Author |
Topic: we think therefore we are? (Read 17086 times) |
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender: 
Posts: 4863
|
 |
Re: Define I
« Reply #25 on: May 1st, 2006, 3:02pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Apr 30th, 2006, 10:33pm, puzzlecracker wrote:| The real questions are "What gives an X power to define Y?" |
|
X does not define Y for all people, but only for himself. As to why and how he has that power, it is simply because no other can define anything for X. X alone makes his definitions, which he must make in order to come to any sort of understanding of the world around him.
X may communicate his definitions to others, but it is up to them whether or not they make any use of his definitions in creating or adapting their own.
Quote:| "What criteria should X use to define why Y?" |
|
That is for X to decide. His definitions are again his way of interpreting his environment. How he does this is not something anyone else can impress upon him.
Quote:| "Can Y be really be defined and how subjective can it be?" |
|
Neither the definitions of X, or of any other, or even of Y himself, determine what Y really is. That exists beyond any "definition".
|
|
 IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #26 on: May 1st, 2006, 8:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Iracus, your answer are very relative to X - his ideas, moral value, environments, etc. But how can Y be universally defined....What can Y says about Y (himself)
and be to orignal statement - who is the person, who is I?
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #27 on: May 2nd, 2006, 3:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't believe in the possibility of a "universal definition". Each individual makes their own definitions, and those definitions always vary from individual to individual. We can (and do) obtain some uniformity by communicating with each other, but it is never universal.
And I don't believe that we can completely "define" anyone, either, not even individually. No matter what X comes up with, it does not include all that Y is. And this is true even when X = Y. Indeed, our definitions of people - both others and ourselves - are never completely accurate in what they do encompass. Everybody has beliefs about how they would behave in certain situations, but when those situations actually occur, they behave differently.
As for the moral aspect, this becomes a religious question. And therefore how you answer this will depend on your religious beliefs (and by the way, everyone has religious beliefs).
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #28 on: May 2nd, 2006, 3:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 2nd, 2006, 3:10pm, Icarus wrote:| I (and by the way, everyone has religious beliefs). |
|
I disagree with this. But we may have different interpretation "religion".
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #29 on: May 3rd, 2006, 5:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Belief that there is no god is a religious belief. Belief that it is impossible or at least hard to discover the existance or non-existance of god is also a religious belief.
To me, the only sensible definition of "religion" is something like "a collection of beliefs used to interpret the world around us". The restriction of "religion" to mean "belief in god(s)" is mainly a way for those who don't believe in gods to pretend that their own religious bigotry isn't religious bigotry.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #30 on: May 4th, 2006, 1:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
So scientific beliefs are also religious beliefs?
I would at least put in something about giving life 'meaning'.
|
| « Last Edit: May 4th, 2006, 1:05am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #31 on: May 4th, 2006, 6:50am » |
Quote Modify
|
I'd want to qualify it with something about the distinction between faith and reason - to my mind, religious beliefs are the ones that transcend reason - they're the ones you take as axioms because they don't have evidence to support them.
And, yes, belief in the scientific method as a reliable means of uncovering truths would count as religious to me.
On the other hand, the "truths" arrived at by following the scientific method count as supported by reason rather than pure faith
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #32 on: May 4th, 2006, 7:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 4th, 2006, 6:50am, rmsgrey wrote:| to my mind, religious beliefs are the ones that transcend reason - they're the ones you take as axioms because they don't have evidence to support them. |
|
I can't agree with that at all. It presupposes that the things people call religion are without evidence, and by implication, false. In fact, I see a lot of evidence in favor of my own religious beliefs. If I didn't, I would have never adopted them in the first place. Faith is taking your belief beyond the evidence, not against the evidence.
As for science and religion, I'll put it this way: The belief that the sun rose this morning is science. The belief that it will rise tomorrow morning is both science and religion.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #33 on: May 5th, 2006, 7:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 4th, 2006, 7:56pm, Icarus wrote:
As for science and religion, I'll put it this way: The belief that the sun rose this morning is science. The belief that it will rise tomorrow morning is both science and religion. |
|
I'd say that science considers the reason for the sun to rise; religion considers the purpose for which the sun rises...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #34 on: May 6th, 2006, 9:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
We can also say that science and religion are, in fact, interchangeable.
