Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 5:56:38 GMT -5
well I don't know the exact situation, so I can't give decent criticism..
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 6:16:53 GMT -5
Ive read most of the original post and if you are from where i think you let me say some defending argumnets of those so-called racist. Ive lived in part of town which was the main area which these people live in for a big part of my life. I´ve met some of them which were good and kind but most of them were really just using social support, didnt go to work and stole from people. This part of the city is not safe even at bright day and most of people you call racist had bad experiences whit this kind of people... If we're going to actually discuss this lets call them by their actual names and call them Roma. I don't mind fear based on experience. If someone hits you you have a right to be afraid of that person, it is reasonable. It is not reasonable however to be afraid of everyone with the same color skin as him. If John is dark skinned, and john hits you, it is not right to say "Dark skinned people hit people." If it happens twice, it is natural to be afraid, but it is still not reasonable, it is certainly not right to say to all your friends how dark-skinned people behave based on your experiences. You kept saying "Them" and there is this fundamental problem of an attitude of "us" and them" when there is no us and them, they are just Czechs. Also, I say "Dark skinned" Because i know that is how other Czech people think of them, but the other Czech people have darker skin too and it was a long time before I could tell the difference, and even now it's just clothes, tracksuits and earnings and things like that. They are just as Czech as everyone else. Some of them have actually a longer Czech heritage than a lot of Czechs. And so everyone who does not live a "proper life" is not treated with respect. And why their lives might actually be different and how their experience of life might be difficult isn't taken into account? There are all the same kind of feelings towards the "lower classes" in Ireland, the people who live in social housing etc. The difference is they have the same opportunities as the rest of us, if they want to go for a job interview they can put on a suit and no one will ever associate them with anyone else. A Roma person can't meet someone without them thinking about all the newspaper headlines and stories they've heard and read. A little Irish kid with a crappy family still has 100 role models outside of it, he knows what chances he could in life. A Roma child with a wonderful family, how many role models does she have? How many people does she know who look like her and have been to college and have achieved something excellent? How's she supposed to feel it's possible for her? How's she ever supposed to be optimistic? We don't segregate our classes according to skin color, because we all look the same. Now there is a lot of similar bad feelings about the traveling community, and they can often be identified because they live outside and that changes your appearance, plus because they have a different culture they have a different language and a different accent. They're often treated as sub-human as well. I'm just as against that, so don't think this is an indictment of the Czech people, it's not, it's an indictment of all humans. I think every country has some group of its own people who it unites against. A lot of people will tell you that Roma attack their own families to make it look like they're oppressed, and that they don't actually live in fear at all. They'll tell you they pretend they're being discriminated against so they can get money from the state. I think Vaclav Havel is the only one I've ever heard stand up for them, but in fairness my Czech is terrible so there's an awful lot I don't understand. I know a lot of good has been done and a lot of efforts have been made to try and give Roma equal opportunities and not send them to schools for mentally handicapped children, but it seems to be motivated by international pressure rather than concern. People tell me I won't ever understand this because I'm not Czech. I agree with that. I am 100% sure that if I grew up here I would agree with you, but as I didn't grow up here I can't/ I really love it here, it's a wonderful place, but I don't think I could live here if I had a dark complexion, that jars with me, but I try to accept it and not get upset by it. Want to summerise my ideas: - I feel there is no difference between Roma and other Czechs - I know my perspective on this isn't complete because I have only lived here 2 years - I feel that any problems a large enough group of people have can only stem from how the greater community has let them down - I think that Czech people are some of the most peaceful, intelligent, hardworking and creative people on the planet, and if I look forward to returning to Ireland it's only to being where I'm actually above average instead of well below. About Irish Travelers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_TravellerAbout Roma in the Czech Republic: romove.radio.cz/en |
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Apr 4, 2010 6:20:16 GMT -5
I think your definition of "open mind" is a bit weird.
Open Mind means that you are willing to listen to all arguments, but draw your own conclusions.
Open Mind doesn't mean that you are willing to believe everything you're told and change your lifestyle if it doesn't correspond with whatever you're told.
I think that's the difference. ^^
|
|
kernoll
Meteor
Why so serious?
Posts: 63
|
Post by kernoll on Apr 4, 2010 6:52:08 GMT -5
I was not defending people, who discriminate Roma in Czech republic. I was just saying that there is always reason for people to hate somebody.
About that girl and college. There are many programs for people like her in Czech. They support and help kids which are aiming for something, that is not common in their social environment.
