»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Human Tendancies
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Human Tendancies |
|
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA 
|
How exactly do I word this inquiry? Ah, there's the rub - an inkling of a question, tittering at the periphery of one's mind. Almost enough to cause one to seek an answer, but still so spectoral as to cause one to wonder at its importance. What is it about the human mind that encourages it to impose depth of feeling upon discussions of a purely academic nature? Why do people personalize topics designed to explore the logic of a given situation? In a similar, if the the same, vein... What is the impetus to cause dictatorial tendancies in people when given the slightest bit of control? To cause them to belive the entity they are given the responsiblity to govern, actually belongs to them and any variation from their design is a personal attack? These are the titterings heard gently at the edges of my mind. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
| © Copyright 2000 JP Burns - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Notice you have a few typos in there: tendencies believe Your first question is interesting but I wonder if the distinction is appropriate. Status in whatever its form is always a factor in human relations; thus, any academic question becomes personal in that respect alone. Still, the strongest and best arguments are ones that are deeply personal if only in that it changes your perspective of the world. All philosophy is personal. Even the old scholasticism argument: "How many angels can stand on a pin" becomes a rather important debate if you believe in angels.  How is it possible for anyone to argue in a civil manner if the above is true? I think the answer is in the mutual recognition of each other's value and an acceptance of the tentative nature of all discourse. Self-righteousness is the virus that destroys all interesting discussion. Originally, I was going to respond to your second question with simply, "insecurity", but it's not that simple. Responsibility, at any level, requires response-ability, the necessity of taking action (or not taking action -- it's the same thing) and this entails repercussions of some sort. These repercussions can never be totally perceived by anybody who has human limitations and therein lies the rub. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Often times, what looks like an authoritarian display is simply a decision you disagree with. If you take this to the political level, nobody really thinks they are 'evil', even Stalin thought he was doing the right thing. Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
JP: I agree with much of what Brad mentioned. I think proponants of any given academic subject are given more credibility if they actually believe it to be true. Luther's response to Erasmus' diatribe in "The Bondage of the Will" is a heavily academic work on free will. Luther passionate, unrelenting arguments leave no doubt in the reader's mind that he believes what he is writing to be true and this adds credibility to his already solid arguments. This is not always a good thing (Brad's "Stalin" example) but I think it is important none-the-less. Running out of time. I will try to address your other question later. Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
