouse. Some of us are tall, others are pudgy. Then we accumulate from there. On the slip is personality, loaded with instincts, desires, and quirky traits. All of which affect our actions living an eventful life. Souls are the baskets that pick up the fruit.

In the large scheme of things, personalities aren’t that important. Like bodies, you play the cards you’re dealt. But personalities are worth understanding because they’re part of the trip. “I’m like this.” “Sally is like that.”

Here are five personality types psychologists use to describe us:

Openness – open to anything and creative, or reserved and conservative
Conscientiousness – hardworking and organized, or lazy and a mess
Extraversion – outgoing or an introvert
Agreeableness – easy to get along with or pugnacious
Neuroticism – the amount of anxiety you have

And we have many more like patience, honesty, humility, and pride. There are plenty of characteristics. Add in passion from the animal side and the need for social survival (status), and you see it’s too much. This package needed to be split up. So that’s what psychologists did.

Summary

Many problems with communication lie in definitions. When Plato identified the soul, he didn’t know people like Freud would come along to confuse things. And that’s the problem with social sciences—too many words. There was never any need to forget spirituality while breaking down personality further. Pieces like intuition, emotion, and reason could have added to what was already said. We didn’t need to start from scratch.

In the end, it’s easy to get wrapped up in everyday life and external definitions of who I am. But don’t forget there’s another something deep inside making observations and absorbing. For believers, no one said personalities go to heaven, it’s only the soul. And for atheists, you just don’t believe they move on. Either way, when stuck in an elevator, it makes for good conversation.

Death 176

Yale University offers a free online class called, The Philosophy of Death. I took it, watching lectures only, and here is my summary—along with a few opinions.

None of the course deals with religion. It’s simply a discussion of logic. And the logic comes mostly from Plato, who lived 700 years before the assembly of the Bible and the formation of Christianity. The first topic is that of dualism.

Dualism

Like all philosophers of his time, Plato looked only at raw life, without any external influences. He ascertained there must be more to human existence than life followed by death. He concluded that in addition to body and personality, we also have soul. And our souls exist long before coming onto this planet and well after.

He goes on to explain that life in the “other world” consists of forms. For example, something like beauty on earth is just a partial representation of true (or full) beauty that exists in heaven. And this must be so in order for you to recognize beauty in the first place. He uses the same analogy with justice. How could you intuitively know whether something is fair unless you’ve had prior familiarity with the concept?

He says our souls inhabit a vessel (body and personality) for a while on Earth and then return back to their world armed with the experience. So it’s like training school or some wild Club Med vacation.

Physicalists

Opponents to Plato’s views are called physicalists. They say no, we humans exist only for a period of time, only on this planet. And for every dualist point of view, they have a counterpoint.

Dualists say “we humans have reason,” they say so does a computer. Dualists say “but we have feelings,” they say so does a dog. And when dualists say “what about consciousness,” they don’t have a good answer but discard it anyway by saying that doesn’t prove anything.

Physicalists say the person is just a body that can do some amazing tricks, and when you die you simply fall asleep forever. They also get hung up on Plato’s concept of immortality. Sure it’s great to stare at total beauty but who wants to do that forever? Dualists say perhaps time is just an instrument of this world.

Summary

Since humans are equipped with purely logic, this sort of discussion can never be solved. Not only because no one has come back to inform us but because logic itself is flawed. George Carlin used to make a joke, “Can God create a rock so heavy that not even He can lift it?” And of course, we still have the chicken and the egg. As a result, neither of these possibilities is a slam dunk. At best, we’re stuck with 50/50.

You can turn this into 51/49, at least for yourself, but before doing so consider the following: psychologists who are also atheists say for most people it’s healthier to believe. The connection with a loving God and the comfort of an afterlife makes it easier to navigate this existence. So even if you’re not a big believer in anything being out there, let others keep their peace.

P.S. There’s also the witnessing of transcendence—because once you’ve seen the fireplace turn on for itself, you’re totally sold.

Plato Was Wrong

Cato Plato was a famous Greek philosopher born in 425 BC. He lived to the age of 80 and is known for writing dialogues and founding the world’s first university. He concluded man can be divided into body and soul. And that once life is over, the soul moves on while the body remains. This concept inspired much of Christianity and Western values. And though Plato was a great guy, he made no assignment for personality. Is it body or soul?

Personality

Back then, people didn’t know much about chromosomes. As a matter of fact, they knew little of science. But they could have figured out what social scientists know today, that personality is made up of two parts—one big and one little. The big (outer self) is our auto-pilot, acting out pre-programmed responses to everyday events. It’s the personality we’re born with that gets shaped by nurture. Psychologists label this the elephant because it’s large and somewhat animal. Others call it the external self.

The little is what we use to think. It observes and makes conclusions. “People are like this.” “Dogs are like that.” Also called our conscious self, its job is to make us smarter. But it too, has a couple pieces: one that feeds the elephant (influences outer selves) and one that feeds the soul. So it goes like this:

Soul ⇦ Conscious Self ⇨ Outer Self — Body

Outer self

Truth is we’re trapped within our selves. Along with body, these are what you enter the world with. Yes, you can make small changes, but most personal traits stay the same. So if you’re a loudmouth or shy, happy or miserable—we are who we are. But again, there are rules. Our conscious selves can make subtle changes. You’ll retain the same temperament and sense of humour but one can fix attitudes toward any number of things—all by using concentration. That’s why people meditate. They sit and focus, hoping their auto-pilots will eventually get the message. And sometimes they do.

This is why upbringing is so important and why it should include a little discipline. Just think of why we train kids into knowing please and thank you. We’re civilizing the buggers. You also see this with dieters trying to change their regular order at a restaurant. They’ll practice saying “no cheese and just water” until it becomes habit—all by using focus and concentration. But again, this only goes so far. You have little control over outer personality. (Just listen to yourself speak.)

Feeding the soul

Okay, so if soul is what goes with me (or is me), how should I nourish it? Besides a few recipes, Plato said all you take with you is knowledge and a little culture. And because the bum didn’t define inner and outer selves, let’s assume he meant what you’ve felt, what you’ve been taught, and what you’ve figured out for yourself. So there are a number of ways.

Feeding the soul means living life. Some methods are simple like listening to sounds, absorbing a story, or witnessing nature. They also come from overcoming a challenge that took tremendous amounts of effort. But they don’t come from watching Netflix. They’re mostly from things you’ve seen, people you’ve met, and stuff you’ve done.

Summary

Philosophers are funny because they just sit around and think. One guy said man is like an animal. I already knew this from watching my relatives eat. It’s not rocket science.

Plato said we’re body and soul, this too isn’t profound. You could have arrived at the same conclusion. Then psychologists devised the two parts of personality. Again, no big brain storm. What is brilliant is remembering this from time to time and not taking oneself too seriously. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make the best of life. Just spend some time with your thoughts.

Taoist Symbol

You know that Taoist symbol you see everywhere? The one that looks like two sperm cuddling. It represents the yin and yang, where two things coexist.

This symbol is commonly used to express the relationship between dynamics like, good and evil, male and female, or even practical and emotional. The idea is the two things need each other to live. And the trick is, inside each sperm is a dot to represent the other. For example, there is some good in evil, and some male inside female (don’t get dirty). Anyway, here is what we’re talking about:

Good and evil

Now the symbol doesn’t represent good and evil accurately because the good sperm should be larger—not the same size. That’s because it’s been proven that good is predominant in nature. You could even say the shape of good is growing because, as living standards improve, it’s contagious. But leave that for now.

Male-female

The male-female diagram is supposed to be fifty-fifty. This new notion that women should one day rule the world is bunk. The better idea is for the two to become equal partners. And I think that’s great.

Now in order to get there you can either stack the Canadian cabinet with 50% women or grow the female dot within men. For example, pretend politicians were required to travel and some women don’t like to fly. Does this mean we’ll never attain parity? Of course not. Women will continue to help men grow their female side until we attain balance. (Which is what’s happening.)

Emotional and practical

In politics, we say the Taoist symbol can be used to show the sides of emotional vs. practical. To illustrate, let’s use an example from a previous article:

Billy recently lost a friend through an accident. He’s taken time off to grieve. After three days, his dad suggests he get back to school. Billy’s mom says just a few more days. Who’s right? It depends. Sometimes kids need to be coddled and sometimes they need a kick in the pants. In the olden days, coddling was attributed to liberals, while the miserable boot-in-the-arse style was characteristic of cons. But any parent can relate. Sometimes you have to be understanding and sometimes you need to be firm.

