Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Acceptance, denial and conviction...three forces that hold humanity back.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 60 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Jan 2013 11:53:02 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 12:56:12 GMT
We are born helpless and depend upon carers in order to exist. We accept before we can question. Life is based on trust.

When we reach an age where critical thought is possible we can question what is accepted. But questioning only makes sense against a background of acceptance. No belief stands on its own, but is located on a background of tacit beliefs. All the same denail can be the result of good reasons as well as bad.

We can doubt as much as Hume or Descartes, but both thinkers knew that in the end we must somehow act or refrain from acting. We must therefore decide. In order to decide in important matters we require conviction. Faith and the acceptence of scientific understanding (tempered with the right level of scepticism) is part of many peoples life, they are not therefore nodding dogs.

Tyranny arrives with the forces of ignorance. It feeds on the clumping together of others into tidy categories. Not everyone who accept the evidence of evolution is a fanatical atheist, not everyone who has faith is a zealot. Not everyone who denies the values of the present age of global capitalism is a loud mouth nay sayer.

What kind of a person believes nothing that he or she reads or hears?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 13:33:25 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 19 Jan 2013 16:14:14 GMT
Spin says:
"Known unknowns" and "Unknown knowns"..Jesus wept. The intellectual legacy of the Bush administration...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 16:55:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2013 16:56:15 GMT
In order to respond to basic failures in understanding it is necessary to 'operate on the basic level.'

According to your logic (I use the term losely) I should not believe you. Therefore whatever you write should not be believed, perhaps then you ought to write the opposite of what you mean and then we might believe it. Or perhaps this is what you are doing.

A person who believed nothing that he read or heard would not be wise, he would be lost. Most of anybody's knowledge is derived from testimony of one sort or another. The very possibility of language use depends upon the fact that those who teach a child the language generally use it right, i.e. tell the truth. Belief comes before doubt, as Wittgenstein knew very well.

Nobody (with the possible exception of some extremely dedicated Zen Buddhists, who incidently turn away from life; as Neitzsche knew very well) 'live a life in the now.' If they did then they and their children would starve to death. 'Now' is the knife edge which stands between past and future; if you did not recall how you began a train of thought or perception and anticipate how it is to carry on, you would not have 'choiceless awareness,' you would have no awareness at all.

Of course in another sense one cannot help but live life in the now. It is always, of course, now.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 16:58:40 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:02:22 GMT
Spin says:
Simon: Tut, tut...You have been reading Hegel again..I warned you about that....=)

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:02:27 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:02:35 GMT
I don't ever remember being more relaxed thank you.

I believe that joining the idiots is exactly what I have done.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:03:09 GMT
The fount farts at Hegel...more pince nez...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:03:46 GMT
What am I confused about? What door have you opened?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:04:10 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 19 Jan 2013 17:05:21 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:12:08 GMT
Spin says:
Simon: Almost every post you deliver is based on Hegelian "Thesis, Anti-thesis and synthesis". In your belief that you are of unique thought and reasoning, you are akin to the theist who believes the "Trinity" has nothing to do with the logical processes of human thought...Just because you have never read certain theories does not mean they do not influence you.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:14:37 GMT
These limits are reasonably obvious. You pretend to 'know' something 'deep.' All the while there is nothing but silly verbiage dressed like some kind of Zen paradox.
It is hardly uncommon and not very interesting. Still I seem to be in confusion, I thought you were making a point that I might agree or disagree with. But you were not. I'm sorry if I spoilt your game.

I now see that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:48:22 GMT
Tony, who are you?....really....

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:49:20 GMT
Nay, nay and thrice nay....forget your Hegelian nonsense...what was it?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 17:55:34 GMT
There are lots of ways of approaching this question, depending on context.

I might be asked this in casual conversation and then I would give my name or a brief summary of my life.

It might be a question of personal identity in a philosophy seminar and then the problems ramify.

It might be a contextless question with no 'real' answer, like 'why is water wet?' or 'what is an orange....really?' Then it simply has the grammatical form of a question but it is not clear what it is asking for.

Could you specify what you would like to know?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 18:27:54 GMT
Spin says:
Mr Anthony: Impossible questions? Define "colour". Define "Thought". Define "Love". Define "Justice". Define "God"...etc etc etc...

Posted on 19 Jan 2013 18:53:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2013 18:55:17 GMT
In order to know the meaning of a word one need not know how to define it. I use the word 'is' all the time and know how, without thereby knowing what a definition might look like. (Though on this see Heidegger's Being and Time) Nor can I define 'define.' But why on earth are you asking for definitions? Try a dictionary, that might help.

What are 'impossible questions'? In what way impossible? Logically? Impossible to ask or impossible to answer? How can you be so sure?

For 'colour' see Wittgenstein's Remarks on Colour: 30th Anniversary Edition For 'thought' try John Dewey's What is Thought? For 'love' try Plato's The Symposium (Penguin Classics)' and Phaedrus (Penguin Classics) (There are many others on this topic. These are just the most obvious and first). For 'Justice' try Plato's The Republic (Penguin Classics) or John Rawls A Theory of Justice Rev (Paper) (Belknap) For God..... well I think that there are some pretty well known books here. Etc etc etc etc etc....

These are, of course, just a beginning and they do not proffer a definition that is easy to summarise. If you want definitions I shouldn't bother really, these are each a lifetimes quest, an attempt at gradual enlightenment. No slap in the face or paradoxical word play can really substitute for hard study and thought in these areas. Of course it is easy to give up, but so what. It remains however, as I see it, important to try and deal with these questions. But certainly not in terms of definitions.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 18:57:48 GMT
Spin says:
MR Anthony: I wrote my dissertation on Heideggers "Was ist Metaphysic?" and my post-grad thesis on Heideggers account of "Mathematica". I am the last person you want to argue with about Heidegger. =)

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 19:05:37 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2013 19:05:55 GMT
Spin....as you are so knowledgeable about Martin....wouldn't you be the first person to argue with...then one's prince nez noggin can expand...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 19:05:53 GMT
I would have thought that if I wished to argue with anybody about Heidegger (and that was not my intention) then it would be somebody who knew a bit about his work. Therefore you would hardly be the last person etc..

But in what way was I arguing about Heidegger? Or are you somehow joking? %)

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 19:06:35 GMT
Tony and the fount be become one...

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jan 2013 19:08:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2013 20:51:18 GMT
That is nice.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  3
Total posts:  60
Initial post:  19 Jan 2013
Latest post:  21 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions