1
   

What is the best definition of Critical Thinking?

 
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 09:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Ahhh. Relativism, right? It's all relative?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 10:12 pm
@demonhunter,
Of coarse it's relative. Otherwise, our life would have no meaning.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 11:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Interesting. Could you expand on this?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 11:12 pm
@demonhunter,
We are the product of our genes and environment. What we learn from our parents, siblings, friends, school, and our other associations, results in what we relate as our reality. Because we are our parent's child, we take on all the biology of what they give us. The environment also impacts our lives. Those are the factors that make up who we are, and what we do in life.

Without making judgments, everything we do is actually "normal." Whatever we do "is in our nature."
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2012 11:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I can't argue too much with what you are satung. However, I admit that I am still a bit confused. How does this pertain to relativity creating meaning? Your premises, the factors you describe, are absolutely objective.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 12:20 pm
@demonhunter,
It must be objective by necessity; otherwise we're just singing in the wind. How else would you approach this subject?
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Please, don't get me wrong; I appreciate the conversation and I hope that I am coming across with the respect that I intend. We probably agree, but thanks for asking for my input.

I see that there must be truth; and I see that there must be our interpretation of truth. By truth I mean: something that "is," regardless of perspective.

I could define objectivity as a shared perspective. For example, we can both agree that people have feelings. Subjectivity is a belief that can't be verified by anyone. For example, I feel sort of under the weather today. So both subjectivity and objectivity are perspectives.

By relativism I mean a comparison. Relativism requires at least one point of reference. For example, distance is relative to a starting point. A court verdict is relative to a law (among other things). My feelings today might be relative to how I felt yesterday, or they might be relative to how others appear to be feeling; or they probably are relative to both and many other things. Beliefs are relative to truth; that is, any idea is either truthful or not. Relativism can be either objective or subjective. Actually, a better way to put that would be that both (objectivity and subjectivity) are relative. I believe that this is what you were saying, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Therefore, if meaning is found through relativism, then meaning is relative.

However, truth is not relative, objective, or subjective. There must be a truth about out meaning (even if I happen to believe it or not), right? Granted, every person has a different perspective, but when all has been said and done, there is and must be a truth about everything, too. Right?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:28 pm
@demonhunter,
That can easily be defined as "subjective." No two juries are the same, nor any two situations that may seem the same. We all apply our own subjective judgments into situations, because our perceptions are different. When you talk about "relative," it's only relative to the individual making a conclusion about the event, situation, or belief.

Trying to arrive at a universal truth in these situations is an oxymoron.

Which god do you believe in? Your truth is different than mine or most other people.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Trying to arrive at a universal truth is an oxymoron because of relativism. However, truth is not relative. The difference is between what is "seen" versus what is "true regardless."

Is your last question/statement rhetorical? What the heck, I'll answer it anyway. You are correct that the God that I believe in is different than most pople. However, that is all the detail I can provide. I speak Science to the Scientists, Spirit to the Spiritual, Philosophy to the Philosophers, and Comedy to the Comedians. I use whatever language is necessary.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:43 pm
@demonhunter,
You wrote,
Quote:
The difference is between what is "seen" versus what is "true regardless."


Not true; that's why religions are believed to be true regardless of whether the individual "sees" it. Have you ever seen your god(s)?

Have you ever argued with a religious person that what they believe is not true?
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Define what you mean by see. Have you seen your God in this way?
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 01:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
that's why religions are believed to be true regardless of whether the individual "sees" it.


You actually support what I am saying by this statement. Perhaps, we agree.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 02:07 pm
@demonhunter,
I believe we agree.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Kid wouldn't fight, died of injuries - Discussion by gungasnake
Public school zero tolerance policies. - Question by boomerang
Dismantling the DC voucher program - Discussion by gungasnake
Adventures in Special Education - Discussion by littlek
home schooling - Discussion by dancerdoll
Can I get into an Ivy League? - Question by the-lazy-snail
Let's start an education forum - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Educational resources on the cheap - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 03:00:43