Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So do you think that, because I would feel that there is "somehow something wrong with this picture" I therefore would fail to "seek to understand"? Notice that as "strong suspicion" is not a refusal to investigate further. If I had said my reaction would be "Joe is obviously an idiot", then I might agree that my snap judgement could close my mind to possibilities. ...
i removed that post of mine as soon as i read it, it was off and not what I wanted to convey and you're right, that's not what you were doing. "snap judgments" as you point out is NOT what you were doing. And it did not stop your "brainstorming" about possibilities for the puzzle. You continued in exploring possibilities. A better way for me to say it is that the associations you made were in a direction that totally threw me.
that you make those associations, those connections ("insane, confused, lying") is.....startling, unusual. not just a bit of a leap but a huge leap. out there. dark. strange. it was a window of sorts into your predilection, predisposition towards (again) a subtext of "not logical ----> wrong------> lying-----> deeply confused----> insane" . i gotta say it, that thinking feels a bit unbalanced, unsettling.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-18-2018 at 12:38 AM..
...in this example it would never occur to me to focus on "something wrong" with the person saying it. all my brainstorming is on the intrigue of the puzzle presented, the square circle.
Just to clarify: Your use of the word "focus" is a misunderstanding of my approach. I don't think I focused on something wrong with the person saying it, but of course I very definitely did not exclude those possibilities either. I simply listed a few possibilities. And, of course, it was just a quick list for use as examples; it was not meant to be comprehensive. BTW: It occurs to me that some people might have interpreted "teasing" in a negative way. If so, then I should point out that in my own personal history, "teasing" is primarily an expression of playfulness and, in some cases, of intimacy (as in, "I know you well enough, and like you enough, to feel comfortable goofing around with you"). But, if I think about it, I am aware that, for many people, their primary reaction to the word 'teasing' could be negative because they have been victims of cruel, unwanted "jabs" that are really just disguised or passive aggressive ways of inflicting emotional pain. That aspect didn't occur to me when I wrote the post. This distinction occurred to me when you were talking about the more mystical connotations of squaring the circle. I am aware (somewhat) of the background you are referring to, and in a rather vague way this was included in the category of "teasing" - as in a movie previews are sometimes called "teasers" because they try to entice you in for a closer look. In this case, it might be more like "I can show you something that will blow your mind" (but, again, I would not expect to see a literal "square circle").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
... however never in a million years would these be in my brainstorming
he is lying
or confused
or insane
for something as benign as someone telling me they "have a square circle at their house"
[...]
that you "automatically" include insane, confused, lying is, well...... quite startling to me. I find it bizarre. colorful. unexpected. unusual. revealing.
Revealing for me as well. I'm surprised that there is anyone who wouldn't even consider listing these as possibilities if they were listing brainstorming examples. Perhaps I have been jaded by too many experiences with scammers and compulsive liars? Or perhaps I've seen a few too many "con artist" movies? In any case, my use of 'Joe' was meant to be as generic as possible. If Joe was a friend who I knew well and trusted, then the negatives about him would have been more deeply buried in the shadows of my mind. On the other hand, if my emotional reaction to Joe was more like "A creepy dude with a sketchy legal history" then the negative possibilities would be higher on my list. Since I was using 'Joe' in the generic sense, I pulled examples from the full spectrum.
BTW:
I could be consistently misunderstanding you, but I have an emotional impression of you that you might find interesting. From my perspective it seems that you have a tendency to grab and focus on the worst possible interpretation of my words - the interpretation that makes me look the most clueless, or emotionally damaged, or prejudiced, or "spiritually unevolved", etc. (Here, perhaps, others could chime in and let me know if I'm off-base in this assessment?) I'm not sure if you are doing this consciously for the purpose of prodding me, or if you are simply offering your straight-up reactions with little or no conscious awareness of how it comes across to me (and, I'm guessing, to others was well). Of course, this is pretty much the norm in these forums, so you certainly are not the only one.
To understand this more deeply, I can contrast this with something that, as a philosopher, I strive to achieve (although in these forums I probably fail on a frequent basis). This is commonly referred to by philosophers as the "Principle of Charity" - meaning that, for the purposes of responding, one tries to figure out the strongest-possible interpretation of the philosophers arguments. The goal here is avoid wasting everyone's time pursuing strawman arguments.
The process is as follows:
(1) Andy says "X"
(2) Beth reads X and can think of several interpretations of X (because virtually anything that anyone ever says - no matter how smart and careful they are - contains vagueness and ambiguities that can be interpreted in various ways). Among the possible interpretations, some make Andy look really smart and his arguments look really strong, whereas others make it seem as if Andy is confused or ignorant about various things.
(3) Beth picks the interpretation that seems like the strongest possible interpretation (i.e., the hardest argument to refute or basically the "most generous" you can think of) and then paraphrases what she thinks this strongest interpretation is. Then she offers critical comments and (if she can) alternative arguments that might be better.
Now, of course, these forums are anything but professional academic philosophy literature and I certainly don't expect people here to follow the Principle of Charity, but I offer it as a contrast to what seems to be the norm in this here neck of the woods. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of cases where I, myself, have failed miserably at applying the Principle of Charity but, for whatever it may be worth, I generally aim for it.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-18-2018 at 09:02 AM..
Why would anyone want to follow you? What do you have to offer others?
So far I have not read anything that would prompt me to want to follow someone like you.
I met myself, I said follow me...and I did. I follow me wherever I go. Do you mind? Seems that you lost yourself. Maybe you should go look for him;her.
Last edited by auralmack; 01-18-2018 at 01:21 PM..
Interesting...I have never heard dead meat make one sound. I guess this is just your imaginary fantasy at play here.
My group of religious folks? A snare I carry around?