In political speak, we say “sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick” or “sometimes the hand, sometimes the fist.” Liberals and cons play each other’s yin and yang in this regard. That’s why both ideologies should be respected. You can also use this symbol to illustrate the relationship between change and staying the same—another matter between parents and politicians.

Summary

They say things go better in threes. A stop light has red, yellow, and green. Green means go, red means stop, and yellow is somewhere in between. It’s cool because it gives you three dimensions. But there is also power in two’s. Now this symbol doesn’t work with all opposites because there isn’t any hot in cold, or short in tall, but it does with many. Order and chaos, work and pleasure, comedy and tragedy, disciple and love, your left foot and your right—okay, maybe we’re getting carried away.

The Taoist message is clear, a number of things need their opposite to survive. And this relationship can be illustrated by drawing two little sperm cuddling, both with great big eyes.

Ethics

Because kids are no longer being raised with much for religion, there’s a serious concern going on over the ethics of our youth. In the olden days, we had the fear of God and stories from the Bible to guide us. But how are things working out now? Let’s start with a story.

Cain and Abel

Adam and Eve had two sons. Cain, the oldest, farmed wheat while his brother, Abel, tended to the flock. One day, each brought an offering to the Lord and He preferred the one from Abel. God said wonderful things about the sheep and dissed Cain for his lousy wheat. Out of anger, Cain killed his brother and God punished him forever.

Let’s embellish things by saying Abel was one of those hard working, talented people who are successful in life. He had lots of friends, girls liked him, and he enjoyed doing a great job. Cain wasn’t nearly as gifted and didn’t put in the same degree of efforts. When God praised Abel for his gift, Cain got mad—finding it unfair. He bitched and griped so much that jealousy got the best of him and he committed murder.

People still do this today. We see a successful person and sometimes resent them, discounting his or her efforts by calling them lucky or preferred. And though some of this may be valid, the moral of the story is you shouldn’t resent. If you want something (like money), get out there and work for it. You’ll never get anywhere by complaining. Anyway, God punished Cain.

Billy and drugs

Let’s imagine an example more modern in nature. Billy has a friend who sells hard drugs. This guy pockets 10K per month, cash money, by simply driving around and delivering crack. He says, “Look man, it’s not me who gets them addicted—I’m just delivering a good. And bro, it pays big.” Billy is now thinking of getting in.

There are three ways to address this decision:

Old Testament (where you get punished by God, like Cain)
New Testament (a love-based interpretation of the Bible)
No God (where you care about others simply because we have to get along)

Styles

The Old Testament one is obvious. Billy, if you commit a serious crime, you’ll burn in hell forever. And this ruled the day for a very long time. Then Christ came along and spoke of a loving father. He said we should be good just to please the Lord, and that pious people go to heaven and spend eternity with Him. So Billy, do you really want to hurt your loving father and mess up a gracious afterlife?

The third option is different because there is no God. It doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist; it just says we don’t know much about Him. So the reason we should be good is because it makes sense. “Hey man, this isn’t anybody’s planet—we all need to get along.” It’s like we’re stuck in a boat together and must make the best of it. So Billy, if you were a drug addict, would it be nice if people sold hard drugs to you? Is this the best way of living together?

I don’t overcharge the jeweller because I don’t want him to overcharge me. I do a conscientious job for the doctor because I want her to do the same for me. And I don’t mistreat the elderly because one day I’ll be one. It’s the best strategy we’ve got.

Summary

Morality is essential for any society to succeed and not something to be taken lightly. We need a code of ethics for dealing with one another and everyone must comply. So regardless of motivation, Billy has to get on board.

Christians take offence at the sight of two gods. They say God is always loving and defend the Old Testament as being appropriate for the time (i.e., the only way people could know Him back then). Regardless, all parents know there comes a time when punishment wears out. It works well with small children in the form of a timeout but not when kids are older teens. And that’s when everyone needs to grow up.

Young people are in the process of learning to be good and part of the justification is “just because.” Parents don’t teach you all that stuff without a purpose. It’s to build a moral conscience designed for living with others. So ponder your actions and consider the whole, or I’ll show you hell. Bottom line: don’t sell hard drugs.