A grudge against one and all

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A grudge against one and all

Why should there be these ism's that one should be tagged with? What if i believe i am not in the net of any such field of thought or way of life?

I have it against every one here, isn't it? But, I also get a seeping feeling like; "Oh yeah..boy, u think you are right while all others are wrong, eh. What if they are right".
Well Well, then please tell me why i could be wrong?
Here's how i express my grudge:

Liberalism: Why are liberals so liberal that some of them let their teenage girls (13 to 16 age group) go pregnant, some let them have child too.

Conservatism: Why do some of these kind not understand that condoms is a compromise to nature to prevent unwanted pregnancy.; why do they not let abortion take place even if, medical opinion, threatens the mothers health or life.
Fanatism: Why cant they understand that the scriptures were written by winners/destroyers/powers that be to have control over the society....(and not exactly by so called Gods). It was temporal laws and there is nothing divine about divinity. Why do they think they are perpetually right?
Powerful or Die Hard Democrats: they think political power is an art of managing majority opinions. Why do they act and sound as if they are altruist, and these so called true democarts allows a dictator who falls in line or is corrupt as a friend or ally, because it suits their own political purposes. While those who do not adhere to their dictats are bad guys or evil nations!! surprise.
Socialists: Why do they think that all the ills of the world is due to the rich and affluent people? Why do they think the poor can manage themselves. Or is it that they feel they can manage both these opposing but useful resources.
Communists: Why do they think the state can usurp the right of an individual and put him in a dungeaon if the individual is found ireing is own views in contrary to state policy's.
Scienceism: Why do scientist believe that material and empiricism only exists rest all are hogwash? well, almost!
Spiritualism: Why do they think that life means spirits or mind-consciousness?, and that matter does not matter at all.
Modernism: Why do these people think that technological advancement is the only way forward? If i do not have a facebook id ora tweeter i am not in. If i use my a black and white television, i am a pauper, Why? like, If I use bicycle, i am of that class!

Feminism: Why do they think that all men are evil, and chauvinists. As if all evil things are solely caused by men.
Atheists: Why do they think there is no spiritual side to man, Why do they endlessly debate on evolution as against religious beliefs.

..... my main contention is why man has to think in such compartmentalised fashion? Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas. Accept it and then walk along, instead of walking alone.
Walking alone ...hmmm,.... is individualism....well, another one to debate......?
:bigsmile:

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,172 • Replies: 30

No top replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

I just want to point out that not all of those things were "ism's"

I can't give you any facts about your questions, but maybe I can add a little truth to them. It's just that when you talk in such a way that groups everyone that lives under or follows these guildlines, you assume that everyone acts the same way; which is not the case. For example: You can't say that because all Christians know the Ten Commandments that not a single Christian breaks them, and if there were a majority of Christians who stole, that doesn't mean that every single Christian steals.
Yes there are corrupt leaders, but you can't base the corruptness of the leaders as a way of judging the entire idea. If there was ever a 'perfect' application to the ideas you would base it on that.
Those are just some of my thoughts.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94608 wrote:

..... my main contention is why man has to think in such compartmentalised fashion? Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas. Accept it and then walk along, instead of walking alone.
Walking alone ...hmmm,.... is individualism....well, another one to debate......?
:bigsmile:

I think that human consciousness primarily organizes (creates) things, so organizing ideas into different types is just one of the things it does.

For example, one has a mass of sand and a child creates a sandcastle.

One has a mass of people, and one creates races, cultures, isms, etc. There are many ways to create some order out of seemingly chaos. It is everywhere.

Specifically in the case of isms, people seek to identify themselves with groups to share ideas with or to argue with - as they wish.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

I think this is a really interesting point which breaks right to the heart of modern philosophy... did Socrates think in this compartmentalised fashion of "isms"? I think not...

My belief is that the existence of so many "isms" suggests that philosophy has become stodgy and stale, too difficult for a "commoner" to digest with any ease. It's almost as if academic philosophers relish this self-induced isolation...

