Not Judging..No opinion?

I believe that is the case--however, although my response about Koreans was semi-humorous, it also points out that one man's meat is another man's poison. It is intended to point out that even "judgmentalism" is a subjective analysis. Furthermore, people's reactions are such (and you see this around here all the time), they might accuse you of being unacceptably judgmental simply for disagreeing with their point of view. A great many people identify so strongly with their beliefs, that they'll take offense at having those beliefs questioned. Religious adherents are the most obvious example of this.

Well yes on that regard I would be obliged to agree that religion is a dangerous frame for "operating beliefs"...but its not exclusive nor the mother of all evils...in its absence I am not at all convinced that belief would be substituted for rational thinking...probably we would only have an emerging new operating system of beliefs which would substitute the Religious absent role...

...tackling the problem of religion goes well beyond religion...in so far we have been bluntly stupid about it, while simultaneously empowering their case and representatives by addressing them as if they where the true root of the problem...

I neither alleged that this attibute is exclusive to the religiously devout nor that it is "the mother of all evils." Do me the courtesy of not taking issue with arguments i have not advanced.

...the thing is Religion not only operates on a metaphysical level concerning justification...one of its main roles is precisely in defending a system of beliefs embedded in a given culture...on that regard its connection with tribalism seems to be the true root of the problem..

...it was not my intention to do so...I addressed your argument but I was speaking at large...on how this issue has been tackled by most people in the Occident...

In resume and putting up a figure of speech, we cannot address less developed groups and cultures by saying to them that they are stupid...fighting the economic crisis and bringing up a system who provided more free quality time to people at large probably would do a much better job...

In fact if I where to attribute a final cause for religions growth, I would probably point to something so abstract as the increasing complexity (entropy) in the world due to technology...

...religion is just a quick fix for an ultimately far more larger problem...mind that evolution did not provide us for this level of complexity while we spent 100/200 thousand years living in small groups...

As for the "Arab problem" tackling the economic development of third world country's, internet and free access to information, plus providing Gaza and the Palestinians with a state should be enough...that simple !

On belief and on Value :
Link : http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html

Hear hear.

Mind for instance how the problem of value is intrinsically related with the problem of identity, the problem of the origin, and in it, the problem of tribalism..."mine" tribe or "theirs" tribe kind of reasoning...
(of course the winning party, the successfully artist, is always assimilated to "our" side)

In many "tribal" societies individualism and "private" ownership of goods are weakly developed. Instead "mine" the emphasis is on "ours." Does this relate to what you said?

No...I meant my team/tribe against yours X tribe, football like...that was the issue I was speaking off early on, and in it resides the true problem...Religion is just one more in between many forms on which tribalism operates...the deep root resides in tribalism...

Yes, I thought you meant actual tribes--the form of political organization that it formally leaderless--what you were referring to is generally called ethnicity, the way populations are divided along a range of possible criteria, like language, religion, physical traits ("race"), historical-mythical origins, territory, etc.

We don't we. Isn't it science and evolution.

Tis true..religion has brought much chaos to the world. But we can see their goal though, which is to get people to think the right way, which is their way of course. The reason why religions cause such a mess is because they hate the other persons view, of which a healthy debate would do better instead of war. And scientist are aiming at the same goal, to get people to think the right way, whereas one is objective and the other is spiritual.

I Suppose we can't avoid judging in every moment of our lives. But we can judge carelessly and inconsiderately, by stating what we think without treating what we say as just an opinion, but seeing it as somehow true, and therefore not considering other opinions.

We can't avoid making judgements, but we can avoid making judgements carelessly, as I think someone else pretty much said earlier.

opinions are wrong how would u justify an opinion about smthg else ? and if it is about smthg relative to urself then urself freedom so u the conscious must realize urself idea alone

this is also a part of all issues, showing how there is nothing else but dirty evil life ends

judging else is like sitting on ur ass endlessly since it will always b else and u doing nothing tryin to invent some chips and dvds as company to ur infinite boring or passionate life if u sit with others meaning the same that would b a dream of course since truth exist so noone can stay like that whatever he would insist to live only that

judging is right only for truth rights when smthg is clearly objectively negative then it cant b true so truth rights or true rights are what would keep insisting on having to kick that out and not recognize it existing
what is negative is less then nothing so cant b real in any way and its presence deform the whole ground fact reality
that is why judging or opinions are meant only for correcting objective perspective describing what really is but always through rejections of what should get out or down

I agree, but i don't feel as if "judgement" occurs in a moment that is easily isolated in either thought or action. For example (in an oversimplified "thought to action" breakdown), one observes an "event" and then mentally contextualizes it, and then one feels something in response and evaluates it in a normative emotional context, then one formulates that feeling into a thought and evaluates it in a given normative psychological context, then one counts the pragmatic responses within that context and chooses one, once that response has begun one takes a measure of the initial reactions to it and conditions the remainder of that response to achieve the desired results (whatever it may be), managing the consequences of one's response to the initial "stimulus".

One's "judgement" seems to be involved at each stage of the situation. Perhaps i would be foolish in suggesting it, but the term "judgement" seems to me as if it could be defined as "the pragmatic comparison of one's objectives v. one's circumstance concerning the former's relative success". That is, one's "judgement" is involved throughout the unfolding of one's own evaluation of a single event, and that the evaluation is not complete until one need deal with the consequences of that evaluation.

In other words, a person is always welcome to their own opinion, but the value of their judgement is subject to their capacity to dealing with the consequences of that opinion.

Whoah, way too long of a post, i know...In most ways, i agree with Cyracuz's first post: the value of a person's initial opinion's are beyond a counter-judgement, but once an opinion is given (verbally, etc.), that opinion challenges that same judgement with an equitable response -- and an opinion unchanged by a negative response, is not only im-pragmatic, but also reflective of a unperceptive speaker. (That is not to say that a person may be unflexible opinions, but only that those opinions must be tempered in some way to be effective.)

PS: personal anecdote -- A while back, i worked in a plant that specialized in the manufacture of cordless phones, for a while (man, cordless phones, does that date me?). During some of my breaks i was reading Kant's " Critique of Judgement". A co-worker once asked me what i was reading -- he was a great guy, but in my experience mostly a factory-floor clown-- when he read the title. "the Critique of Judgement", all he would say to me for a couple of days was, "Judging people is wrong." i tried to convince him that wasn't the content of the book, but he wouldn't listen. In that case my judgement as to how to handle the situation was probably wrong, but my opinion of the book was correct...go figure.



i think i know what you mean here, but would you mind elucidating your point a bit? i'm a little confused by your phrasing, although i'm sure it's just me.