Any scientific proof goes through a thorough stage of verification and validation before acceptance (and possible future rejection). However, any scientific fact/theory - be it Newton’s Laws or Einstein’s relativity theory – is true, because it relies on certain elements of life, as a major building blocksl likewise, false if it contradicts In effect, these very blocks are grounds religious beliefs in divine. For instance, why most prevalent scientists believe in God nowadays, given that absolute proof does not exist? Because, it is likely that God does it exists, than the opposite. It stupid to believe in something that is likely to be not true. Interestingly, in 70’s most scientists rejected the idea of God, and afterlife. The big bang theory takes new forms, new revelations.
When a person walks in a desert, and he finds a golden watch. He surely will NOT think that it is existed here eternally. He would presuppose that someone created it, made it. Similar argument can be put forth about our universe: seeing its awesome beauty and complexity, no one in his right mind, can say that it’s always existed… On the contrary, it implies and assumes a creator (and it's 10000000000000 times more complex than watch, where latter is accepted due to common knowledge).
Back to the actual topic… in this system with perfect science tighten with religious scholarship, how can one be defined?
I want a definition.
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #35 on: May 7th, 2006, 5:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 6th, 2006, 9:35pm, puzzlecracker wrote:When a person walks in a desert, and he finds a golden watch. He surely will NOT think that it is existed here eternally. He would presuppose that someone created it, made it. Similar argument can be put forth about our universe: seeing its awesome beauty and complexity, no one in his right mind, can say that it’s always existed… On the contrary, it implies and assumes a creator (and it's 10000000000000 times more complex than watch, where latter is accepted due to common knowledge).
|
|
Some people find that argument more convincing than others do. If you wake up in the morning and find that your windows are covered in fantastic patterns, do you assume someone spent the night with a paintbrush decorating your window?
We see a watch and assume it's manufactured because we have encountered manufactured watches before. We see an apple, or a frost picture, and assume it grew naturally, because that's our experience of apples and frost pictures. We don't have a lot of prior knowledge of how universes develop, so there's no strong reason to decide either way based on that complexity...
And even if there is a God, then what stops the same "design" argument from applying to Him? After all, if the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, and the existence of a universe implies a God, then why does not the existence of a God imply a meta-God? But then the same process also implies a meta-meta-God, etc... So either there's an infinite chain, or at some point you come to some complex thing that just exists in and of itself, in which case why could it not be the universe we see around us?
Science can sketch out a rough picture of how a near-point ball of energy can evolve to give rise to humans under the influence of a handful of rules. It seems more likely for those initial conditions to spontaneously occur than for an entire deity to pop out of nothing and then create us...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #36 on: May 7th, 2006, 7:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 7th, 2006, 5:55am, rmsgrey wrote:| Science can sketch out a rough picture of how a near-point ball of energy can evolve to give rise to humans under the influence of a handful of rules. It seems more likely for those initial conditions to spontaneously occur than for an entire deity to pop out of nothing and then create us... |
|
It both sounds a bit deus ex machina 
You have a 'first cause' problem in both cases.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #37 on: May 8th, 2006, 10:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
do yo have a sound or plausable (re)solution?
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #38 on: Jul 22nd, 2006, 9:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Given the longevity of the discussion, it is worthwhile to culminate in ultimate question of life and its purpose. Herein, we have exchanged ideas, opinions about existential nature and its causes that spurred the beginning. However, we had not touched the subject of “why we are alive and what is the purpose in life? Or is there a purpose?”
Given ultimate beauty of the universe and life in general, it tickles to ask or ponder as to why, what is the point? I frequently hear various opinions, some with a great justification realm, such as life has no purpose, live it and have fun doing it. Or, inherently we live to better ourselves, become better people. In academia, a popular conception is to explore life and learn whole lot of it. In effect, different environments, moral values, culture, etc., presuppose and ascribe a different interpretation for life.
But maybe there is one ultimate goal everyone is converging to?
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 22nd, 2006, 4:33pm by puzzlecracker » |
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #39 on: Jul 22nd, 2006, 1:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 22nd, 2006, 9:38am, puzzlecracker wrote:| But maybe there is one ultimate goal everyone is converging? |
|
Even if all people were to converge on a single goal, there is no telling whether it's an actual ultimate goal to being.
For one thing, we don't know whether there's alien inteligences converging to the same goal, or another.
