Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

To what extent do we choose our beliefs?

Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 5:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The closest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

-When our emotions strongly enough to force us to do something, then, there is specific tendency to believed.

- When we are being threatened strongly and there is something offering security, then, there is something may be considered as alternate solution to believed.

The farthest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

- When we induced that something was right, then, there was something we believed

- When we deduced that something was right, then, there was something we believed

The points are:

- We can have our beliefs based on our strong emotions related to specific feeling, that make us believe that our feelings must be fulfilled (satisfied) (the closest extent).

- We can have our beliefs, when those are derived from our deductive thinking nor empirical justification (the farthest extent).

- But sometimes, our beliefs at the farthest extent may be failed if it against our beliefs from the closest extent.

Do you have experience, where your thinking win against your emotions (or where your thinking win against your emotions)? Not exactly the same way to response on something, but perhaps we can learn to avoid the same mistakes generally on human.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 6:23:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No one really has any beliefs. We are constantly putting on a show, with ourselves as the audience, to justify our perception of ego.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 6:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 5:53:53 PM, Seremonia wrote:
The closest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

-When our emotions are strong enough to force us to do something, in other words, there is a specific tendency to believe in our emotions.

- When we are being threatened and there is something offering security. This may be an alternate solution to one's beliefs.

The farthest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

- When we induced that something was right, then, it was something we believed

- When we deduced that something was right, then, there was something we believed

The points are:

- We can have our beliefs based off of our emotions related to a specific feeling, that may make us believe that our feelings must be fulfilled (satisfied) (to the closest extent).

- We can have our beliefs, when they are derived from our deductive thinking instead of our empirical justification (the farthest extent).

- But sometimes, our beliefs at the farthest extent may be false if they is contradictory to our beliefs from the closest extent.

Have you had experience, where you're emotions clouded your judgment? Not the way to respond to something, but perhaps we can learn to avoid the same mistakes humanity may make.

Cleaned this up a little bit, I was stuck on some points because they didn't make any sense. I think the coherency of your arguments are good, and your logic is sound, but grammatically, this post needs ALOT of work before real formulation of argumentation can take place. Grammar is the first step to creating a logical argument. If a person cannot deduce your reasoning, your argument is invalid. (Generally, not related to one specific person)

Now let's go down to the actual argument.

First is the scientific standpoint, the logical argument against human emotions:


Emotions are not found in all human beings. There are many human beings that lack emotions due to differences in both cognitive ability, and deformities in the brain and spinal cord (Central nervous system). Empirical judgment is the only deduction given in situations that a normal human being may use his/her emotional reaction to act towards.

"Kant wrote, "To be subject to emotions and passions is probably always an illness of the mind because both emotion and passion exclude the sovereignty of reason." More recent research, using methods unavailable to Kant and others, finds reason and emotion coexisting, residing in different parts of the nervous system."

Kant's approach to reason has been verified by science, in that emotions do cloud judgment. This in fact pulls away from empirical judgment, as both emotions and judgment coexist with one another, but do not correlate positively with one another under normal circumstances. (There are exceptions that require steady body processes such as adrenaline)

http://www.johnehrenfeld.com...

Second is the problem of the "Closest Extent" as described in the OP.

It states that threatening situations give may give empirical judgment full control over a person's actions. This is false. The perfect example of such a factor is the uncommon circumstances where the correlation between Emotions and Judgment take place. A common example is adrenaline, in which the body stimulates itself to it's maximum potential, often ending in fatigue after such a phase ends. This phase gives emotional stimulation in times of need (NOT JUDGMENT) Emotional connection to a situation triggers adrenaline, however the overall action by the actor can be from judgment while one's emotions empower the body. There are other examples as well.

Third is Deductive Reasoning

The OP makes a distinction between deductive reasoning and empirical judgment. However both fall under the same category of judgment, decisive thinking is reasoning in itself, and judgment is based off of reason.

Korsgaard States-
"Insofar as we value anything, we must value humanity as an end in itself. Since you cannot act without reasons, and your humanity is the source of your reasons, you must value your own humanity if you are to act at all."