SO. Here's my premise in philosophy; be free in thought, as future philosophic progression can only be made through such freedom. Sure, it's good to draw upon what's been asserted before to flavour one's beliefs, but on the whole philosophy needs freshness and vitality, not just running over the same ground over and over again.

Feel free to criticise what I've said; I hope that this discussion yields fruit through further exploration.

1 Reply

@Miles phil,

richrf;94619 wrote:

I think that human consciousness primarily organizes (creates) things, so organizing ideas into different types is just one of the things it does.

.........Specifically in the case of isms, people seek to identify themselves with groups to share ideas with or to argue with - as they wish.Rich

I agree...... but why? Is that the only premise. Conversely, why would I follow or pretend to follow a school of thought or a policy or a philosophy even after i know there are contradictions when it comes to certain situations or peculiar circumstances. Like for abortions, Does someones faith get priority when its a matter of life and death?; does the pastor's word take importance than one's own life? It can't be merely a want to identify with groups!

Miles;94624 wrote:

My belief is that the existence of so many "isms" suggests that philosophy has become stodgy and stale, too difficult for a "commoner" to digest with any ease. It's almost as if academic philosophers relish this self-induced isolation...
SO. Here's my premise in philosophy; be free in thought, as future philosophic progression can only be made through such freedom. Sure, it's good to draw upon what's been asserted before to flavour one's beliefs, but on the whole philosophy needs freshness and vitality, not just running over the same ground over and over again.

You have articulated my grounds....thanks Smile

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 11:46 AM ----------

Hey....mr kitten....... i see that you show your location as 'forests of flamingoes'.
Incidently i live very near to a site where flocks of flamingoes feed. I love watching them.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

hi jack-
so you feel that too many people are being bound by their definitions rather than thinking things out as they arise? makes things easier for them i guess. sometimes it is not wanting to go against the crowd which they have chosen to belong to...and part of the reason groups were created is to keep others out. all very sad ways of relating to others and using one's sense of reason.

i dont seem to have been able to find a definition for myself, and that's ok with me. but i notice it does make it difficult for other people to relate to me. i have also seen more than once people on the forum ask another member what philosophy they ascribe to in order to better understand their comments. but that really isnt good because you could be misinterpretting someone's opinion by assuming it is in line with their basic core philosophy or worldview and it may be an exception.

i also notice a number of members designating that they belong to no one particular philosophy and embrace a composite of more than one-which i think is great.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;94736 wrote:

...and part of the reason groups were created is to keep others out. all very sad ways of relating to others and using one's sense of reason.

Very very interesting. I agree there are groups who keep other people out either voluntarily or on their own volition, like in clubs. But i am more interested in the larger groups who are not officially ( a declared indentity) listed into a particular ism, but flirt or float around an idea which they think best describes their own line of thinking. Like for instance, some say they are Utiliatarians, some say they like being Libertarian, some say I am Gandhian........ My enquiry is : Do they know what the ism stands for, and if they do, do they really follow it through the life.

Or is it that we are all in a blind alley, hoping and wishing that we get wings to fly. And salimaji, even a broken wing will do, to pull us out of such a spotty situation..... ha ha, just joking.

salima;94736 wrote:

i dont seem to have been able to find a definition for myself, and that's ok with me. but i notice it does make it difficult for other people to relate to me.

A definition for yourself........ you have got my point... U see i did try that on me, and i find it difficult for myself to fit into any of these manmade slots of understandings, or should I say, the roulette.

salima;94736 wrote:

i have also seen more than once people on the forum ask another member what philosophy they ascribe to in order to better understand their comments. but that really isnt good because you could be misinterpretting someone's opinion by assuming it is in line with their basic core philosophy or worldview and it may be an exception.

