JFC. He doesn't get chaos and order at all. He is way overbalanced on the side of order. You have to accept and embrace the chaos of life because that's where the creativity of creation comes from.
@@juanmanikings hmm but you’re the one on a video about him, in the comment sections, in a sub thread, telling someone he’s delusional and everyone else who learns something from this man. So what does that make you? Something much worse than delusional for sure
Thanks for honoring freedom of speech. There shouldn't be any doubt that Jordan is certain that because he has complete faith in Jesus ... that he is MORAL. After all ... the basic teaching of Christianity ... is that Jesus WILL remove all evil sin ... if only you believe in and trust his "judgement." Jordan doesn't seem to realize that there were many sons of gods myths before the Jesus myth. Example ... from the book ... Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists by Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins The Greek god Dionysus was a man-god said to be the “Son of Zeus.” He was killed, buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of the father. His empty tomb at Delphi was long preserved and venerated by believers. Before Jesus there were many ascension myths. Mithra was a virgin-born Persian god. In 307 C.E. (just before Constantine institutionalized Christianity), the Roman emperor officially designated that Mithra was to be the “Protector of the Empire.” Historian Barbara Walker records this about Mithra: “Mithra was born on the 25th of December…which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century as the birthday of Christ.
@Angel Felipe thats harder If you dont know what is tgat you are suppose to do Do something By doing that you will find some truth of the right thing thing you should be doi g
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 King James Version (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
@@robinsss Life can be vain if you choose, but it doesn't have to be. Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV) 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
This doesn't specifically deal with moral relativism. People can be "in the zone" and fulfilled by many things which are, to most people, morally reprehensible.
@@borekstvorek Lol presumably you think it a waste of time to buy a car ?? I mean what's the point its going to eventually end up a rusting heap in some a scrap yard somewhere. ?? 🤔🤔 Me however I think cars are just great, they're extremely useful and serve a "Purpose" all the time I have one. I place great "value" on my ability to travel where and when I need to. For example my wife was ill last year and my car allowed me to get her go the hospital in time to save her life. I would say that alone justification for my buying a car and the value I place upon it, dont you. 🤔🤔🤔 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. A child killer however so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless if course those children also found the "evidence" 🤣🤣 for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
@@trumpbellend6717 you seem severely delusional. Presuming and assuming isn't useful in any case... thanks for proving it. I'm sure you enjoy conversations you're having with yourself very much, but it helps to check yourself sometimes...
From what I read by Aristotle, every being is meant to become its entelechy. For the ancient Greeks every man was to fulfill his destiny. Today I say that, to honor your nature, to pursue your own fate, that is an eternal way of existence.
Of all the greeks, i find myself being more intrigued by Heraclitus and Parmenides than Socrates or Plato. But Aristotle, i've always wanted to dive into. Your comment sound also somewhat Kierkegaardian might i say. Very existentialist.
Damn, this man is absolutely fantastic. JP, you will go down in history. You will remain. The world will know, how much of a beacon of light you are, you were. My absolute hero.
@@aaronbennett4444 no intelligence is actually better than pseudo-intelligence contrary to popular belief 😂 I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing - Socrates keep listening to pseudo-intelligence sheep 🐑🐑🐑
@@essentialpost because that expression is redundant and overused to the point that it lost its significance. There are many ways to paint a vivid picture in someone's mind with words in order to convey an idea, whether it's a good or bad idea, in an extremely effective way, such as using metaphores and allegories... (that's why many intellectual thinkers and writers are still remembered to this day) the deeper we examine something the more we absorb it. I guess this is why JP always goes round and round before presenting his ultimate point.
In short, moral relativism heavily implies that there is no meaning in what you do, except to do what you want to, when you want. But Jordan's answer is that there _is_ meaning in what you do, because your actions and attitude directly correlate to how good or bad you might have it, in life.
