Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

In Your Heart, You Know I'm Right

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem I see, today, not unlike societies and cultures of the past, is a dogmatism exists even among those who profess no religious affiliation, a dogmatism that is completely arrogant and void of any semblance of humility or doubt.

Most religionists claim the existence of God as being transcendental, in nature, something that is beyond the rational mind of humanity. If you ask them to prove God's existence, they will quickly say it's beyond our understanding. However, even though they fail to prove God's existence, they speak of it, with certainty and authority.

This utter dogmatism is not merely particular to the religious mind. There are those who claim things exist, outside of their consciousness, as though they could know this with certainty. When asked to present something beyond their body of knowledge, not unlike many religionists, they get defensive and become very petty, as though a personal assault were made against them. With the same religious fervor and dogmatism they make their claims, with an insistence on blind faith, from those they wish to proselytize.

Personally I see this contrivance as mental artillery, as though their thoughts were mere weapons meant to inflict fatal wounds on those with whom they disagree. To say I can know that which is beyond me puts me in a state of superiority; for, it allows for extrasensory perception (I know they would vehemently deny this terminology. However, what other meaning could be given to knowledge beyond sense perception?)

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a priori , or self-evident; I believe all mental constituents are indigenous to one's self.

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a posteriori , or empirical; I believe all knowledge follows from one's own experience.

The issue I have is with those who assert, dogmatically, information exists apart from one's self or one's own experience. I believe in doing so, it allows them to assert, "This is the truth, independent of me", an objective truth that isn't relative to the individual, an objective truth that is only held by the one making the assertion and those who agree with this truth; if any be in disagreement, their views, their ideas, their feelings, their beliefs, their deductions, their logics, or their experiences are merely irrelevant.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:02:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 9:30:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem I see, today, not unlike societies and cultures of the past, is a dogmatism exists even among those who profess no religious affiliation, a dogmatism that is completely arrogant and void of any semblance of humility or doubt.

Most religionists claim the existence of God as being transcendental, in nature, something that is beyond the rational mind of humanity. If you ask them to prove God's existence, they will quickly say it's beyond our understanding. However, even though they fail to prove God's existence, they speak of it, with certainty and authority.

This utter dogmatism is not merely particular to the religious mind. There are those who claim things exist, outside of their consciousness, as though they could know this with certainty. When asked to present something beyond their body of knowledge, not unlike many religionists, they get defensive and become very petty, as though a personal assault were made against them. With the same religious fervor and dogmatism they make their claims, with an insistence on blind faith, from those they wish to proselytize.

Personally I see this contrivance as mental artillery, as though their thoughts were mere weapons meant to inflict fatal wounds on those with whom they disagree. To say I can know that which is beyond me puts me in a state of superiority; for, it allows for extrasensory perception (I know they would vehemently deny this terminology. However, what other meaning could be given to knowledge beyond sense perception?)

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a priori , or self-evident; I believe all mental constituents are indigenous to one's self.

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a posteriori , or empirical; I believe all knowledge follows from one's own experience.

The issue I have is with those who assert, dogmatically, information exists apart from one's self or one's own experience. I believe in doing so, it allows them to assert, "This is the truth, independent of me", an objective truth that isn't relative to the individual, an objective truth that is only held by the one making the assertion and those who agree with this truth; if any be in disagreement, their views, their ideas, their feelings, their beliefs, their deductions, their logics, or their experiences are merely irrelevant.

The Fool: What are you using the term Dogmatic to mean here?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:04:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?

Yeah, I'd hate to be so arrogant as to say that If I don't see you around, then you must not be around, but its true!
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 2:50:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/5/2013 9:30:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem I see, today, not unlike societies and cultures of the past, is a dogmatism exists even among those who profess no religious affiliation, a dogmatism that is completely arrogant and void of any semblance of humility or doubt.

Most religionists claim the existence of God as being transcendental, in nature, something that is beyond the rational mind of humanity. If you ask them to prove God's existence, they will quickly say it's beyond our understanding. However, even though they fail to prove God's existence, they speak of it, with certainty and authority.

This utter dogmatism is not merely particular to the religious mind. There are those who claim things exist, outside of their consciousness, as though they could know this with certainty. When asked to present something beyond their body of knowledge, not unlike many religionists, they get defensive and become very petty, as though a personal assault were made against them. With the same religious fervor and dogmatism they make their claims, with an insistence on blind faith, from those they wish to proselytize.