So right........ i will tell you an instance, and others may also get my point. In my younger brothers engagement ceremony, my bro introduced me to his to-be-wife as "he is a socialist"..... My surprise was immense for never before anyone, had on my face ever put me a tag or a label. He pointed a finger at me with such authority that i was for a second taken back by his audacity. When the photos were being taken after the usual pleasantaries, i was blinded by the light in which i saw myself. And here i was all the best part of my life trying to know what i am or rather what i stand for.

The irony of the moment was that i was a capitalist. I was officially a businessman at that point of time. The joke struck me, but his label, i thought got stuck on my front pocket.....ha ha

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94717 wrote:

I agree...... but why? Is that the only premise. Conversely, why would I follow or pretend to follow a school of thought or a policy or a philosophy even after i know there are contradictions when it comes to certain situations or peculiar circumstances. Like for abortions, Does someones faith get priority when its a matter of life and death?; does the pastor's word take importance than one's own life? It can't be merely a want to identify with groups!

We form like-minded groups so that we can share what he learn with like minded people. Sharing allows each person to learn faster and evolve together.

We form conflicting groups, so that we can discuss (argue) different perspectives, which allow us (force us) to challenge our existing beliefs and change them. Change/conflict is the essence of human evolution.

So, groups have the purpose of sharing and creating conflict so that we can change and evolve within a relatively non-chaotic atmosphere. It is no different with ants and bees. Cooperation + conflict.

Rich

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94753 wrote:

So right........ i will tell you an instance, and others may also get my point. In my younger brothers engagement ceremony, my bro introduced me to his to-be-wife as "he is a socialist"..... My surprise was immense for never before anyone, had on my face ever put me a tag or a label. He pointed a finger at me with such authority that i was for a second taken back by his audacity. When the photos were being taken after the usual pleasantaries, i was blinded by the light in which i saw myself. And here i was all the best part of my life trying to know what i am or rather what i stand for.

The irony of the moment was that i was a capitalist. I was officially a businessman at that point of time. The joke struck me, but his label, i thought got stuck on my front pocket.....ha ha

my mother used to introduce me to her friends when i was a teen-ager by saying 'this is my daughter, she's very anti-social'...and of course just hearing such a mean remark i had to prove her right...if only i could do that over and behave like the perfect little hostess, i could have made her look like a jerk instead of behaving like one. oh well, live and learn...

when i first got to india everyone assumed i was christian, which i would deny-then they started to argue about it 'auntie is christian' the christians would say and 'auntie is hindu' the hindus would say...actually i wanted to avoid taking sides and be harmonious to all communities, but they ended up fighting about it anyway!

india seems to be divided into religions and casts while america is divided more by politics. both countries of course have their financial groups...but that is not exactly what you are referring to of course. but it does amuse me to see how many people want to wear a uniform and join a club-while even those who tend to want to rebel and be lone wolves are still in just another group. where are the true individuals? the real free thinkers?

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94608 wrote:

A grudge against one and all

Why should there be these ism's that one should be tagged with? What if i believe i am not in the net of any such field of thought or way of life?

I have it against every one here, isn't it? But, I also get a seeping feeling like; "Oh yeah..boy, u think you are right while all others are wrong, eh. What if they are right".
Well Well, then please tell me why i could be wrong?
Here's how i express my grudge:

Liberalism: Why are liberals so liberal that some of them let their teenage girls (13 to 16 age group) go pregnant, some let them have child too.

