For those seeking an alternative to Jordan Peterson’s dark vision of the world...

For those seeking an alternative to Jordan Peterson’s dark vision of the world, questionable approach to truth and knowledge, and retreat to religion, they will find the answer in Bertrand Russell, whose essays on religion seem to, at times, be speaking directly to Peterson himself.

Here’s the final paragraph from Russell’s essay Why I Am Not a Christian:

>"WHAT WE MUST DO

>We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world—its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is, and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence, and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time towards a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.


Russell wishes to replace fear, religion, and dogma with free-thinking, intelligence, courage, knowledge, and kindness. To believe something because it is seen to be useful, rather than true, is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree. And, as Russell points out elsewhere, he can’t recall a single verse in the Bible that praises intelligence.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 118K)

Other urls found in this thread:

22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Here’s Russell in another essay, titled Can Religion Cure Our Troubles:

>Mankind is in mortal peril, and fear now, as in the past, is inclining men to seek refuge in God. Throughout the West there is a very general revival of religion. Nazis and Communists dismissed Christianity and did things which we deplore. It is easy to conclude that the repudiation of Christianity by Hitler and the Soviet Government is at least in part the cause of our troubles and that if the world returned to Christianity, our international problems would be solved. I believe this to be a complete delusion born of terror. And I think it is a dangerous delusion because it misleads men whose thinking might otherwise be fruitful and thus stands in the way of a valid solution.

>The question involved is not concerned only with the present state of the world. It is a much more general question, and one which has been debated for many centuries. It is the question whether societies can practise a sufficient modicum of morality if they are not helped by dogmatic religion. I do not myself think that the dependence of morals upon religion is nearly as close as religious people believe it to be. I even think that some very important virtues are more likely to be found among those who reject religious dogmas than among those who accept them. I think this applies especially to the virtue of truthfulness or intellectual integrity. I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This virtue, though it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the world than Christianity or any other system of organised beliefs.


We can see that the Peterson fallacy is at least as old as 1954. The fact that Communism and Nazism committed evils is not justification to return to religious dogma; in fact, that would just be replacing one dogmatic ideology for another.

The solution is not a retreat to the Age of Faith, which was no more pleasant than living under communism; the solution is a renewal of the Enlightenment values of reason, science, humanism, and progress espoused by Russell himself.

Attached: doublesguy13.jpg (600x669, 55K)

People think this guy is a philosopher, lmao.

Attached: Spread Memes.jpg (1366x768, 178K)

Is the lobster thing a Deleuze reference or no?

Why doesnt Peterson grapple with Islam and Judaism?

He only goes for meme stuff like eastern religions. He's afraid of being exposed as a charlatan

Here is lovecraft btfo-ing your millenarian faith in science

>The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

Here is philosopher John Gray remarking on the mistaken belief people like le black science man have by conflating the scientific method with the moral progress of humanity

>Most people today think they belong to a species that can be master of its destiny. This is faith, not science. We do not speak of a time when whales or gorillas will be masters of their destinies. Why then humans?

Attached: lovecraft.jpg (250x296, 22K)

>but some day

Attached: GayScience.jpg (733x741, 93K)

In some respects, Russell is talking sense. In others, his points miss the mark.
It's difficult to take much notice when he conflates religion with Christianity, in the main, or more widely with rigid belief structures. This was barely forgivable in his day and not in the slightest now.
Religion is not about creeds, beliefs or dogmas, it's about a relation to the transcendent. That's the main thing. What that transcendent might be, whether it exists or not, and if it does exist if and how people can know it, feel it, connect with it - those are the important questions. Not asking whether a doctrine has flaws and then throwing out the whole subject on the basis of those findings.
Atheists will say, “It's all nonsense, religious feelings are nothing but psychopathology” and they may be right, but if you're going to be rational agnosticism is the only possible stance. Current knowledge can't decide. It is a matter of faith. Mankind isn't wholly rational. Maybe one day rationality will conquer the world, as Russell hopes, but until then taking rationality as the arbiter in religious questions achieves nothing. If you haven't the right tool to do the job at least get one that does something.
William James, Huxley and Jung have more insightful and interesting things to say about religion than Russell, Dawkins or Hitchens, because they approach it openly not polemically. There's no point judging when knowledge is impossible. It only makes sense to look and listen.
That said, I sympathise with Russell in respects as dogmatic religion is more dangerous and frustrating than his non-belief. Even so, the old religions, flawed and invented by men, are not worthless because they contain records, among the other stuff, of people trying to work out how they stand with what they felt to be.

