13
posted ago by dismybrowseacct ago by dismybrowseacct +13 / -0

I've been listening to lectures while doing home projects and I ran into something interesting on Jordan Peterson's lecture 10 Genesis and Bhudda that I thought would be cool to share here. He covers some interesting philosophy on the nature of religion in a cultural context. Before I continue - For those who have never checked it out Jordan Peterson does his entire Maps of Meanings lecture on youtube. It's got some neat stuff but be forewarned it's a full class and its long.

Religion often times acts as the base line for what is morally acceptable. In the USA the moral baseline was created by the Christians who built the country, and even though we have freedom of religion laws, Christian morality was key in forming the basis of our rules and laws. You can minimize the power that the religion has in the country but you can never separate the religious morality and the culture without destroying both.

I find this to be a very interesting comment by JP. I believe it shows a lot of what we're seeing now. It started with the Atheist movement and grew into the LGBTQ+ pedo tranny garbage we see now as we move farther from a common morality across the culture. JP also points out that some of the arguments made by Sam Harris don't take into account this fact. You can get intelligent atheist's who will agree to higher level morality but realistically anything goes in a society without religion. As a result whatever the mob agrees on can end up being the "moral choice". Much like the way we see people change definitions of words or try to rewrite history to fit their agenda's before the bodies are cold.

The comments by AOC make more sense in this context as well. When you hear her argument (source) "If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees," she said. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right." It all makes much more sense in this context. Define morality however you like and change it to suit your needs. That's a good way to destroy everything because eventually people will realize this, disconnect, and go there own way.

Comments (1)
sorted by:
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0