Conservatism: Why do some of these kind not understand that condoms is a compromise to nature to prevent unwanted pregnancy.; why do they not let abortion take place even if, medical opinion, threatens the mothers health or life.
Fanatism: Why cant they understand that the scriptures were written by winners/destroyers/powers that be to have control over the society....(and not exactly by so called Gods). It was temporal laws and there is nothing divine about divinity. Why do they think they are perpetually right?
Powerful or Die Hard Democrats: they think political power is an art of managing majority opinions. Why do they act and sound as if they are altruist, and these so called true democarts allows a dictator who falls in line or is corrupt as a friend or ally, because it suits their own political purposes. While those who do not adhere to their dictats are bad guys or evil nations!! surprise.
Socialists: Why do they think that all the ills of the world is due to the rich and affluent people? Why do they think the poor can manage themselves. Or is it that they feel they can manage both these opposing but useful resources.
Communists: Why do they think the state can usurp the right of an individual and put him in a dungeaon if the individual is found ireing is own views in contrary to state policy's.
Scienceism: Why do scientist believe that material and empiricism only exists rest all are hogwash? well, almost!
Spiritualism: Why do they think that life means spirits or mind-consciousness?, and that matter does not matter at all.
Modernism: Why do these people think that technological advancement is the only way forward? If i do not have a facebook id ora tweeter i am not in. If i use my a black and white television, i am a pauper, Why? like, If I use bicycle, i am of that class!

Feminism: Why do they think that all men are evil, and chauvinists. As if all evil things are solely caused by men.
Atheists: Why do they think there is no spiritual side to man, Why do they endlessly debate on evolution as against religious beliefs.

..... my main contention is why man has to think in such compartmentalised fashion? Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas. Accept it and then walk along, instead of walking alone.
Walking alone ...hmmm,.... is individualism....well, another one to debate......?
:bigsmile:

Keep on... Just remember than anti idealism is an ism... Do not simply be against them, but consider the power they have in our lives... People stripped of their cultures and communities need to gather around a common idea to have their identity...People advance their condition with a change of forms/ideas...The problem is mostly, that to have unity, ideals must exclude, and only the idea of humanity includes all, so to have friends we must have enemies, and to be inside we must leave the outsiders behind...

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 09:48 AM ----------

salima;94757 wrote:

my mother used to introduce me to her friends when i was a teen-ager by saying 'this is my daughter, she's very anti-social'...and of course just hearing such a mean remark i had to prove her right...if only i could do that over and behave like the perfect little hostess, i could have made her look like a jerk instead of behaving like one. oh well, live and learn...

when i first got to india everyone assumed i was christian, which i would deny-then they started to argue about it 'auntie is christian' the christians would say and 'auntie is hindu' the hindus would say...actually i wanted to avoid taking sides and be harmonious to all communities, but they ended up fighting about it anyway!

india seems to be divided into religions and casts while america is divided more by politics. both countries of course have their financial groups...but that is not exactly what you are referring to of course. but it does amuse me to see how many people want to wear a uniform and join a club-while even those who tend to want to rebel and be lone wolves are still in just another group. where are the true individuals? the real free thinkers?

It is so nice to hear that your mother hurt you...My father just died, and I loved him, but I could not tell him, even when he told me... He hurt me, almost up to the moment of his death, and to remind him of my love was reminding me of my pain...I hurt him too... I did not realize until just then that he was responsible for so much of the pain in my life, that in thinking him cruel, even vicious, that I became more like him than I cared to admit... I was a sensitive child once, and even good until he got a hold on me... And it was not that he was so terrible...He was not deliberatly bad, and he got better, perhaps because he saw in me his mistakes, or as a mistake...Meanwhile, out of the cruelty of life he made me cruel, unfeeling, and uncaring... I have spent nearly fifty years with no greater goal than to become human...I wonder how much better off I might have been had I been able to trust the advice of my parent because I trusted that they were acting in my best interest...Their advice was good, but they had poisoned the relationship...

What you see in the castes, and in the relationships outside of caste is the living record of successive invasions, with each latest invader reconcileing with the conquered upon everyones honor...It simply points out our current inability to make a deal... We cannot come to terms with anybody, and no form is stable.....Look at how often property relations have changed even in the last thousand years in Europe... If you want it; take it...Make people accept it or see them die...Ultimately everyone needs peace to get back to work again, and people give it to get it...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;94760 wrote:

Keep on... Just remember than anti idealism is an ism... Do not simply be against them, but consider the power they have in our lives......

