Being

@fmf said
I think "being" amounts to the outcome of the set of circumstances that create personhood.

You're equating "being" with individual personhood, which is entirely subjective.

"Being" is an objective and observable fact of ones existence.

You exist, therefore you have "being".

@josephw said
You're equating "being" with individual personhood, which is entirely subjective.

"Being" is an objective and observable fact of ones existence.

You exist, therefore you have "being".

I also believe that "being" is an observable fact about my existence and your existence. I have dug a little bit into how I think it comes to exist. It's not clear what you are in disagreement with. If you're saying my "being" and your "being" are both real, then we agree. If you don't think "being" and "personhood" are the same, then you'd perhaps like to explain why not. It might make a more interesting response to what I have said than the one you have offered.

@josephw said
The "human condition" is easily observed objectively. Facts are facts. Subjectivity notwithstanding.

There are certainly a wealth of empirical facts that we can extract from the human condition. But most of the opinions and interpretations and deductions you and I might make about that "condition" fall squarely within the realm of subjectivity, data and statistics notwithstanding.

@josephw said
You exist, therefore you have "being".

I think if the definition of "being" for us humans is simply limited to the fact that we exist ~ at the exclusion of our consciousness, personhood, and our ability to recognize each other's "being" ~ then the inquiry strikes me as rather fatuous. If one's key "argument" amounts to little more than saying "to exist" and "to be" are synonymous and "being" and "existing" are synonymous, then that seems rather [insert a synonym for "fatuous" here] to me.

@kevin-eleven said
If this is your revelation that you have been faking it all along, then so be it.

Jordan Peterson is clearly a self-important jackass.

Any advice to "simply be" should stop right there, without any further verbiage.

What is it you find in error besides your dislike of Dr Peterson?

@kellyjay said
What is it you find in error besides your dislike of Dr Peterson?

You said in your OP that "listening to a talk by Jordan Peterson, he got [you] thinking" and yet you steadfastly refuse to say which "talk" it was. Peterson has done talks and debates that are OK and he also oozes loads of trolling alt-right tripe. What "talk" got you thinking?

@kellyjay said
What is it you find in error

Once he strays too far from clinical psychiatry, he's mostly a charlatan who uses gish gallop and word salads to disguise his poor comprehension of many of the topics he talks about.