I do not think we can change something by discussing here. The main point of this article is that you should make your own image of this problem. Go, talk to those people. Its something on what you should definitely make your own opinion.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 6:57:50 GMT -5
I was not defending people, who discriminate Roma in Czech republic. I was just saying that there is always reason for people to hate somebody. . True, people will always find a reason for whatever they want to do. That's great  Perhaps in a few generations it will all be okay, or as soon as everyone can unite in hate against the aliens. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 7:35:03 GMT -5
Ok... I read the entire first post of the author but lost myself around half the first page of replies...
Anyway, there are some things I'd like to point out:
First you (the author of the thread) say you sometimes argue with incredibly intelligent people, much more intelligent than you, and you have no ways of arguing with them in your favor. But people are not intelligent in all areas. A math teacher can suck in English, for example. In the same way, if a person hasn't learned philosophy of ethics, that person in unlikely to have a solid base to defend their theories. Even if they are better at defending their point of views than you, they might be doing incredibly horrible fallacies.
You said that your golden rule doesn't have a logical base, and therefore you just create logic around your golden rule - which from now on I'll call ethic code. But, if you don't have how to justify your ethic code then it is based on a prejudice. This prejudice can be good or bad. Your is good, nevertheless it is a prejudice.
So you should do the reverse: base your golden rule on logic, that is, trough logic, you get to the ethic code. I may not be an expert, but I do know which ethic code based on logic I follow and I can defend my opinions in a reasonable way. But it doesn't need to be your logic. For example, I can say that in therms of equality and equity I have an opinion based on the book "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer.
Later on you question if it is good to accept a good ethic code through blind faith. I say that it is not, because if you are able to accept a good ethic code through blind faith you are equally capable of accepting a bad ethic code trough blind faith. And this is something that happens all around the world. This is the center of heated discussion of things that sometimes seem banal.
And before answering to the questions you do on the bottom of your post, there are several people who base their ethic code on their family, geographic position, feeling, etc; but that doesn't mean we should base them that way.
Furthermore, if you base your ethic code on your feelings, then you can't rely on it, as feelings are not trustworthy enough to make decisions based on them.
At last:
Have you got golden rules? What are they?
I follow an ethic code. I am a preferences utilitarianist. Which is based off of consequentialism. So basically I defend that good actions cause "The greatest good to the greatest amount of people" and that the greatest good is the realization of the preferences and wishes of most people. I do know there are some problem with this ethic code, but it is the most reasonable one I know of currently and I try to work around its problems.
Are they a bad thing to have?
In my opinion golden rules or ethic codes are a good thing to have as long as they are based on rationality and logic. An ethic code based on feelings is not trustworthy as it can be easily manipulated and can easily lead to bad actions.
Should we always be completely open to every idea?
Yes, but that doesn't mean we need to accept every idea. I for example know there are people who believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean i accept that ghosts do exist blindly. I considered the idea, and then rejected it because it doesn't seem a reasonable logic to me. That doesn't mean that I will keep rejecting it if there are actual proofs or, in the lack of proofs, better arguments defending the existence of ghosts which I find good enough.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 8:09:27 GMT -5
Are they a bad thing to have?In my opinion golden rules or ethic codes are a good thing to have as long as they are based on rationality and logic. An ethic code based on feelings is not trustworthy as it can be easily manipulated and can easily lead to bad actions.. I go along with most of what you said, but i disagree with that, I think if it's based on a feeling it is absolutely unchangeable and unbending. If it is based on logic someone more logical can change your mind. People can come up with logical arguments for anything. Another story (scroll down for short version):
THE WOLF AND THE LAMB
Once upon a time . . . in the forest lived a wolf, known to be savage and ruthless. One day, feeling thirsty, the wolf went down to a stream, and as he drank the sparkling water, he saw a lamb drinking, further downstream. The minute he set eyes on the hapless lamb, he decided to make a meal of it. "A nice plump lamb! Fine and tender! Yummy! That will be delicious! I haven't had such luck in ages! Now, I must find an excuse for picking a quarrel, so that nobody can accuse me of gobbling it unjustly!"
Unaware of the wolf, the lamb was still happily sipping the water when it heard a deep growl from above its head.
"You down there! You're muddying my drinking water!"
The lamb gasped in surprise: "I'm sorry, Mr. Wolf, but I can't possibly be muddying your drinking water. I'm below you and the water is flowing downhill, not up!"
