Must be the work of the gods!
Terry....(imitating scene from Ghostbusters)... are you a God?
- Preston
TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking
by Terry 172 Replies latest jw friends
-
Preston
-
LittleToe
A further irony for ya, Terry - everyone engages in some degree of rational thinking.
Your presentation of "polar-opposite thinking" and the subsequent discussion just shows how misguided the original premise was. You simply can't dissect it that way, as if one persons brain was wired up for one tyope of thinking and another, another. If that's what you're suggesting, then WHY NOT find a third way of thinking, with which to analyse it?
Aren't you betraying the fact that since you can't think of a third way of thinking, you are also demonstrating that you can't enter into the mode of thinking that your "second way" suggests? Is this akin to the difficulty in learning a new language if you aren't already bi-lingual?
Mysticism can't be divorced from rational thinking, as mystics still have to decide what colour of socks to put on in the morning, just like everyone else.
The idea that fundamentalist-rationalists have to set up the experiment, to prove the rightness of their claims is frankly self-fulfilling.
-
zen nudist
Fuzzy logic is essentially irrational and yet it is superior to traditional binary because it works faster in real time
and the reason it does so is because it works as we must....it gambles. Fuzzy logic does not wait around for a clear yes or no
answer as reality rarely gives such clean data.... it takes ranges of possibilities and looks for overlaps and then guesses.
and when all is said and done we do no different, no matter how sure we think we are, every move is a gamble to some degree
-
Narkissos
Terry,
At the risk of irritating you a little more...
Take fatalism. It's a pretty irrational way of thinking. You can heap up many examples of how it has been harmful to individuals and communities. Yet many people would admit that a fatalistic mindset has helped them in countless circumstances not to worry or make hasty decisions they would have regretted later. They feel it has helped them. Doesn't their word count?
Remember, to tell if something is "good" or "bad" we have to limit the scope of the study in both space and time. Broadening the scope to a larger object (to another person's or time standpoint, for instance) would change the perspective completely. This is nicely illustrated by the famous Chinese story:
Long ago, near the frontier lived an old man. One day he found his horse missing. It was said that the horse was seen running outside the border of the country. The neighbors came to comfort him for the unfortunate loss. But the old man was unexpectedly calm and said, "It doesn't matter; it may not be a bad event, on the contrary, I think it can be a good one."
One night the old man heard some noise of horses and got up to see. To his surprise, he saw another beautiful horse as well as his own. It was clear that his horse had brought a companion home. Hearing the news, the neighbors all came to say congratulation on his good luck. At the greetings, however, the old man was very calm and thoughtful. He added, "It is true that I got a new horse for nothing, but it is hard to say whether it is good or bad. It may be an unlucky thing."
What he said was testified right. The son of the old man was very fond of the horse brought home, and one day, when he was riding the horse, he fell down from the horseback and terribly hurt in his left leg. Since then he was never able to walk freely. "Nothing serious," the old man said, "perhaps it is going to be good."
A year later, many of the youth there were recruited to fight in a war and most of them died. The son of the old man was absolved from the obligation for his disability, so he escaped death.
Is modern medicine a good thing? Nobody would challenge that at first sight. Still, if we broaden the scope to the whole issue of modern technology which made it possible innumerable woes come into the balance and change the perspective. In front of the longer lifespan of a chosen few you have to take into account the extravagant toll of modern wars, ecological disasters, etc. How will this develop in the next few decades? How will people assess the modern venture in the next century? Neither you nor I can say.
-
Terry
Your presentation of "polar-opposite thinking" and the subsequent discussion just shows how misguided the original premise was. You simply can't dissect it that way, as if one persons brain was wired up for one tyope of thinking and another, another
You probably didn't even read what I wrote. That is the only conclusion I can reach for the above statement to have any sense to it.
I wrote:
The broadest categories possible for life strategies pretty much comes down to:
1.Rational (using the mind and reasoning on the basis of non-contradictory facts determined by testing).
2.Mystical (relying on an imaginary source of authority whose power cannot be demonstrated; only asserted).
I also wrote:
Here is where I like to divide the two groups of men, the rational and the mystical into camps of Aristotle and Plato. But, it is a loose analogy at best.
-
Terry
Take fatalism. It's a pretty irrational way of thinking. You can heap up ;many examples of how it has been harmful to individuals and communities. Yet many people would admit that a fatalistic mindset has helped them in countless circumstances not to worry or make hasty decisions they would have regretted later. They feel it has helped them. Doesn't their word count?
I don't think you and I are even having the same discussion.
We've been over this.
The difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE....remember?
When you ask, "Doesn't their word count?" you fail to see this difference.
