Defend to the best of your ability the opposite of your beliefs.

Let me try to go first since nobody is risking it:

On Freedom and God

Freedom is the natural necessary unfolding of subjective specific needs sprung from the mind as a unified centre of perception through the process of self recognition. The "world" a necessary continuation of the mind processes freely expressed without any third party arbiter. In fact there is no third party arbiter as the mind and the mind alone is the centre of all existence. Solipsism through one single Universal Consciousness at work, namely God, with many sub set integers that form the epiphenomena we call "society" is the Occam razor conclusion that gives existence meaning and Reason. There is no Reason without Unity and Unity cannot be formed without a mind. (body parts alone wont cut it)
You want proof ? Godel's incompleteness requires the "world" to be unified in a metaphysical transcendent set without which it has no coherence per se. In turn God can only be complete as a mind if serving the "world" while providing it Unity and Reason.
God is the measure of all things which cannot be measured by the world.

Check above !

As it wouldn't be fair to not provide a hint on why I take one party rather then the other when there can be such good arguments on both sides of the fence I will provide the source as for my pov why I take exactly the opposite view of what I wrote above. Bottom line this can be traced back to an imaginary debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus. In my normal pov Parmenides wins and so the "world" wins vs the"mind"...for those who would favor Heraclitus "Devir" becoming, God, Infinity, Mind, Process, and Freedom are natural answers. There, explained why a subtle difference leads to two completely opposite outcomes in almost all essential matters in Philosophy.

This is a nice idea. I've thought of doing something like this before. But I'm a bit afraid to partake because what if I won my own anti-argument, would I then have to change my stance on things?

You can always go for a double twist...as soon your counter beats your trivial argument, get an upgrade on the trivial quick. Progress on both ends of an argument is always a good thing. The melodrama intensifies...the forums love it !

hello. you have an excellent shot sir and i think you've done a transcendent effort to reason out.

As I see it, above all else, Philosophy requires individual reasoning, it must be personal, and relentless honesty, while doing it, or is doomed to fail at grasping complex concepts. Both things are hard to put in practice. It easy to go along with fashion and the flow of the river, the flock instinct, and easier to become biased to our concept comfort zones and frames of reference. A good philosopher is an Amateur never a professional. To produce he must really seek internal self consistent wisdom, information turned into actual personal experiencing. That said, yes I have done an honest effort against my own gut feeling on this particular subject. Thank you for stopping by and feel free to try it yourself. Playing Devil's advocate can be a lot of fun while self educative.

"A good philosopher is an Amateur never a professional" you said sir.



A child is always a good explorer of the world.? Is it an endless query i guess is a guarantee of being a good philosopher? Can a good philosopher finds the ultimate truth through this endless, innumerable what's and why's from the innermost of his/her being. Can a good philosopher ends up in the midst of "voidness" of thought or nothingness that he/she could realize the "finiteness" of his/her mind.?Can a good philosopher was able to escape from the limitation of thinking? Why a good philosopher think rather than think of nothing?

pardon my grammar.

I think it is wrong to defend the opposite of your beliefs. Doing so would mean supporting something that is wrong. I couldn't possibly do this.

You should defend what is right and true... and nothing else.

Supporting the opposite of your beliefs is not something like a moral dilemma or proving what is valid or invalid. This is to purify our belief and engage into a process of delineation. Defending the opposite of our beliefs is like a negation of our self to know the real image of what we stand for.

It is absolutely a moral dilemma. It is immoral to defend something that you don't believe to be true.

It doesn't make any sense that arguing for something that isn't true will purify anything. This is the opposite of purity. Purity means you figure out what the Truth is, and then you defend that. Arguing for anything else just muddies the water for you and for everyone else.

I don't know what you mean by "negation of our self". Our self has nothing to do with it, what matters is the absolute Truth.

The real issue is that when we argue for falsehood, we are negating the truth.

I am not sure that we can understand our self but in this point i am talking about reason not of something bigger than the real notion of truth. There is God that makes everything true or real. Are you a moralist?

I believe that there is moral truth (is that what you mean by "moralist"). Reason is based on this truth, isn't it?

I don't really understand what you are arguing, or why one would ever argue a position that they did not know to be true.

How can you be so sure that your position, "the moral truth" tells you is an indubitable, concrete, free from all erroneous argument?
If everyone knows that what they stand for is the foundation of all goodness, why not all of us, humans. are not good.?
Maybe someone can only say that because that is the truth we encounter when we are born in this world.
What is your belief?

Moral Truth is based on Reason. If you apply reason you can be reasonably certain to arrive at the truth most of the time. If this is not the case and Moral Truth is some indiscernible abstract thing than it has no value.

I agree that you can't be absolutely certain of most things. And, it is good to listen to other arguments to test that your understanding holds up. That is being open minded. But that doesn't mean that you should make wrong arguments that conflict with your reasoning.

It is still not right, or useful, to take a position that Reason tells you is wrong. People who are wrong are wrong.

Morality itself works upon beings without any intervention of the "God of Morality". Man chooses to do what is right or wrong because he knows the consequences of what he is doing.It is natural to act morally thus. Yes, God is the Reason or the Moral Truth but God do not act in the process of human existence. Truth in general might be know but cannot be understood by all. Human being act morally because of power imposed upon him by same being if there is God He is the God who doesn't care at all. Morality is founded by human being alone who desire for a supreme supremacy/authority. Doing what is right/wrong is not a super-earthly thing.

Morality is just under the approval of a society which perceived as good and your God just become acceptable because people talk about it endlessly then gains currency later on.

The point is the dynamic, the openness, the out of the box synergy one generates by playing Devil's advocate. Without it you cannot have progress in knowledge. So it is precisely the opposite of what you suggest. You will defend better, and understand better, your argument, if you, yourself, have put in the effort to discredit your own deep gut feeling cosmogony. Thinking is made of challenging the obvious.

Oh yes only the true amateur, inquires with true purpose. The professional is bound to a school, an image to protect, and ultimately hostage to institutional self defensive behaviour. Sophistry is for professionals. Philosophy MUST be always personal, hence Amateur.