I can't get over how interested people are in Zappa now. He was considered a novelty act throughout most of his career, like Spike Jones, but transgressive.
He had a loyal cult following from the 1970s into the '80s. I had a number of friends who would go to his concerts whenever he came near by. It seemed like he would play a medium-size venue (The Palladium or The Beacon Theater) in NYC at least once a year, but never large arenas like MSG or stadiums. He didn't get much radio play other than a few "pre-playlist-era" stations or college stations though. I think he was considered more musically "convoluted" or satirical than he was considered a novelty act to most critics and other musicians - "Dancin' Fool" and "Valley Girl" notwithstanding. He likely was a fan of Spike Jones though certainly more transgressive.
"If you want an education go to a library. If you want indoctrination go to a college." Frank Zappa.
Never saw that one before, but I have seen this one for a number of years: If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library. - Frank Zappa
That quote seems more like something Ray Bradbury may have said, but likely did not.
I heard Zappa interviewed on NPR in the early 90's, after the Soviet Union broke up. He had just come back from Russia. People wanted to know how capitalism worked and had asked: How do you make money running hotels? There is no profit in it. He said, You don't make money running hotels, you make money selling them. In other words, assets inflate by design. That was news to me too at the time.
I can't get over how interested people are in Zappa now. He was considered a novelty act throughout most of his career, like Spike Jones, but transgressive.
"If you want an education go to a library. If you want indoctrination go to a college." Frank Zappa.
Never saw that one before, but I have seen this one for a number of years: If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library. - Frank Zappa
That quote seems more like something Ray Bradbury may have said, but likely did not.
We are getting closer and closer to the day where no one is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what someone else did. - Dr.Thomas Sowell.
We are getting closer and closer to the day where no one is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what someone else did. - Dr.Thomas Sowell.
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
As for my criticism of Peterson's reliance on religion as the basis of morality...it seems posting a little blue link in the middle of a bunch of text that didn't get read carefully didn't result in anyone noticing the link either. Here's the episode I'm referring to:
As for Hitchens: I never said he wasn't sanctimonious (he scathed very well) but he brought a good bit more to the table than Peterson. I don't see anything Peterson has done for civilization that Hitchens didn't already do, and do better.
Again, i think you're missing the larger point of Peterson. It's not Christianity or any religion...they facilitate but are not essential to the human condition of yearning for oneness, togetherness, to serve something higher than the self/ego...the mystery.
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
Most agnostics I have known were very interested in theology and religious questions, mainly from a comparative religion viewpoint. Many held, "The quest for truth" as a central tenet of their belief system - no expectation of completely finding "the truth" but considering the search as central to their religion and morality (generally Unitarian-Universalists, but I think as a whole, UUs have become increasingly theist in recent years.)
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
Since we're in a quote topic I'll get pedantic on something, which has implications beyond just clarifying an argument.
The logical opposite of I believe there is a boson named the Higgs particle is not I believe there is no such thing as the Higgs boson but I don't believe in the Higgs boson, or more precisely the existence of the Higgs boson has not been proven to my satisfaction.
For one thing, the existence of the Higgs boson can be proved with a single instance, but the non-existence can't be proved at all. There is no number of incidents that do not include a Higgs boson that prove there is no such thing; we can only know that we haven't seen one yet. We now have strong evidence that there are gravity waves too, but that was an unproven conjecture for a very long time. Whether that evidence convinces anyone or not is where belief comes in; gravity waves exist (or not) independent of that belief.
As for my criticism of Peterson's reliance on religion as the basis of morality...it seems posting a little blue link in the middle of a bunch of text that didn't get read carefully didn't result in anyone noticing the link either. Here's the episode I'm referring to:
As for Hitchens: I never said he wasn't sanctimonious (he scathed very well) but he brought a good bit more to the table than Peterson. I don't see anything Peterson has done for civilization that Hitchens didn't already do, and do better.
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer depends on the context of the world believe. Broadly a Theist believes in a higher power, an Atheist believes there is no higher power and an Agnostic thinks it is a stupid question and would rather go make a sandwich. If you use the term Believer as in a believer of God or a higher power than the Theist is the only believer. I am a devout Agnostic and personally have always been wholly uninterested in such a cosmic question. My only interest is ones behavior and character which puts me at odds with the notion that morality requires belief however I am not going to dispatch and dispense the man solely because of this. Some of you seem to think that Peterson is a one trick pony Christian pusher which I find odd seeing how I have watched literally hours of video with him discussing many subjects and I was not even aware that he was a Christian. Seems like we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and discounting the vast library of knowledge dispensed by this man because you philosophically disagree with one of his beliefs.
Edit: And you don't think Christopher Hitchins was sanctimonious? He deliberately and purposefully set out to be as condescending, patronizing and sanctimonious as he could to shock those he wished to reach into understanding. It was his mo or schtick. Being sanctimonious does not necessarily equate with ignorance and uselessness as a philosopher or teacher.
If you hold a belief something doesn't exist, why even attempt the question? as for proof....outside of logic, the only things philosophy proves is that there are more questions.
I'm sure I'm not smart enough in philosophy to even try but....if morality requires a culture, or all people (universal), than the individual who "does what thou whilt," may often choose what is considered moral, but remain nihilistic.
In more layman's terms, it seems self evident the human condition has universal morality...dont kill or steal, observe the golden rule.
thats all I've got to say, and return the channel to its regularly scheduled broadcast.
Absence of belief? An atheist believes there is no god/deity. I've seen as much evangelist/fundamentalist dogma from atheists as southern babtists. Perhaps absence of belief would fit an agnostic.
He/Dostoevsky does a pretty good job with the argument, that morality hinges on a higher value/transcendence, beyond the self. I don't contend that you need belief in a deity to be a good person, and don't believe Peterson argues that either. But, you need belief beyond oneself (transcendence) to remain what we universally consider moral.
We have other places to argue this, so this will be my last attempt: atheism means (literally) a (without) -theos (god) -ism (belief in or adherence to a doctrine of). Not believing in something is not the same as believing in the non-existence of something. You may be thinking of antitheists, who actively deny that god(s) exist, presumably inviting god(s) to smite them as rebuttal.
An agnostic doesn't know whether god(s) exist or not; most atheists are also agnostics.
The atheists I know would say that they'd be willing to believe in god(s) given evidence for one (or more), but there is no such. Most theists will readily admit that; they base their belief on, basically, belief: the idea appeals to them or they have a feeling that it's true, therefor there is (are) god(s). This is the essence of faith: believing in something without evidence.
Peterson's approach to arguing about the source of morality is a bit different, sort of arguing the inverse: instead of claiming that morality follows from religion (which he takes as a given) he argues that what atheists claim is a rationally-derivable morality is just a remnant of a religious dogma so embedded in the cultural milieu that atheists can't see it. He doesn't prove this (he can't, really—how could he know which cultural forces other people are immune to?) but he uses it to dismiss an argument without really considering its merits. An argument he admits (over and over in the clip I linked to) that he doesn't understand.
And since you're making a claim similar to what Peterson assumes as an axiom I'll invite you to prove it. Setting aside sectarian-specific beliefs (like not suffering a witch to live or that eating shellfish will damn you for all eternity) demonstrate that no one can derive a universally-acceptable set of moral principles without resorting to higher powers or deities or whatever you mean by "transcendence".
Peterson doesn't even attempt it, so I won't be disappointed if you don't pick up that gauntlet.
Moreover numerous people have done just that (derived a set of more-or-less universally-acceptable moral principles without resorting to deities), and unless you can point out some kind of flaw in their thinking you have your work cut out for you.
