by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Question answered: The existence of the Universe is an Axiom. We don't question axioms as our starting point because they are an unassailable "given."
Some might consider that special pleading. You might consider your own existence an axiom too, but even Descartes questioned it.
Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and their ilk were atheists, yes Terry, but you are making the common mistake of equating their immorality, pathology and insanity to the realisation they reached that God does not exist. The mass starvation of millions of people, political purges, pogroms and genocides are not the hallmarks of a rational mind.
They can be fully rational. It depends on your unprovable axioms.
"Body language" is communication without "words".
You said words are needed for thinking. Can you rephrase that please?
I have an example. "Words" take time to string together to make a thought into communication. But I have heard from Science The god that dreams can be instant. A lot of content in a very short time. Is that true? In dreams there is conversation. How does all the conversation of "words" happen in an instant?
Define "bullshit". Making up stuff to fit your pre-conceived notions that feel COMFORTABLE to you.
By the way, I reject TRADITION. I would rather DIE a terrible death than to be attatched to some fool's theories that are bull shit. I'm not talking about you Terry, I'm talking about Harvard. Haha!!
Harvard because my people are from Boston.
It is equivalent to saying: "A socialist, ie. that all companies should be owned by the government". You may phrase it as a general statement, but it would (logically) also be a statement about any particular socialists beliefs.
See, you give yourself away here. Socialsts, in your view, like Atheists, in your view are to be defined by an ABSOLUTE. It is the absolute thinker who requires absolute definitions. Religion, politics, philosophy share a commonlity with diversity of opinion among constituents. It is the absolutists who do the harm under the mantle of those titular structures.
Atheist is a word. I spoke in terms of the word and its meaning. Those who embrace Atheism purely in terms of that definition are absolutists. Purists.
The rest are shades of gray.
The Madalyn Murray O'Hair's of the world are repugnant to society at large for a reason. It is their social behavior and the rudeness they insist on injecting into--I won't say "discussion" --argument. They make it personal and pejorative on purpose.
Does that ring a bell?
If we use language with precision (not always possible in polite conversation) we understand the differences between general and specifics.
I think listening to music is a great example of how thought can take place without words. It is common to anticipate how a musical phrase will resolve and then experience some kind of emotional reaction based on how your expectations are confirmed or denied. This involves advanced information processing without the direct involvement of language. Sure, there are words to describe some of these processes, but even someone who is ignorant of the terminology is still capable of having these thought processes.
Brain attentiveness to perception is what you are describing. Notice the word PROCESS. Thought process. If you go into a frankfurter factory you can observe the ingredents going into the hopper followed by the process.....ending up as the individual frank or hot dog. Don't confuse the process with the hot dog.
Thinking,(as I am using the term) is a From---To---process resulting in a conclusion and a conceptual grasp of implied or imputed meaning. Language labels the hot dog as it is---after the process.
Words are for rising up above your fellow man. That is soooooooo obvious.
The Word is for rising up they who do not have words (a voice).
Is they suppose to be them? I should read more boring I'd rather die books. But I won't.
Got it! For rising them up who do not have words.
I have to remind myself that many people find it difficult or impossible to think without words. Therefore, they may have a very different impression of the words themselves. I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this way of thinking. I'm sure it contributes to a greater ability to use words effectively, but I can see a danger of mistaking words, as a symbol for thoughts, with the thoughts themselves. Perhaps, this contributes to heated arguments that could be avoided by paying closer to the words as symbols that vary based on context and the minds of the people who use them
In your (above) description you are using WORDS to describe a....non-verbal....ineffable process.
Ask yourself why you must resort to WORDS to get your "thoughts" across to us.
I'm serious!
I think that we think in words because that is what we are trained to do. No one is born thinking in words. We don't have the words at that point in our lives. I think in words for the most part. But I don't always understand in words. Sometimes an image, or body language, or an act, or a sound, or a feeling... gives me greater understanding; that words would probably interfere and impede that understanding.
Peace,
Tammy
In your (above) description you are using WORDS to describe a....non-verbal....ineffable process.
Ask yourself why you must resort to WORDS to get your "thoughts" across to us.
I'm serious!
I'm angry!
