Destroy My Belief System, Please!

@cicerone imposter,

.............................ok

0 Replies

Quote:

Cicerone said: We are the product of our parents, culture, language, environment, and biology.
Beyond those limits, does one have or does not have free will?

Nobody "produced" me!
I decided in my early teens that the way of life of my parents, culture and society etc stank, so I rejected it and went my own way, THAT'S free will, and i've got very good backup.. Smile

-

"Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Pet 1:18 )
"Don't conform to the pattern of this world" (Rom 12:2)
"As a soldier of Christ, please only God and not the world" (2 Tim 2:3/4)
"Don't love the world or the things in it,otherwise the love of God is not in you" (1 John 2:15-17)
"Set your mind on things above,not on things on the earth" (Col 3:2)
"You were bought at a price,don't serve men" (1 Cor 7:23)
"A friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4)
"You were dead when you followed the ways of the world" (Eph 2:1/2)
"You died with Christ from this world, so don't keep submitting to its rules" (Col 2:20)
Jesus said:- "The world wants you to dance to its tune" (Matt 11:16)

Romeo Fabulini: he doesn't do "dance"!

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/POS-swagger2_zps8e311a2c.jpg~original

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier, this has turned out to be more difficult than I anticipated. I realize that "self" refers (epistemologically) to a subjective orientation while "person" is essentially an (ontological) objective category. "Self" is our notion of the center of experience (i.e., "I" have such and such a thought, desire, experience, etc.) while "person" is either one's identity (as in the mask of persona) or a person in her completeness.
Referring to the latter, I note that medical doctors who treat physical disease sometimes acknowledge that they might focus their therapeutic attention on symptoms while ignoring the complete person. This may also apply to psychiatrists but rarely to clinical psychologists.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

As I said previously, the capacity to compare, benchmark and analyse a vast quantity of information under one "cognitive roof" -- ie consciousness -- is central to who we are. Consciousness cannot be disposed of by philosophy, since it is necessary to explain the emergence of philosophy.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, consciousness (as "intelligence") is fundamental to survival. What about awareness? One can be aware without comparing and analysing: the essential posture of meditation. I think awareness in this sense is even more fundamental; as I understand it, it's something like what Buddhism calls "original mind." It's one of the reasons I prefer to paint abstractly, enjoying shapes and colors before their employment in representations of our perceptual/cognitive world of benchmarks.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Yes, consciousness (as "intelligence") is fundamental to survival. What about awareness? One can be aware without comparing and analysing: the essential posture of meditation. I think awareness in this sense is even more fundamental; as I understand it, it's something like what Buddhism calls "original mind.

Well, yes. Pure awareness (I imagine) is what a baby experiences. Without words, without prior memories to compare with. Can be relaxing to stop the mental bean counting, I agree.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Bean counting. That says it well.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

So... we agree. Surprising. :-)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I not surprised at all.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I not surprised at all.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Still, a Buddhist and a materialist rarely agree...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Still that depends on what you consider "materialism". Zen Buddhism has a strong materialistic bent (in one sense of the term). Natural objects of nature are often seen as intrinsically (not necessarily economically) valuable. Consider the material-spiritual preciousness of a cup in the traditional tea ceremony. Or in the West objects-of-art can (although this is in contrast to art industry's orientation) be seen as materially-spiritually valuable, aside from their market value.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

S..t ! I still agree.

I am a special kind of materialist, one who does not believe in determinism or in the primacy of "raw" matter over other elements such as information or meaning. I agree that a cup of tea can mean the world.

I often deride those who dismiss the importance of the mind, or who argue that the mind is determined by matter, those I call "narrow-minded materialists".

Still, to me everything that exists is "material" in a way or another. I don't believe in life after death, for instance, or bank much on classic spirituality and religion. So I call myself a materialist, although that carries its share of misunderstandings.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Interesting. The more we look the more agreement we find (with some disagreement of course). But the majority of interactions that I see in this philosophy forum is A2Kers looking for, or perhaps manufacturing and exaggerating, disagreement. They seem to assume "debate" to be philosophy's functional equivalent of Science's "scientific method."

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

They seem to assume "debate" to be philosophy's functional equivalent of Science's "scientific method."

Is it s methodological problem really, or is it some general bitterness that permeates the whole forum?

I like to debate. I find it fun. But in contrast with some, I do try to understand what my debater is saying.

People agree much more often than they think, but the words and concepts they use to describe their worldview don't match. Agreeing with someone has a lot to do with doing a good translation of one philosophical language into another.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Granted it's not a conscious or intentional methodological strategy. It can be an expression of aggressiveness and competiveness. And I agree that debate can be very constructive by helping us to refine the terms of our theorical perspectives. But I hope we all understand that one can "win" such competitions without being right. Debate is not a philosophical way to test the validity of ideas, even though it might serve to persuade observers of the relative value of competing ideas.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

But I hope we all understand that one can win such competitions without being right.

Sure, happens all the time. The tough thing to do is being right AND win nevertheless. :-)

Quote:

Debate is not a philosophical way to test the validity of ideas, even though it might serve to persuade observers of the relative value of competing ideas.

Agreed, with the caveat that there is no consensual way to test the validity of philosophic ideas. IOW debate doesn't work very well to identify the truth in philosophy, but nothing else does...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

But there is; it's called logic.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If one believes in logic... By design, philosophy can challenge anything, even logic.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, many believe and study logic in philosophy - even at Oxford.
http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk

Why anyone would want to challenge logic in philosophy seems they don't wish to validate the correct reasoning of what is being said or written. That doesn't make much sense to me!

1 Reply

Destroy My Belief System, Please!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know