Hi Fido, anti-idealism is a phrase i am hearing for the first time. Thanks for bringing it to me. For me my greatest hero is poor Mr M K Gandhi, who was an idealist of the highest order. Perhaps like Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha or say a Nanak or a Mao. To be an anti-idealist would be a great effort (subject to the fact that i know what anti-idealism is al about....ha ha}. Although i am not an idealist either.

This has got more interesting. A flash of thought, asked me to ask, whether mr Gandhi (whose birth anniversary is celebrated today) and the eminences above can be equated with Hitler and Osama bin Laden who are as idealist as anyone could be.

But, be that as it may, your point that we should learn from them (i.e the isms, you see) is a good advice. I am what i am because of my adversary....., the other way to put it may be....'the enemy or the opposites needs equal respect'. I take that. Thanks

Fido;94760 wrote:

The problem is mostly, that to have unity, ideals must exclude, and only the idea of humanity includes all, so to have friends we must have enemies, and to be inside we must leave the outsiders behind......

Thats profound! Thanks once again , J
---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 09:48 AM ----------

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 12:40 AM ----------

richrf;94754 wrote:

We form like-minded groups so that we can share what he learn with like minded people. Sharing allows each person to learn faster and evolve together.
We form conflicting groups, so that we can discuss (argue) different perspectives, which allow us (force us) to challenge our existing beliefs and change them. Change/conflict is the essence of human evolution.
So, groups have the purpose of sharing and creating conflict so that we can change and evolve within a relatively non-chaotic atmosphere. It is no different with ants and bees. Cooperation + conflict.

Rich

Hi Rich, i agree with all the above. But i would like to give a clarification. I am not into a sociological pursuit of understanding the formation of groups. Formation of groups are social facts (Durkheim ?). Stratification, therefrom or theroff, is well theorised.
My burden rather is not the problem of divisions within people due to material differences (i wont name them) but the contradictions in the thought processes which is purported as an ideal path to follow i.e the isms created by thinkers and followers.

The group-formation are fairly material and deterministic. Isms are a kind of group-consciousness (as you pointed out) but to remind you, are intangibles having no definite boundaries. A thought process or a crystalised -consciousness is always in a state of flux, and keeps on fluctuating with phases of brightness and dullness, shining and fading, like a loosely connected bulb.

The problem of contradictory views is solved by the general/non-intelligentsia or the lesser intellectuals by resorting to pragmatism, selfishness or self preservation. It is the philosopher - the uncommon lot who are more rigid in sticking to their self-imposed boundaries of action and conversation, and their resolute adherence to half baked philosophies.
I am indeed taking the liberty to call them so, for the sake of argument, on which the very survival of philosophy depends upon. Thats also my defense, i suppose.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;94760 wrote:

It is so nice to hear that your mother hurt you...My father just died, and I loved him, but I could not tell him, even when he told me... He hurt me, almost up to the moment of his death, and to remind him of my love was reminding me of my pain...I hurt him too... I did not realize until just then that he was responsible for so much of the pain in my life, that in thinking him cruel, even vicious, that I became more like him than I cared to admit... I was a sensitive child once, and even good until he got a hold on me... And it was not that he was so terrible...He was not deliberatly bad, and he got better, perhaps because he saw in me his mistakes, or as a mistake...Meanwhile, out of the cruelty of life he made me cruel, unfeeling, and uncaring... I have spent nearly fifty years with no greater goal than to become human...I wonder how much better off I might have been had I been able to trust the advice of my parent because I trusted that they were acting in my best interest...Their advice was good, but they had poisoned the relationship...

yeah...there is another thread about 'blowing up the world would solve all the problems'...if nobody has any children that will also solve everything.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Organization seems essential for analysis. You cannot say what something is or predict what it does without defining it and giving it a name as a first assumption. There is no requirement for you to be a part of an ism, but it helps for people to define who you are. The beginning step for creating new knowledge is to start with a definition. But you have every right to question, as to find the correct definition in the first place you must doubt all of the definitions to see which one stands valid, or to be open to a contrary definition to tradition which may be the most accurate one.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;94854 wrote:

Organization seems essential for analysis.