Personally I see this contrivance as mental artillery, as though their thoughts were mere weapons meant to inflict fatal wounds on those with whom they disagree. To say I can know that which is beyond me puts me in a state of superiority; for, it allows for extrasensory perception (I know they would vehemently deny this terminology. However, what other meaning could be given to knowledge beyond sense perception?)

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a priori , or self-evident; I believe all mental constituents are indigenous to one's self.

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a posteriori , or empirical; I believe all knowledge follows from one's own experience.

The issue I have is with those who assert, dogmatically, information exists apart from one's self or one's own experience. I believe in doing so, it allows them to assert, "This is the truth, independent of me", an objective truth that isn't relative to the individual, an objective truth that is only held by the one making the assertion and those who agree with this truth; if any be in disagreement, their views, their ideas, their feelings, their beliefs, their deductions, their logics, or their experiences are merely irrelevant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 8:20:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:04:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?

Yeah, I'd hate to be so arrogant as to say that If I don't see you around, then you must not be around, but its true!

The Fool: I got just That. lol. Today.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 9:16:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:04:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?

Yeah, I'd hate to be so arrogant as to say that If I don't see you around, then you must not be around, but its true!

The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 9:35:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 2:02:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/5/2013 9:30:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem I see, today, not unlike societies and cultures of the past, is a dogmatism exists even among those who profess no religious affiliation, a dogmatism that is completely arrogant and void of any semblance of humility or doubt.

Most religionists claim the existence of God as being transcendental, in nature, something that is beyond the rational mind of humanity. If you ask them to prove God's existence, they will quickly say it's beyond our understanding. However, even though they fail to prove God's existence, they speak of it, with certainty and authority.

This utter dogmatism is not merely particular to the religious mind. There are those who claim things exist, outside of their consciousness, as though they could know this with certainty. When asked to present something beyond their body of knowledge, not unlike many religionists, they get defensive and become very petty, as though a personal assault were made against them. With the same religious fervor and dogmatism they make their claims, with an insistence on blind faith, from those they wish to proselytize.

Personally I see this contrivance as mental artillery, as though their thoughts were mere weapons meant to inflict fatal wounds on those with whom they disagree. To say I can know that which is beyond me puts me in a state of superiority; for, it allows for extrasensory perception (I know they would vehemently deny this terminology. However, what other meaning could be given to knowledge beyond sense perception?)

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a priori , or self-evident; I believe all mental constituents are indigenous to one's self.

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a posteriori , or empirical; I believe all knowledge follows from one's own experience.

The issue I have is with those who assert, dogmatically, information exists apart from one's self or one's own experience. I believe in doing so, it allows them to assert, "This is the truth, independent of me", an objective truth that isn't relative to the individual, an objective truth that is only held by the one making the assertion and those who agree with this truth; if any be in disagreement, their views, their ideas, their feelings, their beliefs, their deductions, their logics, or their experiences are merely irrelevant.

The Fool: What are you using the term Dogmatic to mean here?

An exclusive knowledge that entertains the assumption, something beyond one's experience is either true or false.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 9:57:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 9:16:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:04:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?

Yeah, I'd hate to be so arrogant as to say that If I don't see you around, then you must not be around, but its true!

The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false.

The Fool: So something like You're Heading perhaps?
Perhaps some more examples would make your point more clear.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 10:02:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: By arrogance, do you mean confidence brought about by the ignorance of something, that is, something unknown?

<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 10:16:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 9:35:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:02:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/5/2013 9:30:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem I see, today, not unlike societies and cultures of the past, is a dogmatism exists even among those who profess no religious affiliation, a dogmatism that is completely arrogant and void of any semblance of humility or doubt.

Most religionists claim the existence of God as being transcendental, in nature, something that is beyond the rational mind of humanity. If you ask them to prove God's existence, they will quickly say it's beyond our understanding. However, even though they fail to prove God's existence, they speak of it, with certainty and authority.

This utter dogmatism is not merely particular to the religious mind. There are those who claim things exist, outside of their consciousness, as though they could know this with certainty. When asked to present something beyond their body of knowledge, not unlike many religionists, they get defensive and become very petty, as though a personal assault were made against them. With the same religious fervor and dogmatism they make their claims, with an insistence on blind faith, from those they wish to proselytize.

Personally I see this contrivance as mental artillery, as though their thoughts were mere weapons meant to inflict fatal wounds on those with whom they disagree. To say I can know that which is beyond me puts me in a state of superiority; for, it allows for extrasensory perception (I know they would vehemently deny this terminology. However, what other meaning could be given to knowledge beyond sense perception?)