So this basically applies to people with similar moral upringing. What about people who feel they're doing something right intrinsically, intensely, yet what they are doing can be evil in our eyes? This big rant doesn't escape the idea of moral relativism. It just tries to divert attention away from the problem of people who are driven by different internal mechanisms to those who would see their actions as bad or evil. This is why Peterson shouldn't be speaking as if he understands these concepts. He doesn't. He's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist. Yet his fans gulp everything up and many refuse to accept criticism of JBP's massive mistakes and uninformed statements.
Yes. the more fundamental aspect is not in morality, but it's in the worldview of them. When there's the view that good actions reap rewards and worth doing, then they'll do it. And where to acquire the right view? It's through the voice of other and proper attention. Or else one will just stuck inside his own justifications.
Your supposition implies a belief that we are all separate. In my experience, there is a thread that connects us all and is consistent throughout. When people act on impulses that go against that, they are disconnected from it, not feeling it, acting on a different kind of impulse. The "realness" that JP is talking about is very different from the inconsistency that you're pointing to. There is something real. It's very very consistent. It underlies every living thing. You can feel it if you're quiet. "Pay attention." "Be Present." To what's REAL
@@gracelewis6071 You just made a bunch of assumptions that something in our core drives us yet there is so much disagreement and conflict in the moral field of discussion. How the hell can you even believe that when we're arguing about moral relativism right now? I can guarantee you there are several fundamental moral disagreements we would have if we went into detailed debate. I GUARANTEE! Sure, a lot of morality is instinctual, and it's tied to our NATURE. But using such vague terms as you did does nothing to help.
@@LagOknenonok I'm speaking from experience. I'm not speaking from a place of "discussion." That implies debate. There is no debate when it comes to reality. To Truth. It's right here for anyone and everyone to experience, right now. The intellectualism is a distraction. It's what every religion has pointed to in the history of mankind, and it's very, very Real.
Am I understating this correctly ? Is the solution for moral relativism following the moral rules that have been imposed into your life because it contributes to the meaning of life?
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? If morality is so eternal and unchanging. Why was slavery considered a moral fact in 1860 but anti-slavery is now considered the moral fact in 2024? Also why does neoliberalism think its morality is THE morality?
But wasnt the incel movement made by a feminist though. Afterall they share the same goal, one group hates females. And one group hates males... or to be technical (masculinity)
There's a right path that's found and built through meaning in actions and communication. That meaning found in constructive interchange would be impossible if everything was relative, there is a common truth for those who seek it. There are many ways of interpreting life but so few of them are optimal and lead you to survival.
thanks for this video... kinda helps me understand why i can feel miserable even though everything in life is going great... if its not meaningful but you still suffer for your efforts, then you really start to question your whole direction
Well, I'm not sure if I have this right, but I think he is saying that if we understand that finding meaning in our lives is the truest thing we know than it's not relative. That those things we find meaning in are real and objectively true. That would of course logically damage the idea that morals are relative.
moral relativism is a post structuralism/modernist idea where morals become relative to the culture that they take place in. Nothing is inherently right or wrong, things are right and wrong only because they exist at a certain place at a certain time. This is like as simple as I can explain.
Aka-47Pro! It has zero to do with post modernism lol. That’s just the nature of complex organisms lol. You go back 200 years and in a lot of places, a 25 year old marrying a 15 year old was perfectly ok. That’s obviously moral relativism. There’s no logical argument for objective morality. It’s as nonsensical as most religious texts
Like some other people have said this doesn't seem to have much to do with moral relativism and certainly isn't a coherent argument against that concept...
Peterson is like reading a 18th century 500-page book, say philosophies of Montesquieu or Rousseau or say Adam Smith or even more contemporary Heideggar where after the long-winded diatribe is over you still don't know what the hell they just said or find a sentence-worth value. I also find it strange Joe is more relavistic but hey he ain't got the balls to debate this punk. And then there are those macho, no fap, morning cold shower, gratitude journal keeping, oh-I-can-quote-a-sentence-of-Seneca so I am so rad duddeeee, pseudo-chad who thinks they are not incels.... who just luvvvvvvvvvv this guy without even knowing wtf he says.
