Just watched a debate Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs Deepak Chopra and Jean
Deepak Chopra made a point saying that what he is talking about is akin to telling the medieval people about the modern science however after praising the scientific method he went on to violating the very scientific way by proposing a hypothesis without telling what could disprove his hypothesis
Secondly I find it hilarious when people call other arrogant or whatever and I just had Carl Jung in the back of my mind and his idea of the dark side. We humans are only capable of seeing in others what we are ourself meaning if you think some one is a generous person it’s really your hidden self that you have recognised (provided you are not parroting someone else’s saying) so anytime Deepak Chopra attacked the other persons character in my mind he was only saying what he really was.
So that’s my two cents of the day
“The concept of ‘good’ (and therefore of ‘bad’) is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be ‘good’ for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be ‘good’ for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, ‘the good’ is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The ‘bad’ is whatever injures such an entity’s life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an ‘elm tree ethics’ by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed ‘bad’ for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals”
Excerpt From: Murray N. Rothbard. “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.” The Ludwig von Mises Institute.