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a priori , or self-evident; I believe all mental constituents are indigenous to one's self.

I don't have an issue with a knowledge that is a posteriori , or empirical; I believe all knowledge follows from one's own experience.

The issue I have is with those who assert, dogmatically, information exists apart from one's self or one's own experience. I believe in doing so, it allows them to assert, "This is the truth, independent of me", an objective truth that isn't relative to the individual, an objective truth that is only held by the one making the assertion and those who agree with this truth; if any be in disagreement, their views, their ideas, their feelings, their beliefs, their deductions, their logics, or their experiences are merely irrelevant.

The Fool: What are you using the term Dogmatic to mean here?

An exclusive knowledge that entertains the assumption, something beyond one's experience is either true or false.

Or better yet, a knowledge based on the conviction, something beyond one's own experience is true or false.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 10:29:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 9:57:24 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 9:16:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:04:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 2:02:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:51:15 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/6/2013 1:49:48 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Its called mathematics, Modern science, and logic. Get used to it.
<(8D)

Is it just me, or have you been invisible as of late?

The Fool: Me?

Yeah, I'd hate to be so arrogant as to say that If I don't see you around, then you must not be around, but its true!

The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false.

The Fool: So something like You're Heading perhaps?
Perhaps some more examples would make your point more clear.

Yes, exactly. I was using sarcasm to make a point.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 10:40:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 10:02:25 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: By arrogance, do you mean confidence brought about by the ignorance of something, that is, something unknown?

<(89)

No. The ignorance of something doesn't bring about anything. By arrogance, I mean the belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 8:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Arrogant anti-thesis of Anthony

Anthony: The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false.

The Fool: By arrogance, do you mean confidence brought about by the ignorance of something, that is, something unknown?

Anthony: No. The ignorance of something doesn't bring about anything.

The Fool: Perhaps you're being arrogant? How do you know that it does not do this?
Perhaps somebody knows something, that you don't know, that, you yourself, have not experienced?
<(89)

Anthony: By arrogance, I mean"the belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know.

The Fool: Really? Do you really, use the term "arrogance" to refer to your belief that you can know things do not exist beyond that which you don"t know."?

For earlier, you said, AND I QUOTE!

<(89)

Anthony:" The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false. "
The Fool: For it surely seems absurd to say:

"("the belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know") is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false."

Perhaps you mean something more, "like it is "arrogant " for someone to hold and/or share this belief?

Or perhaps you wish to clarify, what you mean?

Perhaps it is arrogant, to say, you're fortunate, Anthony. Foolish even. But let's be frank on the fact that many un-Friendly's would forget this justice; some would even go as far as to forge and force foreign interpretations; for themselves, despite constant falsification, to themselves.

<(89)
For such fakes, are not "simply" foolish, but scared stiff, to be naked!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2013 9:01:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2013 8:14:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Arrogant anti-thesis of Anthony

Anthony: The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false.

The Fool: By arrogance, do you mean confidence brought about by the ignorance of something, that is, something unknown?

Anthony: No. The ignorance of something doesn't bring about anything.

The Fool: Perhaps you're being arrogant? How do you know that it does not do this?
Perhaps somebody knows something, that you don't know, that, you yourself, have not experienced?
<(89)

Anthony: By arrogance, I mean"the belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know.

The Fool: Really? Do you really, use the term "arrogance" to refer to your belief that you can know things do not exist beyond that which you don"t know."?

For earlier, you said, AND I QUOTE!

<(89)

Anthony:" The arrogance is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false. "
The Fool: For it surely seems absurd to say:

"("the belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know") is saying emphatically something beyond my experience is true or false."

It's not absurd, at all; it's basically saying the same thing: "The belief I can know things do not exist beyond that which I know;" something only has existence, in as much as it applies to me; this is unverifiable; and, also, "...something beyond my experience is true or false," again, unverifiable.


Perhaps you mean something more, "like it is "arrogant " for someone to hold and/or share this belief?

Or perhaps you wish to clarify, what you mean?

Perhaps it is arrogant, to say, you're fortunate, Anthony. Foolish even. But let's be frank on the fact that many un-Friendly's would forget this justice; some would even go as far as to forge and force foreign interpretations; for themselves, despite constant falsification, to themselves.

<(89)
For such fakes, are not "simply" foolish, but scared stiff, to be naked!