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.
One's personal life's philosophies embody the sum-total of our various experiences and conclusions. All reached at this point in our lives and personal intellectual growth. Intellectual honesty is but a subset of that; the ability to realize within yourself that the position you might have on something could, in fact, and in light of more rational evidence, sadly be quite wrong.
We also have intellectual inertia. (Inertia is the tendency for a moving body, or an idea, to continue it's existing direction if not corrected. Like a 10,000 ton freight train. Not so easily stopped.) As our attitudes evolve and we try out life's situations against them, we usually bend the facts to fit the growing assumption that "our way is the way, because, hey: look how things fit it so well!" We all do this more and more as we age. It's easier that way!
The trouble is, why doesn't everyone have the same point of view if ours is so obviously correct? It's simple: it's that darned "inertia" thing. We don't want to adjust our thinking too much, or at all, especially as we grow older and do not want to spend time learning new stuff. Do I, at 62 yrs old, really want to learn an all-new complex computer operating system? What the heck's wrong with my old one? And these danged text-messaging phones... why, when I was a teenager, we only had one land-line rotary dial phone in our house, and look at us! We made it, didn't we? Danged youngsters! Jus leemee be, I tell yah!
(Of course, those "kids" will be taking care of our nursing home accommodations, so... just nod and smile and give them ice-cream cones)
By training or natural curiosity, however, some of us oldsters did acquire some formal, or informal interest in being open to new ideas, and we may have a distinct fascination with science's ongoing efforts to learn and explain more and more. This places us at odds with those who were never interested, or never curious, about such things, or were completely happy to have others explain it all and then tell them what to confidently say and think.
(I also happily acknowledge that not everyone has, or should have, such an openly curious attitude. I mean, why mess with happiness and contentment after all?)
I'll call them Type I (Inertial) versus Type C (Curious) mindsets. We see it here all day long.
So, the OP question is this: can the two ever come to grips. Can the Type C's learn from the Type I's, or visa-versa? Can each learn new things that might require an adjustment to their comfort zones? Can we Type C's willingly learn to calm down and accept some things as just, "being", on faith alone, or alternately, can the Type I's accept anything that is "now proven"? Especially when such stuff flies in the faced of common logic or new evidence, or mass acceptance?
I suppose, in essence, the question is: can we adjust our own philosophical honesty, facing it squarely, head-on, and possibly admit we could be wrong?
Because if not, why are we here? To mutually insult or dismiss? Not worthwhile, I'd say.
I think that most people are Inertial in some situations and Curious in others, and we're often blind to our Inertial side. For most of my life, I was a Type C when it came to intellectual ideas, and a Type I when it came to risk taking and pursuing life experiences. It took until age 40 for me to realize that about myself, based on 20 years of my life not turning out according to how my hermetically sealed theories said it should. I forced myself to become a Type C with regard to experience, and my life has become much richer and more interesting. On the other hand, I've accepted that my experential Curiosity has its limits, and I no longer feel under pressure from myself to bungee-jump, scale the tallest mountains on every continent, wrestle sharks off the coast of Borneo, and so on just to see what it's like. So in that sense, my I and C sides have influenced each other, and I've found a balance that's right for me. In my case, the key is self-awareness and honesty: once I realize something, I can't un-realize it or deny it. For example, I was once a firm believer in God and reincarnation, and I had a metaphysical model that had resolved most of the questions that I'd raised over the years. But then training in critical thinking made me raise a new set of questions, and now I've moved into the agnostic camp when it comes to an Eastern notion of God, and I'm an atheist when it comes to an Abrahamic God.
.....the ability to realize within yourself that the position you might have on something could, in fact, and in light of more rational evidence, sadly be quite wrong.
....why doesn't everyone have the same point of view....
....completely happy to have others explain it all...
So, the OP question is this: can the two ever come to grips. Can the Type C's learn from the Type I's, or visa-versa?
Because if not, why are we here? To mutually insult or dismiss? Not worthwhile, I'd say.
99.999% of everything we know was explained and taught to us by others. We didn't do the core research on much we can say we know...no matter who we are. It's very rare that a person learns something nobody knew until they figured it out. Most people go through their entire life and never acquire one single bit of really meaningful original information about anything that doesn't involve actions of people and things in day to day life. So unless we reconcile ourselves to being happy with having "others explain" we will be pretty miserable.
What's "better for the world", spending hundreds of hours on some forum debating "God VS No God" with strangers, or going to the local soup kitchen or nursing home in your area and giving the same amount of time to helping others that you can directly interact with? Is someone wrong that spends time and resources on some self serving recreational activity, while others suffer and die for lack of the most basic of life's necessities like adequate food, clothing, and shelter? The value of the bottle of wine I drank with my date at dinner tonight could have saved SCORES of children from starving to death because they didn't have a few 5 cent bowls of rice...does that make me evil for indulging like that? I don't NEED this laptop I'm typing on...while others suffer and starve to death. So, what of retaining an abundance while others are in need? Is that not a..."position you have on something, in fact, and in light of more rational evidence, sadly be quite wrong"?! What could possibly be more IRRATIONAL and "sadly quite wrong" than having more than you need while others don't have enough? You could drive yourself crazy about it if you wanted to.
What is...right or wrong...truth or fallacy...good or bad...valuable or worthless...important or insignificant, etc....is not objective. We all make our own determinations what to do and how to think about things.
Type I's and Type C's don't have to "come to grips", nor should they. It's great we don't all have the same point of view...or volition to retain or change it.