............There is no requirement for you to be a part of an ism, but it helps for people to define who you are.

Organise... is a powerful word-verb. It is action at its best. It is said, and historians vouch on that, that we humans formed civilisations. Even though i do not know who coined the word civilisation (i am too tired to google up or go to wiki), i do know that author-historian H G Wells, did use the word. Thats a proof. ATM, Civilisation in other words are organisations and groups.

And so, I hope i am clear enough, i am not talking about these concepts or definitions at all. I am rather trying to know why people continue to see, label or tag themselves to idealogies which have blatant contradictions in their assumptions and/or worldviews which they are so happy to bandy about. And when a testing situation confronts them, they very convenientely take a position or at the least embarrassed by their decisions. Decisions which, may be exactly counter or opposite to what their initial ideas were or against stand-points where they stood.
Need i give examples. Well there are many at least in politics. buts that not where my grudge lie. It lies against the intelligentsia or the intellectuals.

One important point for those who may be interested - i am not deriding or admonishing or rejecting any of those isms i pointe dout. Those were some examples. I have the utmost regards and respect for all those idealogies which miles and rich, here above had pointed as being useful. I am also not challenging the basic premise or tenets of those isms or ideologies. Sorry, if i may have sounded like one.

I am only trying as far as possible to be naughty and prick some holes here and there. I sound joking out here, but believe me i am serious of my first OriginalPost.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94882 wrote:

Organise... is a powerful word-verb. It is action at its best. It is said, and historians vouch on that, that we humans formed civilisations. Even though i do not know who coined the word civilisation (i am too tired to google up or go to wiki), i do know that author-historian H G Wells, did use the word. Thats a proof. ATM, Civilisation in other words are organisations and groups.

And so, I hope i am clear enough, i am not talking about these concepts or definitions at all. I am rather trying to know why people continue to see, label or tag themselves to idealogies which have blatant contradictions in their assumptions and/or worldviews which they are so happy to bandy about. And when a testing situation confronts them, they very convenientely take a position or at the least embarrassed by their decisions. Decisions which, may be exactly counter or opposite to what their initial ideas were or against stand-points where they stood.
Need i give examples. Well there are many at least in politics. buts that not where my grudge lie. It lies against the intelligentsia or the intellectuals.

One important point for those who may be interested - i am not deriding or admonishing or rejecting any of those isms i pointe dout. Those were some examples. I have the utmost regards and respect for all those idealogies which miles and rich, here above had pointed as being useful. I am also not challenging the basic premise or tenets of those isms or ideologies. Sorry, if i may have sounded like one.

I am only trying as far as possible to be naughty and prick some holes here and there. I sound joking out here, but believe me i am serious of my first OriginalPost.

Ahh well those aspects of "isms" you are describing of self contradiction or group mentality are probably more aspects of psychology and survival of the fittest. And there might not be a good justification for that behavior, but you have identified that it exists and have asked the ultimate question on all matters "why?". It seems to be more of a matter of their self preservation that drives them to do these things. If you look on it from an evolutionary perspective, each person has levels of preservation; self, family, community, species. And seemingly all creatures, humans have a balance of these. But all I can do is ultimately give guesses on to why, who knows what the real truth is.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;94901 wrote:

Ahh well those aspects of "isms" you are describing of self contradiction or group mentality are probably more aspects of psychology and survival of the fittest. And there might not be a good justification for that behavior,

Thanks ........ now if it is psychology, let a psychologist point out why people do that. But frankly, Absolution, i think it is more than just plain psychology.

It is more about the voids in life. I assume that there is a great deal of scarcity of knowledge. We stick to such isms in the desire to see yourself on the side of the majority or on the side of morality. However, for very many of us, in the full swathe of its application, there are grave blind spots. We realise it only when we personally encounter such notion-threatening situations.

For e.g..... I may b a layman parishner of a catholic church. But if my daughter is adviced an abortion to save life, I may well concede it despite my being a vociferous campaigner against abortion.