The wicked wolf was taken aback by this reply, but only for an instant. He quickly hit upon another excuse to be angry. "I hear you went around six months ago telling people that I'm violent and a bully!"
At that, the now frightened lamb began to tremble, and it replied in a tiny voice: "How can you believe such a thing, Mr. Wolf? I've never said a bad word about you! Indeed, I'll be able only to speak well of you in the future." To its relief, the lamb remembered that it could prove its innocence. "I wasn't even born six months ago! So I couldn't have spread gossip about you."
But the wolf was only interested in gobbling up his prey, so he hastily broke in: "Well, if it wasn't you, it was your father," and, pouncing on the little white lamb, he quickly ate it.
Short version: Wolf, sees lamb. Yum! Wolf: I'm going to eat you because you made the water dirty! Lamb: The waters flowing the other way, it couldn't have been me Wolf: You said bad things about me last month! Lamb: I'm only two weeks old! Wolf: Then it was your father! / Well I'm hungry wolf eats lamb. There are loads of interpretations of this, the one given on the website was "Alas and alack! Innocence does not always save us from the clutches of a tyrant." when I first read it it was "A bad person will always find a reason to be bad." But take it this way, the wolf was hungry, the wolf tried to justify his actions to himself and the lamb, but at the end of the day he was still hungry, so he gobbeled him up, nothing the lamb could have said would have stopped that. When all his arguments ran out he just ate him. Hunger is a primal emotion and often it can lead to selfish action. But I think empathy is a primal emotion too, and i think if you base a feeling on that, this feeling that another human being is like you and can't possibly be worth less.. well I feel you can't go wrong. But if you don't have that you can come to any number of logical and heartless conclusions. Like "Man + woman = man, woman, baby "Man + man = man, man. Population birth rate lower than replacement level . . Therefore Man, man = wrong. Now that's perfectly logical and practical, but it's heartless and without empathy and doesn't take into account the feelings of the people involved. Now of course that's not the logical end of that argument, the replacement level thing isn't really a problem because there are so many people in colleges in developing countries who will be delighted to come over to 1st world countries when they are needed and send the money home, and that will be the case forever. " They have more honor students than we have students" as you know. There are loads more arguments, but with everything there's bound to be a logical conclusion, and after those conclusions are reached all that are left are these "golden rules" as I call them, or ethical codes if it's the same. I think that I am not the only one who bases all of her views on these fundamental codes. You take any atheist on earth, if they truly felt the existence of god they would believe in it. (or have themselves committed, but they would still believe it until they got enough medication to repress the feeling. ) The lamb knew he didn't want to be eaten, and he thought he was safe because logic and reason were on his side. But they were on the wolf's side too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 10:40:32 GMT -5
But if you don't have that you can come to any number of logical and heartless conclusions. Like "Man + woman = man, woman, baby "Man + man = man, man. Population birth rate lower than replacement level . . Therefore Man, man = wrong. Now that's perfectly logical and practical, but it's heartless and without empathy and doesn't take into account the feelings of the people involved. Ethics involves the ability to live in harmony with every being and their well being. So we can't simply defend things randomly and use any string of logic. We have to have in mind everybody else. This is almost a characterization of ethics. Because of that, when I say we need to use logic, it is not any logic. Your logic may be good from a point of view of the survival of a specie, but I can say that, trough a certain ethic code, based solely on logic, an increase in population wouldn't make people happier (nor satisfy wishes and preferences), nor would prohibiting gay marriage make people happier (nor satisfy wishes and preferences). Actually, trough all ethic codes I do know based on logic, doing it wouldn't be ethical at all. Why wouldn't it? Because ethical codes need to have in mind the individuals. One person can be heartless and still be one of the best persons in society. Does this mean we should be heartless? No. But if we make all of our ethic decisions based on our feelings, we will end up doing something very wrong eventually. I go along with most of what you said, but i disagree with that, I think if it's based on a feeling it is absolutely unchangeable and unbending. If it is based on logic someone more logical can change your mind. People can come up with logical arguments for anything. Does that mean that an ethic based on feelings is good? Many racists and homophobics make their decisions based on the shock they have when they hear such ideas. Just because an ethic code (or ethic rule) is based on feelings, it doesn't mean it is right. That is why it is important to have logical ethic codes, because people can show us a better perspective. Furthermore, logic isn't related to convincing people, but to show them the best argument possible. That is why, for example, a racist wouldn't be able to convince me. They can make very magnetic arguments, but they have fallacies, they are not logically valid, they just look valid. If they do make a valid logical argument, a defender of equality or equity can make a better one opposing racism. At least it is my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 4, 2010 11:04:40 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thing, but I read the beginning and think I understand what you're asking.
