So recently I've been thinking about what I do and why I do it. I don't mean I'm thinking about why and how I eat food or tie my shoes. I've been thinking more along the lines of religion. In my school which is a religious school, I think it's safe to say that 99% of the people around me all believe in the same thing. The thing that bothers me about this is that 98% of the people around me don't give a second thought into why they do the things they do. Do you think about why you do what you do? The craziest thing to me is that, sure, a teacher in my school is so immersed in his own ideas, but a teacher in a school next door feels the same connection to his own ideas. Don't you find that confusing? Each of these teachers are so captivated by what they've learned, that they both think they are the correct ones. How is it possible that one could be so passionate about one thing that contradicts something that someone else is equally passionate about. Sometimes I wonder if the people that claim that they are the right ones have looked into other peoples ideas just as much as they have looked into their own. Have they ever proven anyone else's ideas wrong? Have they ever proven their own ideas right? Most likely no. So this morning I was sitting in my school bus pondering ideas of organized religions when i thought of this scenario. Okay, so lets say you're dropped into a room and in this room there are, I don't know, eight doors in front of you. Each door in front of you claims to have the true meaning to life. From the outside, each door looks the same and it's up to you to decide what you want to do. Now keep in mind that some of these doors might have fake meanings. Maybe a few of these doors even have the real meaning. Maybe they're all illusions and there is no true meaning. What would you do? Would you only go into the door you were dropped right in front of and stay there for the remainder of your life? Would you take a peek into every door but still ultimately stay in the door you were put in front of? Would you spend your entire life analyzing the contents of each door? Would you disregard these doors and decide to build your own door?
In my opinion, if there is no empirical evidence proving any of these doors to be true, can you really only chose one?
-E.W.
The vast majority of people don't operate on reason and logic. Most people don't even understand basic logic. Most people operate on preconceived notions, and seek to verify their existing beliefs, not to find the truth. This applies to the religious and atheist, scientist and layperson, conservative and liberal, alike. Even in the educated, scientific world, it's common to dismiss philosophy, and only subscribe to skepticism, which is only one narrow worldview. That is, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true; or in logical terms, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I dunno, I've seen a lot of people build their own doors. They don't really look any better than the mainstream doors. Which leads me to believe building my own door wouldn't, either. But they don't. Many of the doors are inscribed with fear, hatred, and violence. I tend to avoid those doors. Always We Begin Again, a modern reinterpretation of the Benedictine Rule, starts with: In fact, for your questions, it seems like it might be right up your alley. It's a very small, short book, which mostly consists of advice for living. It reads a lot like a Buddhist text, in that way. I was first given it by someone whom I have an enormous spiritual respect for, who was in turn given it by a Benedictine nun. If you like, I'd be more than happy to send you a copy, if you have an address, or email for a Kindle copy.Would you disregard these doors and decide to build your own door?
From the outside, each door looks the same
Each door in front of you claims to have the true meaning to life.
renounce the delusion that the meaning of life can be learned
One place I'd like to disagree with you here is the idea that people do not operate on reason and logic if they aren't following the rigorous definitions of logic and reason. I want to clarify that I don't think you are saying that emotion and logic are really separate, I'm just kind of looking for a place to rant a bit. Emotions, and our feelings about topics are very powerful things, and very intelligent things. A person who is not operating on logic, but instead trusts their emotions is going to be someone who will often be wrong where logic succeeds, but they will also be correct where it fails. A big example of this, and I'm sorry for this, is eugenics. Reason, rationality, and so on can lead people to conclusions that make sense based on the scientific knowledge of the day. "We know evolution is a thing, and humans evolve, we have bred other species to be great, why not humanity? This isn't to say their logic was valid, or necessarily scientific, but they were acting based on reason, and they were incorrect. A person who took the "heartbreak" emotional route in such a situation would have said "lets not kill people" and, despite abandoning all logic, would have been correct in the long run. I think there is logic in the background in all our systems, even the emotional ones. The mind giving it's opinions may not be directly operating on logic, but the millions of years of evolution that set up those emotions that are being expressed, those have logic behind them. We'd be wise to not forget that fact, I think. This applies to religion as well.
That's circular. Value systems are not rational. People can rationally come to ethical positions but it has to be based on value systems. The value system it's based on isn't objective, so it isn't logical and rational in the sense of meaning of the word that biomerl is applying. Why value human life over other life? That's a value. It can't be logically derived except in relation to other values.People can rationally come to many ethical positions, depending on their value systems.
We're creatures of emotion who use rational decision-making to produce better outcome. One does not exclude the other. One can rationally come to a decision to disregard fear from one's decision-making just as much as one can value fear as a powerful factor in their decisions.
I mean to say that you can use reason and logic to come to the correct conclusion, but in order to do so you need all information necessary to come to a decision. We do not, we didn't have enough knowledge on society to understand that eugenics was bad back when it was popular (Hitler and such). You don't know what we don't know today, so it's important to note where emotions and logic collide and try to sooth the differences.