Besides which, ideas can in a sense strive for dominance just like physical traits can. If people start agreeing on a prupose of life, that may just be conformity, rather then reaching truth.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
anonymous
Newbie
Gender: 
Posts: 10
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #40 on: Jul 30th, 2006, 11:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| But maybe there is one ultimate goal everyone is converging to? |
|
To live life.
However this doesn't mean that everyone is agreeing on one purpose of life. Life is what you make of it, and your purpose in life differs from person to person.
Quote:| in this system with perfect science tighten with religious scholarship, how can one be defined? |
|
Are you trying to ask what makes us "people people" and not "animal people"??
If so, then the answer is our personhood which is our:
1. sense of time
2. self-awareness
3. capability of relating to others
4. curiousity
5. ability to create ideas
6. changeability
7. conscience
8. ability to be in love and to fall in love
[9. learning from experience (this is a controversial point, so I've put it in brackets)]
Quote:| If people start agreeing on a prupose of life, that may just be conformity, rather then reaching truth. |
|
That truth is undefinable.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #41 on: Jul 30th, 2006, 11:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
If everyone's goal is to live life, why do so many kill themselves? And why do some willingly put themselves in harm's way (even when death is certain)?
As for truth being undefinable:
"undefinable" is not the same as "non-existant". If you try to define every concept in terms of "previously defined" ones, you discover that you have to start with a certain set of concepts that are used as the source of all your other definitions. This is what it means to be undefinable: everything you could use to define it is already defined in terms of it.
If you try to define what is meant by "truth", you effectively have to do so in terms of equivalent concepts, so indeed, we may as well view "truth" as being undefinable.
But this does not mean that "truth" is meaningless, or is in some way contrived (far from that: if it were contrived, it would be easily definable!). Rather, its meaning is given by its usage in relation to other concepts.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
anonymous
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 10
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #42 on: Jul 30th, 2006, 12:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| If everyone's goal is to live life, why do so many kill themselves? |
|
There is a difference between merely living your life till death, and truly living life. Why do people many people kill themselves? Many reasons. I'm sure you know them already. One of them is depression, and depression can be overwhelming. Suicide is a sad way to end the suffering within that appeared to be never-ending.
Quote:| And why do some willingly put themselves in harm's way (even when death is certain) |
|
To divert their sorrows to physical pain. (not sure though)
Quote:| Rather, its meaning is given by its usage in relation to other concepts. |
|
True. But in that sentence how would you define it?? I belive that the "truth" there is undefinable.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2006, 12:22pm by anonymous » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #43 on: Jul 30th, 2006, 2:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 30th, 2006, 12:15pm, anonymous wrote:| There is a difference between merely living your life till death, and truly living life. |
|
And what do you mean by living life? To enjoy it? But is that not the same as saying everyone's goal is to be happy?
Quote:| To divert their sorrows to physical pain. (not sure though) |
|
I was speaking here of those who give their lives for the sake of something - either others that they love, or to do their duty (such as soldiers, who are occasionally commanded to put themselves in extreme danger), or for the sake of a cause. If "life" were their goal, or even "living life", this would make no sense. Yet people do it regularly.
Quote:| True. But in that sentence how would you define it?? I belive that the "truth" there is undefinable. |
|
I just said it is a basic concept, not definable in terms of other concepts, so no, I cannot give you a definition of it. But it still has meaning, a meaning that I understand. In mathematics, the terms "set", "equal", "implies", are all undefinable (depending on the particular theory you are working in), yet mathematicians are all aware of what they mean. Instead of defining them in terms of other words, instead we describe how they relate to each other, and this serves as their "definition".
"Truth" is a fundamental concept. 1=1 is true, 1=2 is not. Events that actually occured are true history, events that people made up are not, no matter how meaningful the stories are to anybody. We may not be able to establish what is true and what is not for a particular situation, but there is a truth out there that is independent of our knowledge of it.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
anonymous
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 10
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #44 on: Jul 31st, 2006, 1:00am » |
Quote Modify
|
Living life - Making your life not worthless. Knowing that when you die, you will be remembered.
Does it make sense now?