I think an open mind is a good thing. We can't be too proud to change our ideas and admit that we may be wrong. At the very least, we need to be able to see everything from multiple perspectives and accept different ideas.
But isn't there a saying like, "if the mind is too open, everything falls out"? It's something like that. And I think that that is true too. You need to have SOME sort of opinion on things. You can't be swayed by every little thing that someone says about an issue. If you don't, then it's too easy for others to take advantage of you and manipulate your thoughts.
As for emotion affecting opinions, I think it's a pretty good rule. I read an article about it once and thought it made a really good point. But you need to remember your rhetorical triangle when listening to an argument. You can't have all pathos and no logos. People abuse emotion to get people to sympathize with their cause, but you need a logical reason for it, too.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 11:25:51 GMT -5
But if you don't have that you can come to any number of logical and heartless conclusions. Like "Man + woman = man, woman, baby "Man + man = man, man. Population birth rate lower than replacement level . . Therefore Man, man = wrong. Now that's perfectly logical and practical, but it's heartless and without empathy and doesn't take into account the feelings of the people involved. Ethics involves the ability to live in harmony with every being and their well being. So we can't simply defend things randomly and use any string of logic. We have to have in mind everybody else. This is almost a characterization of ethics. Yes, and I think people choose the string of logic that goes with their feelings. They have a starting point and they work from there. For some people the starting point is something that involves living in harmony and for other people it is not. People often start out thinking they are right and then work to prove they are right. (Of course if it's a completely new topic, you have a completely open mind, you don't have any ethics involved, or if it's an abstract topic that doesn't touch on golden rules and feelings.) [Just a quick little point of information: Replacement level does not mean the species number increases, it means it stays the same, at the moment this is the minimum we need because we don't have enough resources to support a population top-heavy with dependent people. Actually, it's difficult to support anything other than a pyramid with babies on the bottom, which is of course a disaster! (and a really amusing mental image if you'll just stop to picture it for a moment) ] Some-peoples primary goal is the happiness of the species, someone people are more interested in the health and well being, some people are worried only about their own community, some people are only interested in themselves and their immediate surroundings (i think these people are rare, though many people act like them) to me it seems like all of these people have some emotional golden rule at the root of everything. And the same isn't true for logic? I think a lot of people do a lot of perfectly logical horrible things for what they consider the greater good. "The Greater Good" is always a reason. Absolutely not, remember the wolf! That's a really good point. We can't be baboons, we can't just go around doing whatever we feel. There are a lot of transexual vlogs on youtube and the number of them who were disowned by family members or kicked out by their own parents is staggering, you've got to wonder, what was at work there? It can't have been love, can't have been logic, can't have been empathy, absolutely nothing, how on earth did human beings end up with the ability to disown our own children for any reason? I've been familiar with the idea of all races being equal and homosexuality being normal for as long as I can remember, but only a few years ago when someone first suggested Polygamy to me I was shocked. [Not like, hey, wanna try polygamy? But like, why can't 3 or 4 people love each other as much as 2?] Then the emotions settled and my mind kicked in and I said yeah, it doesn't do any harm, (then empathy) and though I might not be able to do it it's perfectly reasonable that some people might love more than one person and be able to have a loving relationship that way. So I guess the empathy and the logic worked hand in hand. I guess in the absence of empathy logic is certainly better than no logic at all. Plenty of sociopaths manage to live perfectly normal lives just by learning to act like they care about other people, because they can see the alternative is pretty much homelessness or prison, and they do care about themselves. That's the root of it isn't it, we prefer this string of logic because we want everyone everywhere to feel happy and have equal rights to what we want for ourselves and the people we love. Why do we want that? Because that is what's most logical and we are most intelligent? In my opinion no, in my opinion it's because that is what we feel is more logical. I guess it is overall more logical for our species to be altruistic, and we have evolved that way for that reason. The good of the community is often equal to the good of the individual. |
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 11:33:43 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thing, but I read the beginning and think I understand what you're asking. I think it's okay not to read the entire first two pages when someone has as much of a tendency to go on as I do  Aye, I think I've come to think of it more this way, its been great getting other people's perspectives. We need logic, and emotion, and time, and different perspectives and puppies. 'Cause when you see puppies you're like "Oh what does it matter anyway, puppies." I reckon you could seize power that way. Puppies > Logic just walk into a government building with a puppy and the guards will be like HEY YOU you can't go in there! And you'll be like: Look! Puppy! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 12:26:02 GMT -5