If I make a claim about my feelings it isn't measurable by an objective standard. My hallucinations, wrong opinions, beliefs and daydreams are not available for testing by a disinterested party.
Why you don't get this is just beyond me!
Science is rational because there is a measurable ratio between the claims and the testing and the data. Anybody anywhere can look at it and repeat the experiment. In fact, they MUST have repeatable results or it isn't considered science!
With MYSTICAL claims, you get to pull anything you want out of your ass and nobdy can disprove it because it is subjective and (conveniently) unavailable for testing. It is mere assertion.
That is why Mystics get all hot and bothered when you pin them down as to the proof behind their irrational beliefs. They don't wish to face the imaginary nature of their emotionally charged values attached to mere wishful thinking. So, they seek to devalue the power of the mind by claiming ridiculously that NOTHING can truly be known by anybody. Hogwash.
T
-
Terry
Little Toe writes: Mysticism can't be divorced from rational thinking, as mystics still have to decide what colour of socks to put on in the morning, just like everyone else
This proves to me you didn't read what I wrote! You obviously like to make blind responses to what you "think" (lose description) I wrote instead of what I did write. Tsk tsk. What do you think this means?I think you are viewing the above two categories as MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE within people and their institutions. But, people who are Mystics would not survive very long at all if they UTTERLY disregarded logical thinking! They'd be swallowed up in no time at all. So, mystical people have been able to survive and propagate on subsistence levels for thousands of years by the efforts of an astonishingly few logical and creative persons in societies ruled by mystical mumbo jumbo. You might say the cost of progress in mystical regimes is quite dear to the majority.
T.
-
Terry
Aren't you betraying the fact that since you can't think of a third way of thinking, you are also demonstrating that you can't enter into the mode of thinking that your "second way" suggests? Is this akin to the difficulty in learning a new language if you aren't already bi-lingual?
I have to wonder if you think this question has any content?
Why don't you name this THIRD WAY of thinking which differs from the two I mentioned 1.Rational 2.Mystical.
I'd love to know.
T.
-
Narkissos
Take fatalism. It's a pretty irrational way of thinking. You can heap up many examples of how it has been harmful to individuals and communities. Yet many people would admit that a fatalistic mindset has helped them in countless circumstances not to worry or make hasty decisions they would have regretted later. They feel it has helped them. Doesn't their word count?
I don't think you and I are even having the same discussion.We've been over this.
The difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE....remember?
When you ask, "Doesn't their word count?" ; you fail to see this difference.
If I make a claim about my feelings it isn't measurable by an objective standard. My hallucinations, wrong opinions, beliefs and daydreams are not available for testing by a disinterested party.
Then all we can test and measure is the healthy breeding and fattening of the human herd. For such elusive values as "happiness" or "joy" we lack objective assessment tools. Or do we?
-
Pole
Supposing a group of online Canadian exJWs had a blind friend who had heard of your friend Ross. How would you verify my existance? Wouldn't you find it kind of strange if he continued to question the veracity of your communal statements?
I suspect you'd come to a point where you'd finally say "well, we don't really need to prove anything. Maybe you'll meet him yourself one day".
How do you see logic working through these various deductions?
Anthropomorphic fallacy. There are basic diffrences between this "analogy" and the situation you are discussing. Such as:
1) There are many blind people Tetra has met or seen briefly in his life. He understands why exactly they would find it difficult to "meet" somebody on a discussion board. He knows exactly what it would take to convince each and every one of them of the existence of the friend. All the parties involved in this situation know exactly what is the nature of the blind person's disability and what it would take to overcome it, so that the person could meet Ross the hypothetical friend. Does Tetra know why he can't meet Jesus? Do you know exactly what it would take for Tetra to meet Jesus? There is no methodology of knowing or not knowing aggreed on.
2) As I understand, you're not simply claiming you have a "friend". The blind person surely has some "friends" too, so why should the blind person question the possibility in principle? In contrast, you are claiming your "friend" is Jesus. Tetra's blind friend has never met 'a Jesus'. You say Jesus has a special relationship with you and he makes your prayers come true. Tetra's friend has all sort of problems with accepting that. Not simply because he has never seen or met this particular friend, but because he has never had contact with any "friends" (If we retain your terminology). At this point this analogy makes no sense and turns out to be totally anthropomorphic. How can he have no friends if he knows Tetra and his buddies? Oh, but Ross is a remote friend. But wait, didn't Tetra and the Canadian ex-jw's use to be remote friends to the blind guy until he finally met them? Anthropomorphic metaphors won't get you anywhere.
Let's not pretend anything divine can be explained in terms of them.
Pole