Where did all you people come from? Is Yea Forums really full of cretins that take celebrities seriously?

One of his recommended reads is a meme tier biased anti-Islam book written by a neocon.

Yeah, fuck those Peterson/Zizek/Harris/Rogan faggots.
Polite sage.

My soul cringed

Attached: 1554030369371.png (600x600, 200K)

Really good effortpost. Russell in the end does not argue against the idea of an intelligible universe or a prime mover. He just wants people to shake dogmas that would not serve them in his time. Were he to face modern day nihilism I think he would quickly start arguing for the transcendent.

I wish /pol/ had a literature general for these pseuds to congregate in.

sounds like lovecraft was afraid of the truths of the universe. he doesn't make a much of an argument for the voluntary ignorance of a religious position here
bible says
>religion is about X
you say
>religion is about Y but the bible is great too
classic
fuck you
i dont know that we really face the sort of nihilism that peterson warns about. humans are social animals that want to be loved and so tend to do good by one another. like lobsters, yea?

>Russell wishes to replace fear, religion, and dogma with free-thinking, intelligence, courage, knowledge, and kindness.

what do you replace faith with then?

>>you say
>>religion is about Y but the bible is great too
>No
>>religion is about Y and the bible contains some Y
im glad you deleted this because its fucking stupid

faith is when you believe something you don't have any evidence for. i don't think you need it. just leave what you don't know alone, or ask questions to find out. faith blocks you from seeking truth

so you believe humans don't benefit from faith?

Attached: 1551656605588.jpg (600x600, 53K)

i don't believe anything because im not stupid enough to assert shit I don't have authoritative knowledge of, but maybe we don't need that little baby faggot faith shit anymore. i literally don't have any religious faith at all so id say we dont

i lose respect for lovecraft every time he pops up

it's just defeatist garbage. having faith in yourself and your own species is perfectly sensible, it is what empowers people to get shit done. it's just channeled in the wrong way most of the time.

i believe having the general population having faith in their own species is sensible. but i think lovecraft exists specifically because it is good for a very clever percentage of your species specifically not have faith. because only someone who does not have faith proves to have any investigative power on the matter.

having something to believe in is a powerful tool

the older you get the more important spirituality becomes to you, if you're at all tuned-in. it doesn't have to take the form of a God or a religion, in fact it's better if it is based on something personal and organic, something that means something to you. most people don't understand spirituality without faith in a higher being, though.

Tired arguments of rationalism that appeal to the intelligent who can’t fathom the pathology of the poor or emotionally unintelligent. This is why Peterson recommends Dosto. I’m not even defending Peterson specifically his crypto-Christianity but this is the endless battle of the last two centuries. Yes, this is a worthwhile philosophy for people like us but extended to the rest of the world it dissolved quickly.

“BRO LIKE JUST LIVE RATIONALLY IT’S DOGMA THAT’S FUCKING UP THE WORLD SO LETS JUST NOT DO THAT HEHE”

dont have anything to add. just wanna say i enjoyed this post and agree.

>he can’t recall a single verse in the Bible that praises intelligence.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
Proverbs 9:10
This is all you need to know.

this says nothing of intelligence you fool

does anyone have that pic of the frowg saying "cuck" into the guys ear i would post it here but i don't have it

wisdom!! its the fucking end of wisdom you stupid cuck. there's no world in which THE FAGGOT LORD wants you to think to yourself. holy shit dude you're pointing it out right there in fucking english. amazing

Attached: Screenshot_1703_0.png (596x602, 740K)

*ahem*
FUCK rational science
FUCK blunt intelligence
and FUCK the enlightenment
[exit]

Attached: der junge Goethe.jpg (2326x3085, 728K)

Based

I am not an orthodox disciple of religion, but I deem it dangerous to tamper with any system so manifestly beneficial to morality. Whatever may be the faults of the church, it has never yet been surpassed or nearly equalled as an agent for the promotion of virtue. And the same thing applies to our present social system. It has its defects, but is evidently a natural growth, and better fitted to preserve an approximate civilization than any Utopian scheme conjured up over night by some artificially thinking radical.