To clarify, we're using the colloquial definition, of involuntary sterilisation and "shower rooms". I've no objection to people getting together to voluntarily improve the gene pool. As far as classic Ethics goes (Deontology vs Teleology), my general ethical position is an adaptation of Utilitarianism: greatest good for all. That is, each sentient being has infinite value. If it sounds like Deontology—it's not. If two people are tied on a track with a train coming, and you can pull a lever to switch it to a track with one person, ∞ + ∞ > ∞. Incidentally, I also disagree with Deontology, in that I believe inaction is an action. I also believe life is greater than happiness. Call them different levels of infinity, say ℵ₀ and ℵ₁ if you like. So, Strict Utilitarianism says it's ok to kill someone if you provide enough happiness to enough other people, whatever that magic number is. I disagree, because ℵ₁ > n⋅ℵ₀ for any n. But you should still flip that train track, because ℵ₁ + ℵ₁ > ℵ₁ (by my prior declaration; I'm aware that isn't true in cardinal maths [let people be sets, if you like, so it's ordinal maths. People are complicated enough, I think]). Thus, removing the immediate freedom and liberty of one person by sterilising or killing them, in order to theoretically improve the overall happiness of some number of future people, is wrong. ∴ Less traditionally, I really like Rawl's Theory of Justice. In a nutshell, one should act and make laws such that, if there were a birth lottery and you didn't know how you'd be born—black, white, rich, poor—you'd want to live in that world. So, you wouldn't want eugenics because you might end up born disabled or 'genetically inferior'. To address jadedog's comment Value systems may or may not be rational, but my argument is not circular. If no value system is rational, then if one picks an arbitrary value system, and builds a rational ethical position based on it, their ethical framework itself is still rational. Which is important, because a great many people believe in ethical systems which aren't rational, and filled with cognitive dissonance. If you believe no Ethics is rational, which it kind of sounds like, that's a different argument. Which I've countered before, and I'm not terribly interested in making again. Deconstructionism tires me. So we'll have to agree to disagree there, sorry. Greater intelligence. Yes, intelligence is an arbitrary value. But it does seem to make life marginally less nasty, brutish, and short.That's circular. Value systems are not rational.
Why value human life over other life?
If you have read it, what is your opinion on the book, Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky? If you haven't read it. You might enjoy it...it is an interesting perspective and is fairly thought provoking. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-History-Dangerous-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812974476 I asked because of your rejection of deontology, which I can support. Sorry for the tangent...and thanks for the new vocabulary word: denotology.
>A person who is not operating on logic, but instead trusts their emotions is going to be someone who will often be wrong where logic succeeds, but they will also be correct where it fails. The definition of logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", which means according to the validity. From the term itself logic is impossible to fail in the search for truth and proper reasoning evaluation. >A big example of this, and I'm sorry for this, is eugenics Your example is illogical and invalid, and doesn't imply a fail in logic as a tool of derision making (a possible reason for this, could be the fact that you might act directly affected act by emotion). Through empirical knowledge it was proven how to change human characteristics wiyh the proccess of breeding. If we institutionalized using logical a system where "X" characteristics are better for "Y" reason, we can act n a possible way to accomplish it. If some people have a (meaningless) cynical negative emotional reaction to it and therefore such an act becomes social unaccepted and therefore doesn't be let to happen. Then is not a fail of logic but fail in a procedure cause by illogical acts, namely the absence of logic. The fact that X number of humans do not have a positive emotional approach to the idea of eugenics isn't a logical reason for it not to happen.
if you want to quote something on hubski, you have to use | around each quoted phrase, reddit's '>' doesn't work. Then logic is practically impossible. As well, just operating under strict principles of validity does not make something valid. It is impossible for any set of principles to not let some lies or falsehoods slip past them. See, the "i'm sorry about this" part was because I was indirectly bringing up Nazis. It is well proven that eugenics is not a positive action for mankind. It reduces genetic diversity, and requires a top-down system where governments and bureaucrats get to determine how people want to act. It does not align with any free society, and the mindsets that allow people to justify eugenics also allowed people to justify the actions of the Nazis. You state that people have a "meaningless" negative reaction to eugenics. You have to back that up with something, what indicates that the way people act to things emotionally is ever meaningless? Clearly, there is a reason people act the way they do, and that reason almost certainly has some meaning behind it. The local failure was in the fact that those who wanted eugenics back in the day were not aware of the consequences such action would have on human society. What I am proposing is that emotions, through the course of evolution, have been primed to deal with situations like this. These instincts are there to inform us where we do not have "conscious" knowledge of the thing, and they have a lot of knowledge in them that we are not aware of. When out modern logic conflicts with our primal emotions then there is something almost certainly off about our modern logic, and we need to wait for there to be more information so that we fully understand the situation. Did I say this was true?From the term itself logic is impossible to fail in the search for truth and proper reasoning evaluation.