Quote:| there is a truth out there that is independent of our knowledge of it. |
|
Theoretically.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #45 on: Jul 31st, 2006, 1:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 30th, 2006, 2:17pm, Icarus wrote:| And what do you mean by living life? To enjoy it? But is that not the same as saying everyone's goal is to be happy? |
|
I don't think "living life" necessarily means enjoying it. It's making something of it, something meaningfull. Meaning, which of course, one needs to find for oneself. And that, some may find in dying for the sake of others.
Quote:| Events that actually occured are true history, events that people made up are not, no matter how meaningful the stories are to anybody. |
|
And unfortunately there is no sound way to distinguish the two. It's true that the truth must be out there, but it's also in the strictest sense unattainable. We know our mind plays tricks on us; so at best we can find emperical truth under the assumption our senses aren't generally misleading us (and that we're not, say, just brainy things floating in some tank dreaming everything up).
We only have a small window on the truth, and no idea how it distorts it.
1 = 2 (mod 1)
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #46 on: Jul 31st, 2006, 5:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 31st, 2006, 1:00am, anonymous wrote:Living life - Making your life not worthless. Knowing that when you die, you will be remembered.
Does it make sense now? |
|
Now I know what you are saying. But, alas, now I can say I don't agree that this is a goal that everyone has, or that humanity is moving towards. Many have little concern about how and if they will be remembered after they are gone. They rightly point out that being remembered after your death does not change your life in any way. So they develop the attitude "why should I care?". If anything, I would say that this attitude is more prevalent now than it was in past generations.
It may be something we should move towards, but that is a far different matter.
Quote:
Of course! Anything beyond our direct knowledge is theoretical, including the supposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. I judge theories based on how much collaborating evidence I find for them. Since I now have "on record" more than 10,000 direct observations supporting the theory that "the sun will rise tomorrow" plus indirect evidence of billions more cases where this theory has been sucessful, I have complete confidence that it will occur again. Similarly, the evidence of for the existence of "truth" is overwhelming in my estimation.
on Jul 31st, 2006, 1:15am, towr wrote:| I don't think "living life" necessarily means enjoying it. It's making something of it, something meaningfull. Meaning, which of course, one needs to find for oneself. And that, some may find in dying for the sake of others. |
|
Mayhap, but I still find the concept of "meaningful life" too slippery to be able find much meaning in the statement.
I know I am being contrary here with both of you, but I am hoping that by pushing like this, I'll drive you to clarify your own thinking.
Quote:| And unfortunately there is no sound way to distinguish the two. It's true that the truth must be out there, but it's also in the strictest sense unattainable. We know our mind plays tricks on us; so at best we can find emperical truth under the assumption our senses aren't generally misleading us (and that we're not, say, just brainy things floating in some tank dreaming everything up). |
|
Indeed, there isn't in the real world. The only place where we can find absolute, unrefutable, truth is in the constructs of our own minds - i.e., in mathematics. (I am not exaggerating with that statement - any concept sufficently defined so as to be definitely true automatically falls within the realm of mathematics.) Even there, the nature of what the actual truth is, is hidden in the way we normally speak of it. For instance, when I said "1=1" is true, what I am really saying is that under the axioms and definitions of commonly accepted set theory, the statement "1=1" is derivable from the axioms. Thus your counter-example to "1=2" being false, that 1=2 (mod 1), does not actually counter my statement at all, as you are refering to a different concept, which is "coincidentally" denoted with the same symbols.
But my point in my previous post was that I believe truth exists, not that any particular "real world" statement was true, and certainly not that it could be dependably found. Where I have problems is when people say things like "you have your truth, I have mine". When two beliefs contradict, we can say with absolute certainty that at least one of them is false. Which ones are false may be (and almost always is) up to debate, but at least one is. Hence the concept that everyone can have their own equally valid truth is ridiculous. The only way that contradicting statements can be equally valid is if they are both false.
I have heard many people argue that only by accepting all beliefs as equally valid can we be "tolerant". Instead, I see this as the ultimate in intolerance. They are demanding that people must believe as they do about this and accept their twisted logic. Real tolerance is accepting that other people disagree with you and have every right to do so, and living in peace with them despite the disagreement.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #47 on: Aug 1st, 2006, 4:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 31st, 2006, 5:42pm, Icarus wrote:| Mayhap, but I still find the concept of "meaningful life" too slippery to be able find much meaning in the statement. |
|
There isn't much meaning in it. The whole point is that it's people themselves that give meaning to their life. However there is a lot of overlap in what people may find meaningfull; things like religion, family, honour. But I wouldn't say it seems to convergence, but rather it's more like evolution. Honour used to be very meaningfull to most people in centuries past, now much less so (at least not here).