Attached: hp.jpg (220x270, 14K)

>I deem it dangerous to tamper with any system so manifestly beneficial
like sucking on your mother's titties. society is young but its growing up and learning to think. evolve or die

Attached: AE4160F0BC6D4D30AAACA070BCAABD35.jpg (250x208, 5K)

Yeah but Russell was also a literal cuck who hated Nietzsche, who said the exact same thing Russell is saying here, but much more eloquently.

Attached: nietzsche.jpg (700x1035, 177K)

Kind of meaningless to appeal to beauty and good if you don't believe in God tho.
>Inb4 we all know what's beutifull a d good
>Inb4 it's just common sense

>implying *true* beatific vision is exclusively christian

>Jordan Peterson’s dark vision of the world, questionable approach to truth and knowledge, and retreat to religion
>fear, religion, and dogma
>intellectually dishonest to the highest degree

You must really hate him to misrepresent everything he says to such degree and throw just about every Bad Word at him in one go. Why?

Because it's true

Provide concrete indisputable examples of each claim.

Like how he pretends to be knowledgeable about pomo despite only going so far as hicks, or that time he tried to be the shaman in a religious practice of a tribe he was still an outsider of, or that rediculous multivariate equation he kept bringing up in that Newman interview because he wanted people to think he knew any math or the 2k rug or...

I said CONCRETE INDISPUTABLE EXAMPLES OF EACH CLAIM you cocksucking illiterate brainlet faggot. Try again.

>Here is philosopher John Gray remarking on the mistaken belief people like le black science man have by conflating the scientific method with the moral progress of humanity
Wtf you're taking about the quote has nothing to do with that

But I did my angry friend. I'm just trying to help, please don't waste your time on this moron

yes it does

I don't think Russell knew people very well, but if he did, he would know not everyone is capable of his grandiose vision of rationality as romantic as he tries to make it seem. Better a passive non-aggressive lack of perfect rationality that allows those with better ways of thinking about the world to operate than a brutal rationalism devoid of humanity.

Lovecraft was also a self-loathing, world-loathing depressive who frankly found organic life revolting and disgusting, including a revulsion at his own body hitherto unfound except in gender transitioning body dysmorphics. Most of his writing was a channeling of his incredibly blandly bleak worldview with the mild spices of nightmare imagery and metaphor adding flavor and rescuing it from the slush pile. If Lovecraft were put in charge of any serious human endeavor he would suggest that we all roll over and die. Basically he was a /r9k/ poster and the fact that you think that he pessimism is a meaningful contribution to any conversation about anything reflects poorly on you as a person, and I hope for your sake that you one day rediscover your love of living.

Russel isn't the type of philosopher who has practical value.

22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination
This is his best work and it's not even close

That's why one became a writer and the other a meme philosopher

>such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
This is D&G's schizoanalysis desu. We're fucked

I think this a gross exaggeration. He obviously had a pessimistic and depressive streak about him, but the dream cycle series is far from being an anti-life polemic. He had a clear love for greek myths, early fantasy literature and poetry. The revulsion of life present in his horror stories is a reflection of his discomfort with changing demographics in America - not life in general.

Russel was a hack, boy, with an less then base understanding of Christianity. His theses are literally:
>"lol, just be rational, bro"
> muh linguistics and muh logics
> teapot around the moon
>"lulz, Christianity btfo, God refutedd xdddd!11!1

Peterson's "defence" of religion is simply that religious stories persist because they are relatable across time - this is because they describe fundamental truths about humans.

I don't think I've ever heard Peterson embrace dogmatic thinking.

Your criticism of him is incredibly shallow.

What are you talking about? He preaches the dogma of lobsterism. Gotta focus on rising up that dominance hierarchy there, bucko.