hmm, this is getting a bit too long to read  I will do so later, but seriously, how freaking amazing is it that we can have a debate like this on here without people who start trolling it or getting aggressive or w/er? |
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 4, 2010 12:35:56 GMT -5
hmm, this is getting a bit too long to read I will do so later, but seriously, how freaking amazing is it that we can have a debate like this on here without people who start trolling it or getting aggressive or w/er? True! I love this forum so much. And you know what else is awesome? Discussing this with people is actually helping me and also it's making me love them! I love this place so much. You guys.. Seriously... Stay awesome. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 12:38:24 GMT -5
hmm, this is getting a bit too long to read I will do so later, but seriously, how freaking amazing is it that we can have a debate like this on here without people who start trolling it or getting aggressive or w/er? True! I love this forum so much. And you know what else is awesome? Discussing this with people is actually helping me and also it's making me love them! I love this place so much. You guys.. Seriously... Stay awesome. hmm, that post put a "paternal" kind of smile on my face I don't know if paternal is the right word, like when you're proud of someone who you feel is related to you |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 4, 2010 12:44:32 GMT -5
Two camels in a tiny car. >.>
Anyway. When we apply logic to facts (Does X exist? How big is Y? When did Z happen? Any question that results in a single, true answer, whether or not we know what the answer is.), then cold, hard logic is all that's needed. But when we're thinking about ethics and morals, we need more than just cold, hard facts for us to base it on. Whether or not gays should be able to marry, or whether or not we should be eating meat, or whether or not we should vote left-wing or right wing... none of these things have absolute 'true' or 'false' answers from a purely logical, scientific perspective. So it's clear that logic alone is insufficient. At the very least you need a goal.
Once you've set a goal as a factor in your thinking (maybe the goal is something vague like "Make <my country/the world> better" or specific like "Get as many people health care as is reasonably possible") then you have something for your logic to build toward. Even then, of course, this is inductive logic, not deductive, meaning not all the factors involved are purely mathematical or scientific by any means, and any conclusions are not conclusive.
As far as ethics for individuals, one good starting standard (IMO) might be "We should let anyone do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others or otherwise harm people or the country in general." This is, vaguely, a standard upon which most of our laws are built. It's also based more in emotion than logic, but tries to be objective like logic would be. By this standard, subjects such as gay marriage become quite clear, very quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 13:09:49 GMT -5
hmm, that post put a "paternal" kind of smile on my face I don't know if paternal is the right word, like when you're proud of someone who you feel is related to you  Paternal is just for father.. And I bet I'm older.. brotherly maybe. yeah, you are |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 13:33:58 GMT -5
yeah, you are oh yeah I remember now. Put your tongue back in your mouth and respect your elders. *bows* Please excuse me for my discourteous behaviour. It will not happen again! (by the way, this would sound a lot cooler in Japanese  ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 18:34:18 GMT -5
I agree with most thing you said, with the exceptions of some small little details: And the same isn't true for logic? I think a lot of people do a lot of perfectly logical horrible things for what they consider the greater good. "The Greater Good" is always a reason. When I used the therm "Greater Good", I was using it in a specific context of an ethical code. I carefully defined my "Greater Good" as the realization of wishes and preferences of the biggest amount of people possible. The "Greater Good" is commonly a reason because of how ambiguously can it be defined. Normally people who use it as a reason to do bad things don't explicit that their "Greater Good" is the realization of their own picky wishes. If the greater good is to be a good reason, it needs to be carefully defined. Just by curiosity: there are ethical codes which do not use the "Greater Good". Some-peoples primary goal is the happiness of the species, someone people are more interested in the health and well being, some people are worried only about their own community, some people are only interested in themselves and their immediate surroundings (i think these people are rare, though many people act like them) to me it seems like all of these people have some emotional golden rule at the root of everything. And here is an important detail: ethics requires the well being of people. What you are talking above is if ethics should be our top most priority or not, and that is where things get a little muddy. Some people defend it is part of the human nature to be ethical (like rationality is part of the human nature). Some people defend that being ethical is the best thing for ourselves. Yet it is a muddy topic, and when you say some people are