I want to preface this by saying I respect Jordan Peterson and I'm a huge fan of his work, but I've never seen him "debunk" moral relativism in any way that holds water. He says that "confronting problems and solving them" is "real" because it "ameliorates suffering and limits malevolence" (0:39), but that doesn't track logically. Reducing suffering and malevolence isn't an objective goal it's a choice, like wanting to make money, or wanting to learn how to kickflip a skateboard. To truly disprove moral relativism, you'd need to prove that objectivity can exist in and of itself. The same logic follows for trying to objectively prove that 1+1=2. If I try to do something like: 5 x 10 = 50 so, 2 x 5 = 10 so, 1 x 5 + 1 x 5 = 10 so, 5 + 5 = 10 so, 1 + 1 = 2 , I haven't OBJECTIVELY proven 1 + 1 = 2, because the logic I used was based on the presuppositions: 1. that numbers represent a count of individual objects 2. addition represents the TOTAL COUNT of two separate sets, each containing its own count of objects 3. equating means having the same total count of objects. Similarly, Mr Peterson's argument against moral relativism rides on the presuppositions: 1. Malevolence is bad 2. suffering is bad (and probably a bunch more) Since any logic that involves PRE-DEFINED ideas IS influenced by personal feelings and opinions, it cannot, by definition, be objective. Fun side note. My entire argument is based on Google's English dictionary, which is provided by Oxford Languages. It defines objectivity as: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. The fun irony in this is that definitions are ALSO entirely subjective, and that makes my ENTIRE POINT subjective. There is no way to objectively prove that everything is subjective, and I think, subjectively, that that's beautiful. Edit: I misuse "objective" and "subjective" a lot here, but my point still stands. Just sub out "objective" with "absolute", and "subjective" with "relative".
There's "real" and then there's REAL. Talking about "real" isn't the actual thing. The actual lived experience of Real can't be put into words. Except maybe the velveteen rabbit managed to :) He got to be Real ❤ in the most true sense
@@gracelewis6071 There's "real", and then there's a writer's redefinition of "real" to serve a story. The Velveteen Rabbit was "real" in the same way Harry Potter was a "griffindor". "What do you read my lord?" "Words, words, words." -Hamlet
Difficult to apply this antidote to moral relativism. I thought it would be more substantial and modular I guess. An answer to "Yeah... but what about..."
I agree with most of Dr. Peterson says here (not something that happens often), but I fail to see how it relates to moral relativity. You can strive to discover meaning in life and still believe that morality is subjective. Most moral relativists simply act based on what is good for themselves, and the good of other people, rather than arbitrary rules about what is moral.
Good for yourself is a value judgement. The value itself isn't objective. If a group says it's moral to act for the good of other people. That is also an assertion of value. The value itself isn't objective. You could ground values in the metaphysical like we traditionally did. Such as saying that the good is grounded in God. That makes the values more objective. Most traditional societies had such a metaphysical ground that acted as an organizing principle for their society. That could be God, the gods, Dharma, Buddha Nature, the Tao. But personal preferences aren't objective values.
@@aseelanza because morality is intrinsically connected to one's couse of action, not merely to "what is wrong to do to others". What you do to yourself is also a moral issue. If you are lazy and flee from responsibility, you are acting immoraly because... (you can watch peterson for this one). Moral objectivism implies that there is something that is objectively true, and although we may not grasp it, we can walk tirelessly towards it and in doing so get further away from error. This does not mean that there is only one course of action (e.g.: you have to be lawyers otherwise you will fail miserably), but that there is a meta-pattern of how to act: a series of do's and don'ts that alleviate suffering and help one get closer to where they want/should be. Moral relativism is the denial of the fact thate there is something right to be done. Everything's arbitrary and, as such, there is no pathway to do what is right, because "right" is entirely relative. There's no center, no fulcrum, no road. I could continue this drivel on and on, but I don't want to be more boring than I already am being.
@@irreadings again you dont understand that these are categories of moral philosophies. Moral realism is the category for moral philosophies that accept the existence of moral facts, while moral anti realism is the opposite (moral relativism, error theory, noncognitivism). Moral relativism is not saying there is no right or wrong, its rather saying that right and wrong are relative.