You ask, "why are we here?" That's a deep question...possibly the VERY deepest. Many say we are here to, "know, love, and serve God"...others say we are here, "simply because we are". Who's right?..Who's wrong? I say neither. Others may say, one, the other, or both. I agree to insult or dismiss isn't worthwhile...but we will all do it many times in our lives, won't we?
Just balance doing what you can for yourself and others in a ratio that keeps you content...and try not to sweat the choices you make/made.
It has been reported a very wise man once said, "Who, by worrying, can add to his span of life?"
Over analyzing things...the greatest mental sport, enjoyed by all!
99.999% of everything we know was explained and taught to us by others. We didn't do the core research on much we can say we know...no matter who we are.
Speak for yourself....That is certainly not true in my case...Much of what I know and what I have accomplished in life, I learned by using common sense, logic and in some cases trial and error..I would say that you would be in the minority if what you say is true. If you really think about it, I'll bet there are lots of things you learned on your own.
Speak for yourself....That is certainly not true in my case...Much of what I know and what I have accomplished in life, I learned by using common sense, logic and in some cases trial and error..I would say that you would be in the minority if what you say is true. If you really think about it, I'll bet there are lots of things you learned on your own.
But not much of that would be Intellectual or philosophical . . . which is the TOPIC of the OP.
Good commentary GldnRl, but just FYI, by "why are we here?" I meant "here" on City-Data. Not that grand ethereal Big One "WHY ARE WE HERE?"
In other words, if we're set in our thinking, as so many of us now are, why come to C-D to post? To get your lonely personal conceptualizations out there? To show others your impeccable thinking processes? To form into wolf-packs so as to better hound the eminently "houndable" (God.. some just really are, aren't they? They stick out like.... oh. Sorry....).
If we don't actually have an open, "honest forum" attitude, where a Type C individual can satiate his or her curiosity about the "whys and wherefores" of others' thinking, then again, why come here at all? Both sides ask the other "why do you think like this", and we rarely get an acceptable answer. At least not in the terms and points of reference we seem to require.
If you are here just to re-affirm your own ideas, or seek a mob mentallity response that you bounce off and use in subsequent attack posts, you're probably wasting your time. We all have some level of inertia, as Honuman said. Some have more, some have less.
BTW, Mystic, if one is trained to go forth and be curious, to overcome mental inertia, and is taught the best-known method for securing reasonable conclusions by interpretation of empirical data through good study design, then one becomes, by experience, used to accepting new information far more readily, and on a regular basis. We then also learn to recognize the key qualifying elements of logic and honesty in the studies done by others, and don't just blindly accept their results.
There was far more to high-school science class than learning how to do scientific research! It was the basis for teaching one's mind to be open to any alternates, and to ask questions of the statements of others. In a nutshell: essential critical thinking.
But for some, this is not a "life's necessity", especially if they are content. So be it.
BTW, Mystic, if one is trained to go forth and be curious, and is taught the best-known method for securing reasonable conclusions by interpretation of empirical data thorough good study design, then one becomes used to, by experience, accepting new information. On a regular basis. We then also learn to recognize the key qualifying elements of logic and honesty in the studies done by others, and don't just blindly accept their results.
There was more to high-school science class than learning how to do scientific research! It was the basis for teaching one's mind to be open to any alternates, and to ask questions of the statements of others. In a nutshell: essential critical thinking.
But for some, this is not a "life's necessity", especially if they are content. so be it.
I find little in this to disagree with . . . so I question why you singled me out to address it to, rifleman?
Because I interpreted what you said, that not much of what we learn or know is arrived at intellectually.
sanspeur said: "I'll bet there are lots of things you learned on your own."
Then you stated: "But not much of that would be Intellectual or philosophical."
I disagree. It can be a widely ranging combination of both coupled with experience and willingness to learn new things. When I was a teen, I "knew ohhh so much", but it was all others' ideas and stated philosophies. No intellect required. That's the simplest solution, to let others do your thinking for you, agreed? I didn't like that approach.
By the time I'd philosophically fought my way through a review of much of that, I had a lot of questions that needed good answers, but initially I had none. But subsequently, through my life's experiences and constant questioning, and because of the perspectives offered through my quite varied education, followed by using those tools and experiences out in the real world, I have arrived at a workable set of knowledge.
I'd say it was almost entirely arrived at intellectually, coupled now with the inertia that only time and being right all the time can provide.
Because I interpreted what you said, that not much of what we learn or know is arrived at intellectually.
sanspeur said: "I'll bet there are lots of things you learned on your own."
Then you stated: "But not much of that would be Intellectual or philosophical."
I disagree. It can be a widely ranging combination of both coupled with experience and willingness to learn new things. When I was a teen, I "knew ohhh so much", but it was all others' ideas and stated philosophies. No intellect required. That's the simplest solution, to let others do your thinking for you, agreed? I didn't like that approach.
By the time I'd philosophically fought my way through a review of much of that, I had a lot of questions that needed good answers, but initially I had none. But subsequently, through my life's experiences and constant questioning, and because of the perspectives offered through my quite varied education, followed by using those tools and experiences out in the real world, I have arrived at a workable set of knowledge.
I'd say it was almost entirely arrived at intellectually, coupled now with the inertia that only time and being right all the time can provide.
I suspect that Gldnrule's point was more specific as to the actual acquisition of the knowledge by direct experience or experimentation and NOT evaluating and accepting someone else's written explanation of what THEY (i.e., someone else) did . . . critically evaluated or not.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-14-2010 at 11:31 AM..
But not much of that would be Intellectual or philosophical . . . which is the TOPIC of the OP.
Actually, that's not true and I'm sure you know that, which makes me wonder why you made the comment in the first place????
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.
Critical Thinking is Critical! Or Not.
