»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Still Question
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Still Question |
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
Okay, I know i've asked this question before, or something like it but it's still bugging me. It's just why do some people (well just me really) still question something even when they have got he answer? Is it just something to keep them amused or is it because they know the answer deep down and just not realize it yet? Anyway I'm open to new ideas. Life has got to chnage, Nothing stays the same, Soon it will be time, For me to move on. |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Moon Dust - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Romy Senior Member
since 2000-05-28
Posts 1170Plantation, Florida |
Maybe they just want validation! |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Maria: To use your own post against the question you have asked: "I'm open to new ideas" I think that's one of the major reasons. Also, some people just don't like the answer they get, so they look for a better one. That's why I believe in open mindedness. I can't stand fundamental Christians even though I'm a Christian, and I can't stand fundamental scientists, even though I really love science. By fundamental scientist, btw, I mean someone who is rabidly against things like beliefs in God or whatever. I like to get both a spiritual and a scientific and a philosophical take on every question I ask. I'm not content with the "to the greater glory of God"[If God wants me to mindlessly serve him through ritual or airy fairy poetry or whatever, then He ought not to have created me in the first place] answer that Christianity puts out as being the purpose of life. Nor am I content with the "because we happened to get here for no apparent reason"[That's that nasty reductionistic ideal that I talked about in my post on reductionism] answer of fundamental science. So, like you Maria, I am open to new ideas. I hate extremes. I don't know about you, but the "this is the way it is" philosophy gets to me a lot, no matter if the answer appeals to me or not. |
||
|
M'Hal Junior Member
since 2001-01-04
Posts 15 |
Maria- Maybe they don't like the first answer, so they ask again. M'Hal |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Fractal007, You make a good point. Interestingly enough, fundamentalists on both sides rhetorically argue the same thing: This is the truth! Religious fundamentalists argue transcendental, revealed truth and scientific fundamentalists (to be honest, have never met one in personal conversation; have heard about them though) argue, well, transcendental, revealed truth. They both make assertions when talking to laymen. The irony is that scientists reject the transcendental as a means to see that truth but use the same rhetoric (from an epistemological point of view, this is mistaken). I'm pretty sure that debates go on on the inside of both areas but attempt to present a united front to those on the outside. If I had to choose, I suppose I'd end up with the scientists, but I wonder if the rhetoric doesn't hurt their cause more than it helps. I don't know. Brad PS Going back to the same questions and answering them in different ways (answering them in a tentative way) seems a great way to propogate possibility rather than drown in complacent certainty. |
||
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
yeah, I did want vailldation and I wasn't content with the first answer more on one ocassion of the same question. The thing was I was satisfied for a while. I think it was more to do with what Fractal said about being open minded, I guess I did'nt want one answer but several different answers so I could produce my own. so thanks for your help guys  When freedom wisphers your name, it's time to fight for it. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Okay. I'm going to be honest. I am terribly closed minded. If someone cannot give me a good reason to change a position I've reached through study and experience, I don't want to hear it. I want proof! I want evidence! Give me that, and I am more than open to shake the pad-locks loose from my mind. Jim P.S. One qualification ... I will never be convinced to be anything BUT an Oakland Raiders fan. I can barely accept that the Ravens beat them in the AFC playoffs (grrrr). |
||
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
yeah but Facts are still opinions the only difference is that Facts are backed up by evidence and even then they are, as I've said before, not 100% backed up and never universally proven.So were back to that fact and opinon thing from Brad's thread. When freedom wisphers your name, it's time to fight for it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