Humanity is the beginning and the shell of coexistence between emotions and judgment. However Reason is the backbone of all judgment, including Decisive Thinking. Therefore it can be implied that decisive thinking and emotions do not have a positive correlation, and the OP is therefore false in it's justification of emotions correlating with Decisive thinking.

4th Is the Farthest Extent Vs the Closest Extent Argument

How do you define "The Farthest Extent?" Can it be implied from your examples of the "Closest Extent" that it is the exact opposite? Or is there some correlation involved that requires both to have a belief?
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 6:36:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 6:23:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No one really has any beliefs. We are constantly putting on a show, with ourselves as the audience, to justify our perception of ego.

Agree- That is humanity. My reason for life is to live, and to be happy, in whatever way I possibly can. Selfishness drives my ego, altruism doesn't truly exist, because self-satisfaction and gratitude are selfishness.
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 7:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 6:35:10 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 11/6/2012 5:53:53 PM, Seremonia wrote:
The closest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

-When our emotions are strong enough to force us to do something, in other words, there is a specific tendency to believe in our emotions.

- When we are being threatened and there is something offering security. This may be an alternate solution to one's beliefs.

The farthest extent for us to choose our beliefs:

- When we induced that something was right, then, it was something we believed

- When we deduced that something was right, then, there was something we believed

The points are:

- We can have our beliefs based off of our emotions related to a specific feeling, that may make us believe that our feelings must be fulfilled (satisfied) (to the closest extent).

- We can have our beliefs, when they are derived from our deductive thinking instead of our empirical justification (the farthest extent).

- But sometimes, our beliefs at the farthest extent may be false if they is contradictory to our beliefs from the closest extent.

Have you had experience, where you're emotions clouded your judgment? Not the way to respond to something, but perhaps we can learn to avoid the same mistakes humanity may make.


Cleaned this up a little bit, I was stuck on some points because they didn't make any sense. I think the coherency of your arguments are good, and your logic is sound, but grammatically, this post needs ALOT of work before real formulation of argumentation can take place. Grammar is the first step to creating a logical argument. If a person cannot deduce your reasoning, your argument is invalid. (Generally, not related to one specific person)

1. Sorry, i still don't know how to edit my post, thank you for the correction.

Now let's go down to the actual argument.

First is the scientific standpoint, the logical argument against human emotions:


Emotions are not found in all human beings. There are many human beings that lack emotions due to differences in both cognitive ability, and deformities in the brain and spinal cord (Central nervous system). Empirical judgment is the only deduction given in situations that a normal human being may use his/her emotional reaction to act towards.

"Kant wrote, "To be subject to emotions and passions is probably always an illness of the mind because both emotion and passion exclude the sovereignty of reason." More recent research, using methods unavailable to Kant and others, finds reason and emotion coexisting, residing in different parts of the nervous system."

Kant's approach to reason has been verified by science, in that emotions do cloud judgment. This in fact pulls away from empirical judgment, as both emotions and judgment coexist with one another, but do not correlate positively with one another under normal circumstances. (There are exceptions that require steady body processes such as adrenaline)

http://www.johnehrenfeld.com...

2. Emotions in this case, that we need to live and therefore we need to maintain our body (health) to stay alive. For example, if we are hungry, or thirsty we can't satisfy this, then it will be our trigger to pull out our anger to fulfill it. That's the moment where our judgement based on emotion.

Second is the problem of the "Closest Extent" as described in the OP.

It states that threatening situations give may give empirical judgment full control over a person's actions. This is false. The perfect example of such a factor is the uncommon circumstances where the correlation between Emotions and Judgment take place. A common example is adrenaline, in which the body stimulates itself to it's maximum potential, often ending in fatigue after such a phase ends. This phase gives emotional stimulation in times of need (NOT JUDGMENT) Emotional connection to a situation triggers adrenaline, however the overall action by the actor can be from judgment while one's emotions empower the body. There are other examples as well.

3. Not full control, but "i believe i have to go there because i need it", in the sense that, emotion compared to thinking (without emotion) has its own priorities.