Some concepts of meaningfull survive the times better, new ones are created, old ones wither and die.
Quote:| Thus your counter-example to "1=2" being false, that 1=2 (mod 1), does not actually counter my statement at all, as you are refering to a different concept, which is "coincidentally" denoted with the same symbols. |
|
It was also not actually meant to counter your point, so it's good that it didn't 
It was simply an illustration of how truth of a statement depends on assumptions (including component concepts), and how different assumptions can make a seemingly untrue statement true (and vice versa). It shows that in fact 1=2 is not a complete statement; we're left to fill in the assumptions ourselves.
Quote:| But my point in my previous post was that I believe truth exists, not that any particular "real world" statement was true, and certainly not that it could be dependably found. |
|
And rather than trying to counter that point, which I agree with, I added to it, to argue truth can hardly be found at all. Not beyond ones of the form "if <assumptions> then <dependent truth>" and that (independent) truth (i.e. the state of reality) must exist.
Quote:| Where I have problems is when people say things like "you have your truth, I have mine". When two beliefs contradict, we can say with absolute certainty that at least one of them is false. |
|
In absolute terms, sure. But people converse relative to their world view. What they're actually saying is "You have a truth based on the assumption of your world view, I have a truth based on the assumption of my world view". Even then, one or both might be wrong (at least inconsistent), but they may also both be right. It's just that they aren't really talking about the same thing, like 1=2 or 1=/=2.
And unfortunately most people don't have the gift mathematicians do (in maths) to be able to peek into a different world of assumptions.
Quote:| I have heard many people argue that only by accepting all beliefs as equally valid can we be "tolerant". Instead, I see this as the ultimate in intolerance. They are demanding that people must believe as they do about this and accept their twisted logic. Real tolerance is accepting that other people disagree with you and have every right to do so, and living in peace with them despite the disagreement. |
|
I don't think either approach is pragmatic.
I would agree that simply accepting all beliefs as equally valid isn't tolerant (but wouldn't you just tolerate it if I disagreed?), because firstly they're demonstrably not. Some beliefs are internally inconsistent, and others may be inconsistent with observation. And then there's the whole behaviour/belief inconsistency.
What is important imo, is not to dismiss all beliefs other than your own as invalid a priori. You should know what you disagree with. One of the first thing they tought me in philosophy classes is, "find out whether you're actually talking about the same thing". And generally, people don't; slightly different interpretations of a word can make a world of difference, and keep people arguing for days even though they'd agree if they agreed upon an interpretation.
And in general I'd say it is worthwhile to explore other people's world view, so you can better understand them, the world, and your own world view. Without a measure of understanding, tolerance doesn't mean much anyway. You just end up living past each other.
Quote:| Real tolerance is accepting that other people disagree with you and have every right to do so, and living in peace with them despite the disagreement. |
|
Can you tolerate intolerance? Up to a point perhaps, but it has to come from both sides. (At least if the playing field is somewhat even.) If you want to live in the same society, same world, then you have to agree on enough things. You can't simply agree to disagree on whether gratuitous murder is ok, and whether laws regarding it should be obeyed.
Agreeing to disagree whether Gouda cheese is complimented well by a bordeaux, sure. But there's a grey area between trivialities of the latter kind and serious issues like the former. There have to be limits to tolerance, otherwise it's just ignoring reality.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2006, 4:35am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
anonymous
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 10
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #48 on: Aug 11th, 2006, 11:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 31st, 2006, 5:42pm, Icarus wrote:
They rightly point out that being remembered after your death does not change your life in any way. So they develop the attitude "why should I care?". |
|
Quite true. However, that attitude is a mere barrier covering up the deeper issue(s).
Quote:Similarly, the evidence of for the existence of "truth" is overwhelming in my estimation.
|
|
Care to share some of the evidence?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #49 on: Aug 11th, 2006, 3:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Try opening your eyes. It is all around you. Or don't open your eyes: just examine what you really believe about knowledge. If you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that in fact you believe large numbers of of statements are absolutely true.
I am sure of this, because you would be unable to communicate, or even function, if you did not.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print