By stating it i am not condemning the person, rather i would appreciate this guy for being practical. My issue here is would he continue to campaign, or in the light of an experience rather emasculate his belief.

If he fades out of the scene, my question rather than asking him directly, would be pointed towards the philosophers and adherents, as to why does this happen. Is it not that there is something inherently wrong in such claims, and ideologies or for that matter beliefs.

Absolution;94901 wrote:

It seems to be more of a matter of their self preservation that drives them to do these things.

thats exactly the basis for my skepticism in almost all the belief systems and ideologies. There is hardly anything psycholgical in the true sense, if one acts or behaves for self preservation. Thats what nature is. This Logic of trying to defy nature is what baffles me.

Absolution;94901 wrote:

............, who knows what the real truth is.

Lets try.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

I do agree that there definitely seems to be a scarcity of knowledge. Academic Skeptics have been arguing for a long time that humans are incapable of having knowledge. Whether they are correct to a full extent or to a partial extent they do seem to have some basis from experience. Which could explain why actions of people often contradict their own knowledge, because they may be at some level unable to understand it.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Jack:

On Liberals: what do you mean "let" their girls get pregnant? Do you imagine the parents standing in the room at the time of conception saying, "Oh, yes dear, go right ahead."? Teenage pregnancy happens, and it happens to people of all sorts.

On Conservatives: Few conservatives have a problem with condoms. As for abortion, those conservatives opposed to abortion often times believe that life begins at conception, which would make abortion murder.

On Fanatics: first, the generalization regarding scripture is dubious; there is a great deal of scripture in the world, and the history of origin varies from text to text.
As to why fanatics believe they are always right, well, it's because they have so little faith. A person of true faith is not afraid of challenges to his faith.

On Democrats: Without a specific example, this is tough to address. But generally, the issue in play is pragmatic politics. Of course, the whole criticism sounds just as if not more acute when leveled against Republicans.

On Socialists: By and large, they do not seem to believe what you imagine them to believe.

On Communism: I don't recall such beliefs in Marx.

On Science: Most scientists have faith of some kind, so, I think it would be incorrect to say that they only believe in the material and empirical. When it comes to the practice of science, however, that's all there is simply because science deals with the material and empirical; this is not necessarily a rejection of everything else.

On Modernism: I'm with you, buddy.

On Feminism: What you describe is not feminism. Men are not all evil and chauvinistic.

On Atheists: They reject man's spiritual side for any of many reasons. Perhaps they do not understand the concepts involved, which seems to be the typical case. Other times they just prefer to ignore the history of humanity which provides ample evidence for the fact that mankind is spiritual. But, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they try to be kind, decent people, it doesn't really matter what they think about God or spirituality; as long as the person tries to be kind, who cares?

Voltaire long ago discarded labels as dangerous, and he was right. People can become tribal and dangerous when they associate based upon labels. However, labels can also be useful as a convenience in communication. The really important matter is self control - self control enough to not become one of those silly fools who screams about this label and that, while acting as if their chosen label is a God-send.

1 Reply

@salima,

I think the reason is that a majority of Americans are Christian, and by assuming others are, there is the vastly held belief that America is a Christian country. Ironically, the Founding Fathers of the Constitution were not Christian, and 'one nation under god' as well as other ideologies are a product of believed religious authority. But is it not the same for Atheists? They also find their views as the only truth.

2 Replies

@Leonard,

Some of the so called "Founding Fathers" were most certainly Christian, and others were not. It was a mixed bag mostly of Protestants and Anglicans with a few deists, however prominent, sprinkled in the mix.

The "one nation under God" phrase was added to the pledge in the 50's as a way to distance ourselves from Communist Russia.

As for truth, there is a neat twist to the matter - while most seem to assume that their beliefs are the only right beliefs it is possible for people to reject such inflated opinions of themselves.

0 Replies

A grudge against one and all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know