interested in themselves, or in anything besides the well being of everybody in the world, it means ethics is not a priority for them. (...) That's the root of it isn't it, we prefer this string of logic because we want everyone everywhere to feel happy and have equal rights to what we want for ourselves and the people we love. Why do we want that? Because that is what's most logical and we are most intelligent? In my opinion no, in my opinion it's because that is what we feel is more logical. Exactly, but you just need to change the wording a little bit: the root of it is to know whether or not we should be ethical. Why do we want it? Many philosophers argued about it, and there is no clear why. And I still can't get to an objective why. But if we accept ethics, then it all gets much more objective... as long as we accept an objective ethical code as the most correct... I guess it is overall more logical for our species to be altruistic, and we have evolved that way for that reason. The good of the community is often equal to the good of the individual. And that is one of the purely logical arguments used by some philosophers as to why we should be ethical. Many people accept it, and I do agree with it. |
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by evets on Apr 4, 2010 19:13:36 GMT -5
I just read over most of this thread (ok I skimmed a few parts, but I probably read more than most peope. >.>) and I must say, I really enjoyed that first post (oooh pictures! =D) I just have a few quick points I want to make to contribute to this discussion: 1. I agree with this: Open Mind means that you are willing to listen to all arguments, but draw your own conclusions. Open Mind doesn't mean that you are willing to believe everything you're told and change your lifestyle if it doesn't correspond with whatever you're told. I think that's the difference. ^^ QFT. I think the key here is that people learn to think critically about things, and not just believe everything they hear, so to speak. Its about learning to evaluate ideas and figuring out what to keep and what to toss. When I encounter new ideas (such as the ones expressed in Dan Brown's videos) I ask myself questions like "does this line up with other things I believe? Does it makes sense logically? Does is feel right?" Listening to the debate between creation and evolution for the millionth time doesn't change my opinion, but it changes it, it tints it. I might see a connection to something else that I didn't see before, or, it might make a completely different idea snap into focus for me. The key is that I am constantly thinking and reevaluating my own ideas. Why? Because I want to understand. I'm the curious type of person that wants to see how it all fits together, how it works, how its connected, and I'm constantly thinking and changing my ideas in my never-ending quest to understand stuff. Maybe some others can relate on this point I don't know. Hmm I somehow got offtopic there. Oh yeah I was using numbers. ^_^ 2. IIRC, someone before me brought up the idea of using logic to evaluate new ideas, which I mostly agree with. Logic is a wonderful tool that everyone should learn how to use so they can think critically! However I gotta say, its not the only way to evaluate new ideas! Unfortunately, some people just aren't built for logic. Their brains are wired differently and logic make brain hurt. Graaaaaaa! :X And yet, these people still evaluate ideas, hold beliefs, and have valuable things to say, even if they aren't able to defend them with logical proofs. I'm thinking of people like my grandmother here. Now, my Nana is not the most articulate person, and isn't good at explaining things (very much the opposite of certain other people in my family who hold PhDs), but I have no doubt that she is wise, and when she gives advice, I've learned to listen up. She may not be able to explain logically why an idea is right, but she knows it. Its a gut thing, and emotional thing, and yet when I take those same ideas and look at them logically, and compare them to my own, they make sense. They pass the logic test. Now, this is a very odd thing indeed, but its helped me to see that logic isn't everything, wisdom help us evaluate new ideas too. Can anyone relate? Now as I understand, most of us people in the pogo tribe are pretty young, and wisdom is something that comes with age most of all, so this may not be how you all personally evaluate ideas, but I would have to take a guess and say that as we grow older, maybe we grow in wisdom and we use that wisdom to look at the world differently, rather than just using cold hard logic. Don't get me wrong, I think logic is good, I guess I'm just making the point that when it comes to evaluating new ideas, wisdom + logic is better. 3. This connects very well with another pogotribism that Dan started, and I'm surprised that no one has seen this connection yet: "Don't be a zombie!" (the relevant part starts at about 3:13 in.) Huhn, I swear, I was just going to make a few quick points when I started out, and this wall of text just appeared! I don't know how it got there! Honest! >.> evets~ |
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 5, 2010 6:17:20 GMT -5
Great posts PTMB and Evets, thanks!
PTMB it's great to hear some of the actual terminology for what we're talking about and Evets I totally agree with you about logic and wisdom being separate things.
I can try and understand what people believe without believing it myself. And if I believe something myself I should try and understand why, it's a gut feeling I should know it's a gut feeling and not mistake it for a logical conclusion. If it's a mix of logic and gut as most things are, that's good too, but I should know where my opinions and motivations are coming from.
|
|
