Existing social structures
Hello,
Jordan Peterson, in his books, devotes quite a few pages to the principle of ‘Don’t underestimate existing social structures’, in which he tries to say that society has wisely refined its conventions throughout history, and apparently these structures that the wisdom of many has built do indeed hold our society together.
I heard you in a conversation about the trilogy that in the second book you actually come to destroy the existing conventions, as you said, of course in order to build something new and better.
Why not try within the framework of the rules of Jewish society that have existed over the years?
I would love to hear your opinion,
thanks
I have no interest in destroying anything. On the other hand, when I have a correct argument (in my opinion) I adopt it even if it contradicts what was accepted. According to your suggestion, today we would be supposed to hold onto the science of Adam the First and the values of Terah or Cain.
Hello,
1. Regarding the destruction issue, I quoted you in a conversation I heard here: https://youtu.be/7eajo-ohOLM
2. I'm sorry but I don't understand, it has nothing to do with science at all, the scientist throws ideas or explanations into the world and lets the community do its thing, he usually has no interest in changing social structures, except for example: pseudo-scientists or outright atheists.
3. Correct arguments are excellent and I agree with a large part of them, but you do try to actively change social structures and not just express an opinion, and this is where my question comes in: Why didn't you see fit to deploy your doctrine in a more ‘scientific’ way and let the community pull it along?
I don't know what you quoted, but as far as I remember I never said I had an interest in destroying. I have an interest in doing the right thing, even if it changes the existing one. That's all.
There is definitely a connection to science. You can make the same argument there too: if this is what they thought until now, then it's probably true. There's no difference between that and social structures. I didn't bring up science in the context of changing social structures. By the way, those who want change are also religious apologists. Atheists have no mandate for that.
I definitely try to promote what I believe in. Where did I say I didn't? But there's no interest in destroying, but rather in promoting what's right. Sometimes it changes the existing one, and by definition that's what's called promoting. Change is always at the expense of what exists.
As a rule, I don't disparage existing structures, but I don't sanctify them either. Each matter is its own.
In conclusion, I get the impression that either you don't understand what I'm saying and writing or that your bias is holding you back. Too bad. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. All the best.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