My thread was trying to point out how the two words are used in conversation in order to stifle conversation. Jim's point is that if he disagrees with you, you have to show him where your argument is more persuasive than his. The only way to do this is through dialogue. It's interesting because Jim called himself closed minded with an extremely important modification. In a sense, his closed mindedness is more open than an open-mindedness that says 'anything goes.' If 'anything goes', it means you don't have to listen to anybody because everybody's right. Brad |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Brad: I agree. I have only met scientific fundamentalists in the form of the skeptical community. Although I enjoy their ideas of promoting freedom of thought, their ideas of people having no real purpose really gets to me. I've met a plethora of religious fundamentalists, as you've probably read in some of my other posts. They really scare me, showing me the darker side of spirituality. I think that both are almost like looking at different aspects of the Borg from Star Trek. The religious fundamentalists run about like members of a hive, all destroying and attacking things that have even the slightest deviation from their theology. The scientific fundamentalists have this mentality that all is mechanical, and there is no real interesting aspect to human existence. However, like you, I think I'd side with scientists on the question of existence. I think that theology is very wrapped up in human nature. I think that the rhetoric is definitely hurting their cause. By their, I am referring to everyone that's using it. The religious are alienating more and more people each year through the use or rhetoric. I mean yes, there are all those passionate speeches about the forgiving nature of God and all. But once you're inside, it becomes like a cult, where people like James Dobson and Jack Chick feed on the simple minded - Usually from the pocket area of these people. According to Richard Brodie, in his book Virus of the Mind, many people are coming out of our schools with a lack of purpose. The rhetoric of scientists is also starting to take its tole. I think too many people are starting to have knee-jerk reactions to each other. This is likely because in modern history, people have expected that science would provide a quick fix to the problems of the world. Take the various advancements and breakthroughs in medicine. Scientists had not studied bacteria enough to realize that they too could adapt to conditions, and so antibiotics were prescribed as the magic bullet. And so they were for a time. But now we have all sorts of "super bugs" going around. The knee jerk reactions to religious people are no better than the knee jerk reactions of religious people to the secular world. In fact, if we want world peace, or any kind of stability among the human race, the way we're going is not going to cut it. I don't mean to sound too phanatical, but even if science is successful in "eradicating" religion, what will millions of people on the planet replace it with? Won't there be all sorts of people who will rationalize immoral things with "well, we're just a bunch of molecules, so it doesn't make much of a difference what I do"? Finally, you are definitely right about the complacent certainty. If I am not mistaken, it is complacent certainty throughout history that caused all sorts of heinous wars and genocides. I like what my biology teacher in grade 11 told me: "Never let anyone tell you 'this is the way it is!'" He was discussing evolution, I believe, and the interpretations of the theory that are making so many people upset. I think I will leave my ramblings at that for now... |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Maria: I don't think you understand what I mean by "facts" and "opinion". Facts are not opinions. Facts are evidence. Opinions are interpretations of facts. Some opinions are derived from a careful examination of the facts and some are not so meticulous. Sometimes people reach different conclusions based on careful examinations of the same set of facts ... the police officers in the Rodney King case and the O.J. Simpson criminal/civil trials are cases in point. Brad: Stop telling people that I am open minded. It is bad for my rep.  Fractal007: Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the knee-jerk is solely or predominantly a Christian or a religious condition. I think it is more of a general, human condition. Also, be careful not to confuse the most vocal with the majority. Speaking from experience now ... if you do this, you will live a MUCH happier life. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
don't have time right now but gotta reply -- fractal, like your biology teacher Jim, gonna take what you give me. I'm walking a fine line here and I don't want people to think I'm on either side of this debate (what debate?) Checked out Fish yet? You know my arguments can all be reduced to a "Yeah, but . . ." Off to the hospital now!!! Only a check-up of course. April is the most magical of months, binding, wouldn't you say? Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I think what you are saying that the popular, PC "open-mindedness" is anti-intellectual because it often prefers rhetoric over reason. Fish's reasons for his position on abortion rights, for example, are because, in his view, the pro-choice movement went down the slippery slope of rhetoric over reason and, again in his view, lost credibility. Open-mindedness is not synonomous with anti-intellectualism. It is a willingness to admit when you are wrong and stand up for a position you believe has the greatest likelihood for being right. Later. Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