Sounds like you don't like the fact that religious folks can't handle objective truths and instead choose to prop themselves up with blind faith "ultimate truths".
Sorry mack...nothing here is sensible. Try again.
Yes it's a waste of a lifetime thinking you are following the "ultimate truth" when in reality you don't know which way is up. No thanks.
Well then, let me be the most religious person you ever met. and I have all the ultimate truth there is to have. and all the objective truth, it's all mine to. There is not enough left for you. Sorry.
...This distinction occurred to me when you were talking about the more mystical connotations of squaring the circle. I am aware (somewhat) of the background you are referring to, and in a rather vague way this was included in the category of "teasing" - as in a movie previews are sometimes called "teasers" because they try to entice you in for a closer look. In this case, it might be more like "I can show you something that will blow your mind" (but, again, I would not expect to see a literal "square circle").
yes, to pique a person's interest. always from the time I was a little kid I remember liking riddles, brainteasers, codes, puzzles. I remember on long car rides as a little kid asking my mom to "give me math problems to solve in my head" that was fun for me. and didn't we all grow up reading the hobbit with the scene where he is trading riddles with the slimy creature in the lake. Also I was fascinated with finding hidden treasure. Not for the treasure, I wasn't after jewels or gold, it was the finding it, that treasure is hidden and can be found.
have you also even as a little kid always wanted to try and solve things, figure things out? can you look back from the vantage point of who you are now, and see yourself in the small bright person you were then? I picture you being the really smart inquisitive kid thinking deeply on things. and reading. a lot.
I picture you being the really smart inquisitive kid thinking deeply on things. and reading. a lot.
I was a terrible student in grade school, but I was also a world-class nerd (complete with black plastic eye-glasses, of course). I would set up scale models of the solar system in our yard (well, sorta...it was impossible to fit Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in our yard - they'd land out in the middle of the lake, or on the other side of the lake, so I had to be content with just imagining them out there). I'd create puzzles, or games or combine games. Luckily my mom was a willing game-tester because not many people would tolerate games where sometimes rules have to be made up on the fly due to unforeseen situations. One time I combined Risk and Monopoly so that you had to use the Monopoly board to generate money to buy the risk armies. That game took about a month to play.
And, since, this was Northern Minnesota, clear night skies were fantastic. Sometime I would go out in the winter (the absolute best night skies of all), lay on the ice in middle of the lake and look at the stars, trying to imagine what I would find if I could really go out there. (And the ice cracks at night, which makes for wonderfully weird "sciencey" sound effects.) I knew most of the constellations and all of the names of the major stars as well as their ages, sizes, and distances from Earth.
And so on and etc.
I believed in God back then, but mostly because it seemed that everyone did, and the alternative just never occurred to me in any serious way. I'd never heard of an atheist. Reading the Bible in my late teens set me on a 10-year long path to agnosticism. I clung to the Christian God concept as long as I could, but in the long run I could not believe in any traditional conception of God. I am still somewhat of a "mystic" but this is tempered by decades of science and analytic philosophy. I'm still in love with the night sky and imagining "what's really out there?" but most of my adult life has been more of journey "inward" - so to speak.
....I was a terrible student in grade school, but I was also a world-class nerd (complete with black plastic eye-glasses, of course). I would set up scale models of the solar system in our yard (well, sorta...it was impossible to fit Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in our yard - they'd land out in the middle of the lake, or on the other side of the lake, so I had to be content with just imagining them out there). I'd create puzzles, or games or combine games. Luckily my mom was a willing game-tester because not many people would tolerate games where sometimes rules have to be made up on the fly due to unforeseen situations. One time I combined Risk and Monopoly so that you had to use the Monopoly board to generate money to buy the risk armies. That game took about a month to play....
that is wonderful and delightful, i absolutely adore that kid. and how amazing to have Risk and Monopoly interacting. don't you just grin from ear with wonder at that ? i do
This is a discussion forum addressing subjects that impact real lives in real ways and trying to parse fact from faith and fiction because it matters. Beliefs about God drive many conflicts in the world and drive mistreatment among peoples. It is one thing to be accepting of the beliefs of others when there are no negative repercussions from them but it is quite another when people are treating people as abominations, or flying planes into towers, or blowing themselves up in crowded venues, or using trucks to murder pedestrians and cyclists. Vetting beliefs against reality and facts is essential to reasoned discourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
ok let's do a reality check, using the examples you give above MPD.
tell us MPD using the (your words here) confidence + faith you have in your intellect, the facts you gather, and your beliefs about God, how do those help you make sense of and respond to current events that disturb you. In your belief system and intellectual and religious framework, can you share with us your own personal approach and plan and thinking and action steps and response when those types of things happen in the world? What does your belief system offer you when you see current events that are upsetting.
to borrow a phrase from granpa's post, How do you MPD make the world a better place?
As with everyone you debate, Tzaph, you always seem to want to make the discussion about the poster and avoid discussing the issues. A flippant answer to this query using my examples is that I make this a better world by NOT treating people as abominations, or flying planes into towers, or blowing myself up in crowded venues, or using trucks to murder pedestrians and cyclists. A more serious answer is that I try very hard to love God and each other every single day and repent when I do not. That has an enormous impact on my life choices and behaviors because it circumscribes them by considering the well-being of everyone involved at the time. This is superior to following some sterile ancient cultural code of conduct that arbitrarily places specific requirements on my attitudes and behaviors in the name of obedience to God.
A more serious answer is that I try very hard to love God and each other every single day and repent when I do not. That has an enormous impact on my life choices and behaviors because it circumscribes them by considering the well-being of everyone involved at the time.
What I don't get is why does it take you to "try very hard to love God and each other every single day and repent when I do not".
Why are you unable to cultivate the ability to love all sentient creatures on this earth innately without the need of a god?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