This is a bit simplistic though. Suppose one nation sacrifices the losing or winning team [such as what the Aztec did], and the other doesn't [such as what Europeans do]. It isn't enough to simply recognize differerence, but understanding that one is regressive or progressive to a healthy society.
I'm not sure if this is a sound refutation of moral relativism or nihilism. You cannot derive an *ought from an is* The laws of physics really don't care about your life goals, aspirations, failures or successes. But that doesn't mean that because *meaning* is not grounded in any empirical domain that it's not worth pursuing or creating. We can make objective statements about subjective experiences, and it is clear that humans ruminate and think deeply about the value in life and it's contents. This does not preclude humans from creating meaning by doing something you *feel* is satisfactory. I would add that it is reasonable for humans to do this so as to structure and orientate their lives.
@Adam Khan It's insane and terrifying how many people think morality is subjective. It's the belief that we can presumably do anything we want without consequences. That is precisely the mindset of a psychopath.
@@degenerate82 You can see it. Young people have a tendency to do this. At least the people who usually defend it are young. Defended by rules, that if they would remove, they would die.
@Adam Khan @Adam Khan But what is bad or good in a moral way is not the same for everyone and there is no way to prove each other right or wrong with facts. What feels good or right does absolutely not always have a positive outcome depending on what is a positive outcome in that situation. Doing heroin can feel perfectly right in the moment but has a negative outcome on the goal of achieving long term satisfaction for the individual that is doing it.
I used to think that way, I stopped when I got my life together one week and had the clear notion there was a drawn path to me but you'd only be convinced if you tried at maximum.
The question of the meaning of life is but an age old classical example of an anthropocentric outlook. We "came" into life. Life never come into us. Life always was...long before us and long after. So the question is void. The right one is: How do i live a meaningful life.
Moral relativism implies that life has no meaning and good can be evil or evil can be good. I think Peterson's saying that we have inner biological meaning in our lives so we can base our morality simply off of who humans are. We hate murder because it makes our bodies feel bad, we have meaning in our lives because our bodies say so. Basically there's a proven biological base we can base our meaning off of. If you apply it to a real scenario. A depressed teen could say that since morality is relative, it doesn't matter what he does even if its self defeating in nature and leads him to have more depression. Peterson says that it does matter since biology wills it so, meaning that if you follow your biological impulses to find meaning you will have a meaning in life. I may be wrong since I don't have enough life experience or experience with philosophy.
No actual morals were mentioned here. This guy is on par with Deepak Chopra, colourful language and stories that amount to nothing. Theists themselves are the best examples of moral relativity. They make exceptions for biblical actions of genocides like that of the canaanites, moses killing his son, the destruction of humanity by flood, slavery, not to mention the changing of many many sins and their punishments through the ages, according to the pope.We also have to make exceptions for things like murder during war. If these are not relativities then all humans and god have committed immoral acts.
VALUES.... there are Spiritual/religious meanings to life and then there is - The biological MEANING OF LIFE is (I have found and come to believe) SURVIVAL..... The survival of the individual, the family/clan, the nation (genetically) and of mankind as a species --- All of the mechisms that the human body has to overcome problems, are there to help us survive and the differences among people help mankind survive... (metabolic syndrom to survive famines VS an immune system that creates many antibodies to survive pandemics, etc. ) + various emotions and emotional states + various inherent personality types (according to Jung the 16 personality types and/or according to the 1980s personality typology there are a basic 25 personality types = the big 5 OCEAN)...... These mechanisms help us survive.... + Modern psychology says that once a child is an adult he/she is free to decide to live where they choose ( next door, or cross country, in a different country or on a different continent) - temperment seems to play a big role in selection of place to live.... So a person might have 1-4 kids and some or none might live next to you as you age..... So having children so that your family/clan and nation lives on is a big meaning of life but there is no guarantee that you will see your grandchildren grow up..... Because their best place for survival might not be next to you.... (The situation in Ukraine with seniors and parents of young children now is a perfect example), - I worked with seniors 90+ for about 5 years and the more money they had, the more likely they were to be living in an upper middle class to rich senior living facility among their peers (often 100s of miles away from their kids and grandkids)...... Oh, and I have seen much severe illness and dying.... Modern medicine prolongs the life of the significantly ill even for people who have lost basic self-care ability (sometimes for months, years and even decades).... frail for years..... this is draining on money/finances, time and other resources and decreases the amount of children that adults have (if the parent/s of the adult are dependents on the adult or on a system)..... The modern western idea, that survival of the individual must be accomplished at all costs leads to the younger generations having a smaller chance at survival (less kids, less time to gather resources, less money to save for future problems, etc.)..... So modern western (Christian) values many times come into conflict with the biological need/s of survival..... The survival of the family/clan, the nation (genetically) and of mankind as a species --- I have come to believe that doing something that helps at least one of these biological goals for survival may be a really good meaning to life (fireman, police officer, nurse, teacher, pediatrician, teacher assistant, foster parent, adoptive parent, etc.)...... How a person feels and the emotions he specifically feels in his specific situation a something a bit different. -- So where does keeping humanity and decreasing human suffering come in with this....????
Isn't moral relativism just the consequence of different viewpoints and wants? I mean I don't really see why would it be poison, it's just an observation.
It's the idea that since people have different morals that in reality morals don't exist. Because my morals can be different from yours, therefore there aren't any true right or wrongs therefore morals don't matter. The issue is that if you believe that the world has no right or wrongs (morals) then that can lead someone to believe that there isn't really a point to anything (Like imagine someone creating a game where there aren't any rules or regulations, then what's the point of playing it?) Which leads to nihilism, the idea that nothing really matters, which often times leads to depression and sadly su!cide. If you instead believe in morals it gives you rules to follow which helps give life a purpose and meaning. I understand your confusion though since a lot of people make it seem like moral relativity is just the idea of "people grow up differently, which leads to different morals."
I wonder if Peterson has read one of the great analysis of the distinction between moral principle and moral relativism: "The Common Sense of Politics" by philosopher Mortimer J. Adler. What Adler provides is a clear way to objectively evaluate whether the rules of the game are fair or cause unjust outcomes.
I'd like to see a debate between JDP and Peter Joseph. Both are very intelligent and respect clear debate yet stand on different vantages. Would make for a very enlightening debate.
The only sad thing about this man is that he can't teach others fast enough. He's so far ahead of most of the rest of us, he must feel like he's talking to children most of the time.
This guy's hilarious 😂😂😂 Total babble which didn't deal with moral relativism whatsoever but he really thinks he's on to something precise and scientific Rogan is just as a smart as Peterson but for some reason he and other people are hypnotised by the rapid spouting of words which seem to indicate erudition and even technical competence and they don't just rein him in and expose him. If anyone wants to read a smart person writing carefully, precisely and with focus about moral relativism read: Hilary Putnam (Harvard mathematician and Philosopher) Bernard Williams (English philosopher) Chomsky (needs no introduction) This guy is Deepak Chopra through and through 😂
The issue is with the person who clipped the video, they didn't talk about moral relativisn perse but they eventually get back to it. Here's me demolishing moral relativism. I am constantly around people who will think their suffering is as equal or greater to mine. I'm a cancer survivor, my friend is disorderly and lazy. In his mind his suffering is equal or greater to my battle with life and death. Moral relativism is brain rot idea
Diluting oneself into thinking the game their playing with virtuous intent is not certain to result in the elimination of suffering. Even playing the game competently won't make real outside of itself.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that your experience of good and bad is different than someone else's experience of good and bad. Are there no actual amoralist philosophers yet? Perhaps I'll fill the gap
Wow. What you have written is one of the most dangerous things there is. Of course there is an Absolute Morality, but you will only find it when you follow the Truth.
@@Nimbereth It really isn't dangerous. People who are dangerous are already not swayed by moral arguments. Learning that morality isn't real doesn't affect dangerous people, but rather frees normal people who have bought into this false notion of morality. I get that if you believe in god you believe in absolute morality, so I won't be able to change your mind there. But I'd like to reply that this idea is in fact not dangerous, but actually safer, allowing normal people to not be duped by dangerous people as often.
