by new hope and happiness 31 Replies latest jw friends
galaxie is your point no more than saying " the evidence convicts" ?
If that is true, is then a is not a fact, nothing more than a sadistic joke? because " evidence has convicted many innocent people"
Galazie, i can say as i fact i am not an intellectual, i can also say i am finding in my search of facts, that facts are very unpridictable.
Absolutely proves my point, if a conviction is overturned because of new evidential facts then the bogus facts upon which the charge produced a conviction were never facts.
Those who presented the original case were either duped or foolish.
Galaxie: thank you.
I felt i was opening myself up to ridicule with post. I am glad my question has been received so respectively.
Now to suggest my O.P " What is a fact, a bizarre fantazy" is a genius question would be refutable and not a fact. But that loving parennts can make a child worship a bizarre fantasy and brainwash me in to believing as facts what were non facts.
I mean where and what is crazy and what facts are become very distubing or as James Dean said in " rebel" " How can a kid grow up in a cirus liken that"
So of course a ex J.W kid is haunted by the past, and becomes confused with what a fact is. Having said that i think such disturbing thoughts are healthy.
Who can say all they believe as facts are facts?
I agree 100% with your OP, new hope and happiness.
LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL.
But that is my point " loveandhateexams" unconditional love can equal unconditional obidence. That is what J.W parents call a FACT.
It is that thought provoking fact, that raises the question are facts without feeling. If so then what seperates a fact from the word " organisation"? both are words with out feelings. Can the humun spirit be more than a fact?
I'd like to take "fact" off the table. There are trustworthy precepts that can be counted on in this world, including gravity and trees. There are trustworthy facts that do not change.
When it comes to parent's affections, love, and relationships that's a completely different kettle of fish. Mother, Father, Elder, God...are loaded roles. We attach authority, respect, expectations to these roles. What does a child do whose parent does not live up to their end of the deal, leaving the child an emotional orphan? The child may have to emotionally disinherit their biological parent in order to survive. Consider also the stigma attached to a "bad mother"? I've seen spectacularly unfit women fight for their children. I suspect they fight so hard to prove to the "world" they are not unfit, a weird sort of narcisisim where the children suffer twice over.
It is common for cults to redefine terms (read 1984). Heck, propogandists do it all the time. What exactly does a "peacekeeper" do?
What does it really mean to "Make Jehovah Sad"?
Jgnat you say " i would like to take fact off the table"
I would feel missed feeling doing that, becsuse many do not have knowledge of trusteorthy precepts.
We all explore our outer world with " the facts we have"
Who can say all they believe as facts are facts?
And Jgnat...the poor kids, and patents if they awaken from their definition of a "fact"
Who can say all they believe as facts are facts?
All a bit conceptual for me.
In my opinion a fact is whatever we chose to believe.
Crossposting:
The emphasis on words like fact, truth, proven or certainty in conjuction with scientific ideas is in my oppinion a misunderstanding of the nature of science and knowledge in general. It is much more usefull to consider science as obtained ideas that are usefull in the sense of making predictions; when these predictions turn out to be confirmed or disconfirmed on evidence, this allow us to increase or decrease our confidence in the ideas. "Usefull", "trustworthy" or "properly true" are in my oppinion a more usefull vocabulary.
Bertrand Russell, in his history of western philosophy, discuss this as the difference between the english and continential enlightenment: The continential enlightenment (Kant is a good example) conceptualize the process of obtaining knowledge as starting out from certain ideas that are assumed to be self-evidently true and then deducing consequences that must then be true as well. The english enlightenment view knowledge as being piecemeal, tentative and not necesarily strictly true. Russell illustrate the obtained knowledge as two pyramids: the english enlightenment supporting theories on a wide base of accepted ideas and facts whereas the continential enlightenment is an inverted pyramid where broad knowledge is supported on just a pinpoint of logic.