Third is Deductive Reasoning

The OP makes a distinction between deductive reasoning and empirical judgment. However both fall under the same category of judgment, decisive thinking is reasoning in itself, and judgment is based off of reason.

4. My statement: "We can have our beliefs, when they are derived from our deductive thinking instead of our empirical justification"

I consider that empirical justification must be related to "connectivity" in general (emotionally or not) rather than just deductive thinking . Please, read my explanation below.

-----

Whether we are now providing logical reasoning through premises and conclusion, deduction and induction or any other possible reasoning. But, ...

What is thinking?


- Thinking is activity(ies) that typically by associating and connecting (whether emotionally or not) among associated, then tracing limits between them.

And something was logic because our thinking found connections (whether emotionally or not). That's why sometimes we saw people did something to be considered "not logic" (emotionally), but for them, they did reasonably. It's because they found connections. But for others they did improperly (not logic) just merely because of comparison to the specific ethics or morality or general assumptions (it doesn't have to be like that, etc ...).

-----


Korsgaard States-
"Insofar as we value anything, we must value humanity as an end in itself. Since you cannot act without reasons, and your humanity is the source of your reasons, you must value your own humanity if you are to act at all."

Humanity is the beginning and the shell of coexistence between emotions and judgment. However Reason is the backbone of all judgment, including Decisive Thinking. Therefore it can be implied that decisive thinking and emotions do not have a positive correlation, and the OP is therefore false in it's justification of emotions correlating with Decisive thinking.

5. Please, see number 4. or this link http://www.debate.org... 10/28/2012 9:37:11 PM (i don't know how to edit and how to link to it).

4th Is the Farthest Extent Vs the Closest Extent Argument

How do you define "The Farthest Extent?" Can it be implied from your examples of the "Closest Extent" that it is the exact opposite? Or is there some correlation involved that requires both to have a belief?

That's nice question: There must be both, but when the closest extent takes over, then the farthest extent will be supporter to fulfill it (how to prolong or repeat our specific feelings), but when the farthest extent takes over, then the closest extent will be supporter (to encourage us to get our hope to satisfy our feelings). :)

Thank you
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 8:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 6:23:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No one really has any beliefs. We are constantly putting on a show, with ourselves as the audience, to justify our perception of ego.

Dare to have it. That's great.

Thank you :)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2012 6:23:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No one really has any beliefs. We are constantly putting on a show, with ourselves as the audience, to justify our perception of ego.

You don't really believe that, do you?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 1:16:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you could make a compelling case for a lot of our beliefs being strongly predisposed. The part that I think is unclear is where that stops off at i.e., the line of demarcation from determined belief to "free" belief. Because I don't think you can really even try to make a case that *all* of our beliefs are predisposed or determined since it obviously calls into question your reasons for holding that belief (kind of like Marx's criticism of bourgeois ideology applying just as well to himself).
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 3:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 1:16:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think you could make a compelling case for a lot of our beliefs being strongly predisposed. The part that I think is unclear is where that stops off at i.e., the line of demarcation from determined belief to "free" belief. Because I don't think you can really even try to make a case that *all* of our beliefs are predisposed or determined since it obviously calls into question your reasons for holding that belief (kind of like Marx's criticism of bourgeois ideology applying just as well to himself).


Marx didn't think he held an ideology, so it wasn't circular. Random fact away!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 4:38:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2012 7:36:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/6/2012 6:23:56 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No one really has any beliefs. We are constantly putting on a show, with ourselves as the audience, to justify our perception of ego.

You don't really believe that, do you?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 6:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2012 3:51:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 12/8/2012 1:16:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think you could make a compelling case for a lot of our beliefs being strongly predisposed. The part that I think is unclear is where that stops off at i.e., the line of demarcation from determined belief to "free" belief. Because I don't think you can really even try to make a case that *all* of our beliefs are predisposed or determined since it obviously calls into question your reasons for holding that belief (kind of like Marx's criticism of bourgeois ideology applying just as well to himself).


Marx didn't think he held an ideology, so it wasn't circular. Random fact away!

Then just substitute the word ideology for belief. It has much the same effect.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.