If some people have a (meaningless) cynical negative emotional reaction to it and therefore such an act becomes social unaccepted and therefore doesn't be let to happen.
Then is not a fail of logic but fail in a procedure cause by illogical acts, namely the absence of logic.
The fact that X number of humans do not have a positive emotional approach to the idea of eugenics isn't a logical reason for it not to happen.|
Found this on Benedictine philosophy for free...thought I'd add it to the conversation. http://site.paracletepress.com/samples/exc-How-to-be-a-Monastic-1-20.pdf
Ideology is in the obvious, which can make it simultaneously powerful and blinding. Personally, I've always enjoyed finding out about how others think, so I'd probably take the 'peek into each door without entering any' option, but I think all of the choices are equally valid.
Changed the community tag from #talkreligion to #philosophy. As much as I enjoy religious discussion here on Hubski, this post leans more towards personal choices. Besides, it's a more popular tag than #philosophical, which may make the post more visible to those who have something to say on the matter.
Reminds me of the beginning of A Door Into Summer He had a fixed conviction that at least one of them must lead into summer weather. Each time this meant that I had to go around with him to each of the eleven doors, hold it open while he satisfied himself that it was winter out that way, too, then go on to the next door, while his criticisms of my mismanagement of the weather grew more bitter with each disappointment. …But he never gave up his search for the Door into Summer. Maybe some of us have to search for that Door Into Summer. Maybe it doesn't exist. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't matter.While still a kitten, all fluff and buzzes, Pete had worked out a simple philosophy. I was in charge of quarters, rations, and weather; he was in charge of everything else. But he held me especially responsible for weather. Connecticut winters are good only for Christmas cards; regularly that winter Pete would check his own door, refuse to go outside because of that unpleasant white stuff beyond it (he was no fool), then badger me to open a people door.
Welcome, E.W. It's ultimately up to you how you use the site, but this approach is one that is appreciated. Personally, I believe that my understanding is defined more by the information and experience available to me than by any conscious effort on my part. I like to think of myself as an open-minded person, and perhaps compared to most people, I am. However, even my definition of open-mindedness has parameters that are a result of my environment and history. Reflecting a lot on these matters, the best that I have been able to settle upon is a path of trying to do good, and trying not to do harm. Whatever our beliefs, we share the same human condition, and there are definitely truths that we share that are rooted in that.
I think the answer to the question here is to just admit that we don't know, and that we should be comfortable with accepting that fact, and everything it implies. I personally think that life is about defining what matters to you. We all are "thinking machines" with their own construction and capabilities, and it is up to us to decide what we want, what we believe, and what we will do. Both people are right, both people in your example who believe what they think have seen evidence that registers as fully valid and reasonable. Neither are incorrect, neither have flawed reasoning, they are just different people. But, at the end of the day, neither really knows. Nobody does, not the real objective truth that applies to everyone else well, and sometimes it's best to have views that aren't objectively true, it betters society in the long run.
ow are you checking the doors? here i created a door myself. check it out: inviters.org
I submit your metaphor has a very strong bias. "The doors" we examine do not look the same. Further, we aren't in an empty room, we are in a world that, whatever faith we're considering, has to exist in. Finally, my particular faith, the adherent believes they have been fundamentally changed such that their perception of "the doors" is also altered necessarily making them appear different. So, will I consider other faiths? Absolutely. Can I "reason" through things? Sort of. There are presuppositions that preclude two people from using the same evidence in the same way. As an example, does the same biological mechanism for locomotion indicate a common creator or a common ancestor? There's a lot of presupposing that goes one. I recommend Cornelius Van Til's though (perhaps digested by someone more contemporary, like a John Frame) for more on this. Van Til is Christian, so that's the perspective that you're going to encounter, but I think it's helpful toward productive, respectful dialog to know about presuppositions going into any engagement.
Tabula Rasa. We are all born a blank slate and indoctrinated into whatever truth our family may hold, if they hold anything sacred enough to do that with. No one knows the truth that you are addressing here. There are many that claim to know the truth, but that is their belief. Belief and truth are not one and the same. But, in a certain sense one could argue that belief is truth subjectively. So, stand in your own truth and believe what you want to believe. I personally choose to build a door. One was built for me as a child, but I have opened it, walked through, ventured about and come back to the foyer since then. One thing I have found to be true is that we are all hypocrites at some time in our life. This frequently upset me as I passed through my teens and on into my 20s somewhat. But, whether we choose to live in that hypocritical state of being constantly is up to us. Remember that polarization occurs when someone only hears or seeks information that supports their belief. In this situation they ignore negative feed back, which may cause them to pause and reassess how they see the world. This can be a scary process for some. I can't honestly say that I have perfected it in all subjects, but I do try to listen to all sides before forming my opinion. Also, I like to hold on to the philosophy that I reserve the right to change my mind when new and better information presents itself. Welcome to Hubski!!