Nimbereth There’s nothing dangerous about accepting the reality that morality is and has always been subjective and relative. Just because some primitive book creates a list of moral rules people should Follow, doesn’t mean one has to or should .
@@Nimbereth I'll take the moral relativists that can engage eachother in rational discourse through: - Identification of moral commonalities with which they can reason objectively. - Using the Socratic method to identify moral inconsistencies - Appeals to consequences .etc Over the unintelligent absolutist dickheads who are incapable of doing anything more than baselessly asserting their position is 'absolutely true' anyday thanks
termita358 don’t be so quick to judge Joe. listen to what Jordan thinks about Joe and his intelligence in the first 5 mins of this interview 👉🏾 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uYGj04Iti3E.html many people make the mistake of thinking he’s stupid but he’s actually pretty intelligent
My values are in so deep threaded through..I never new mind could spilt like that ................I now understand..I am strong omg 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☄️ it was bad I was bad just sitting in the vessel..yess mine was catertrophic it's dangerous I was of chops on DMT of my mind crystal out my nose bro....
Just don't try asking Joe about child slaves from Mexico and their "parents" or statutory rape comitted by female predators, and don't ask JP about how caving to outrage narratives just makes things worse for yourself and everyone else.
I agree. Except for Jordan Peterson being a snake oil salesman. Most of his arguments are shallow. He literally contradicted himself with equality of outcome and sexuality on this very podcast.
'''''we trust each other'''''…………….…….that's rather presumptive ………………………………..I don't trust anyone,...…………………………..why should I trust you?..………………………………………..I don't know you from a whole in the wall
there is a group, who, perhaps, bears a graver responsibility still: the psychologists and psychiatrists who see the human wreckage of these doctrines, but who remain silent and do not protest-who declare that philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgements-who shrug off professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible, and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.”-The Virtue of Selfishness.
His antidote to moral relativism sounds a lot like moral relativism. What you receive meaning from is relative to yourself. You don't experience meaning in the same thing as the person next to you (more than likely).
@Dawei Zhao I completely understand your sentiment and what you're getting at regarding a lack of separation & full immersion in the moment, but I'm not seeing how it relates to his argument that is supposedly an "antidote to moral relativism" because all of his instances were relativistic.
@@MrFuzziiWuzzii well, to give Jordan his due, I think he was just using those instances to get us to understand our own moments when we've achieved meaning. He is trying to get you to have your instance and even said you should try to pay attention to yourself when you have a real meaningful moment. It's these moments that I believe he is arguing are the realest and truest things there are.
@@Jimraynor45 Yep and thats just relativistic thinking. Saying our meaning is drawn from our own subjective experiences it relativism. ie; its all relative to our own experiences
that's exactly what I was thinking. Peterson says: "The whole moral relativism issue for me is a non-starter. It’s just wrong. There’s lots of ways of interpreting the world, but there are not many ways of interpreting it optimally. And you can FEEL when you’re doing that. It makes you stronger." that's exactly what I was thinking. He gave like three or four arguments FOR moral relativism in these 5 sentences. you can "feel" when you're "interpreting" the world "optimally"?! I couldn't think of a worse way to refute relativism if I tried
It's amazing how fundamental and simple many of his ideas are. It's more amazing how many if not most of us already know the truths he's espousing. It's far far far more amazing that one man articulating these ideas for us can create such a chain, net positive reaction in those who would lend their ears and heart. This is why "Man" is not to be compared with a "cancer" or a "plague" like is so often done in radical environmentalism. The synchronicity in this question being answered for me is astounding. God Bless.
Doing things that fulfill me, fulfill me until I notice it bugs other people or makes them upset. Nothing bad... I guess I am just a dormant leader or I am just a person who can see where people and things fit... Or maybe I just think I do and I am horrible at it. More than likely I just like placing things and people in places I think they will benefit the most and I am actually just horrible at it.
