you have become the thing you hated.

by TheJigsUp 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mrsjones5

  lol Thank you Loubouto.
• 

  J. Hofer

  and what is "the thing we hated"? is that something from revelation?
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  I've gotta say I kinda like Jig's thread, even if I don't agree on all counts.

  We really are ignorant if you think about it. That's not an insult to our species, it just is what it is. I believe if you put all of man's knowledge in perspective, it wouldn't fill a pinhead in the expanse of the universe. As individuals, we each hold a fraction of a pinhead. Some, myself included, just tend to envision our fraction as a little bigger than the next guy's. (pun intended)

  

  OTOH, I also have no problem admitting that individuals like TD enjoy a much larger piece of knowledge pie than myself. So it would be erroneous to say that just because I can't comprehend XYZ, he can't either. He's well educated, likely having studied a vast number of subjects that I have not and may well have a greater capacity for understanding. The same goes for the scientific community in general (among others).

  One of the things I admire about this thread is that Jig includes himself, at least regarding our ignorance, and I think he really means it. That inspires me to reassess how much I really know. Gosh, I don't know anything! At best, I've been persuaded to accept a perspective based on what I believe is logic. That's it.

  To elaborate, reading up on some basic philosophy and psychology has left me wondering how I can be certain of anything. Sure, practically, I tend to accept the world as I see it along with the scientific consensus. But what man among us can prove his existence isn't just the product of his own insanity? Or a simulation? How would you know otherwise? Absurd? I guess. But research solipsism, simulation theory, cognitive biases, among other topics... it may leave you wondering as well.

  Back to the practical world of consensus reality. I know people probably get tired of hearing me campaign for critical thinking but Jig's post, in essence, is about just that. If anyone considers any one of the following principles to be fallacious, I'd love to hear it.

  • Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

  • Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

  • Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

  • Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

  • Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

  • Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

  • Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

  Sorry for the long post. Like I said, the OP inspired me.
• 

  NomadSoul

  Good post,

  In a sense that's what he was trying to convey. I knew that in my back of my mind, but of course I picked just one aspect of his post, which was the attack on freedom of speech.

  That circle graph is a way to put into perspective. For example, most of the "shit we don't know" are compiled into books. I don't think any of us in our lifetime would even come close to reading those books.
• 

  wyorobert

  I had to quit reading so much because the more I read, the more it proved how right I was. If I learned anymore I might acheive perfection and if I acheived perfection I might become a God, If I became a God, I would prove that I was wrong. It just wasn't worth the chance.
• 

  TheJigsUp

  i apologise for not coming back sooner and reading all of the your posts, i appreciate that you all took the time to read my drunken rant

  and reply. i havent read all of the posts since yet but i just read TEC's summary at the top of the page and yes that is pretty much

  the point i was trying to make. i think :)

  i also speed read sweetbabycheezits post just above and wow, what a well written and articulate consideration of a point i was so

  clumsily and foolhardily (if thats even a word) putting across.

  again, i appreciate the thought and time that has gone into your replies.

  i dont suppose i thought i would spark such a considerate debate on something that is merely a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

  i'll read over all of your posts and again, thankyou for taking the time.

  peace.

  ben