I am seeing a lot of straw men invention and ad hominem attempts on the twitter feeds...or at least if something of outright dismissal sounds the tune likely of a interested propagandist source.
In most circumstances I might resort to the existentialists for a given intelligibility to emotional/philosophical arguments considered. I am not much for the viability and health of a democracy in so much as based upon personal put downs.
The problem that I see and perhaps one of the greatest looming problems to individual faith resides in its judgement of one's view relative to the view of others...not that there isn't a natural tendency for any one person to judge him or herself in relations to others and especially so by the way of faith, but at least in terms of some of the core principles of faith, a personal interpretation is one given to the extent of being personal, to any extent rational, to another extent irrational. This is to say with human nature permitting, it is hard not conceiving of another's faith potentially comprising a spectrum of possibilities. In this context, a reading of the more dogmatic alleged 'rationalist' on these matters as I have seen in recent days potentially fail to the degree of the schools of any sciences given on these matters. At least within the sphere of psychology, for instance, neither so much the insistence for what practically amounts to a belief system, that may or may not be supported in so far as a consensual belief system, but hardly likens, for instance, the conviction that one should be considered 'insane' for such beliefs in so far as mainstream practice is concerned even if at times all the basis for judging another's belief system is given by the differences a consensual reality and that which appears irrational in mind to such reality, and even so often it seems that consensual reality, is given to a practicality on the matter of faith. It is certainly impossible for any human, for instance, to verify everything of material nature in reality...for instance, outside of the images that are given of a round earth that would convince others of this agreed upon truth, how many can afford the trip to space in verifying for themselves the truth of this matter, and how many readily can provide something of the arguments for a round earth? How many hadn't readily relied upon others in saying, or using logical proxies in verifying such truth which generally should isolate logical possibilities but themselves are inferences, or in other words, often times so much of academics itself institutionally is draws upon the psychology of faith and institutional authority in some manner (sure those who study may be given to lab work and verification on the matter of empirical data but the vast majority I'd would imagine are not)...here often times I see a muddling of logical reasoning here, that one offers the argument of authority and reason juxtaposed implicitly with faith without having realized offering this in the first place. This is to say the well reasoned have realized a relation between themselves and any number of reliant assumptions that inextricably lead to some manner of 'faith' even if it is drawn to faith in a body of men or women in saying, faith in some authority, faith in good governance, faith in the 'common good' of man, or faith otherwise. Unfortunately, the sciences of psychology may, outside of statistical inferences, provide less useful answers on the matter of realities when an agreed upon consensual reality should seem at odds with, for instance, when a view is particularly divergent to a given mainstream view. Arbitration of views, from the standpoint of science is likely preferential one should imagine preferential to any mainstream view, and even when likely a view is given in some manner of volume (as in a populace), if such view is neither conformed well enough to the auspices of such reality, likely leads to the motivated conjecture of any new theory...whether this should be mass hallucination/delusion, or something involving a sociological mechanism that inter relates human behavior and perception. This, unfortunately, may or may not provide answers at all with respect to the truth of the matter of perception(s). Not that such reasoning has led to any manner of temptation. To this extent, one potentially could be inclined to offer a rejecting argument such as if 'I haven't seen it. Can't re duplicate processes in seeing it, it therefore doesn't exist.' means necessarily, for instance, with respect to the body and branches of science that such argument is invalid. The problem comes by way of what potentially may or may not be here, or as asserted by previous mathematician/philosophers, there may be some truths that are without proof and possibly having any proof, and here I am tempted in saying that unfortunately the downside of a faith in conformed reality, in so far as human spheres are such that much in the world is potentially overlooked in the choice for easy dismissal, and at worst are contentious grounds, having been used in the past, for locking up individuals even if having some legitimate socially divergent experience. One might offer the muscularity of institutional authoritarianism at worst may have interceded in such process without so much consideration to truth otherwise.
Another point in saying, comes by way of ultimately the potential limitations of humanity as we know it in answering with sufficiency not only any number questions that may as well plague until an age of extinction, but also that if ever one could from such reality elucidate all manner of reality beyond it. Emotionally I think science and rationalism in some capacity may always fail in the captivity of human imagination which likely dreams beyond, having created abstract form that, for instance, preside beyond such existence, or that at least in terms of an existence of thought, philosophically speaking, why should a thought likely extend beyond the familiar forms of shadow on the walls? Even more unsettling a concept offered by Abbott's flatland, that is, it seems even our rational capacity allows us to imagine what physical properties should exist of a reality that we might claim otherwise hadn't existed, or if you read such account, it would seem by all accounts the person having a heard a voice that seemed to propagate inside him or herself, might have thought him or herself crazy as were an officiating psychologist that agreed that such an event must be a hallucination, or indeed as there is arguable limitation to the perceptions in human experience, an upper limit of say 20 khz range in frequency and a lower limit of 20 hz still leaves ample range of likely unheard sound that we know exists by scientific inferences, or the same for much of visible light, or much the same for the sense of taste, and potentially touch. It seems consensual reality in so far as human reality has undergone many revolutions up to now, and this entirely one should imagine likely remains for all one should know well into some future a dynamic prospect. It is hard to characterize understanding as being static and completely unchanging in so far as our relation in the universe and exactly concerning what is out there.
I think much to the better dialogue is a missed opportunity in recent times, especially so given the unfortunate rise of any number of political events, and part of this discussion is given to the often missed or overlooked discussion concerning the matter of faith, as it were though something of the basis for extremism alone. This is much like the often used and extension of ideological wars past which should seem the basis in creating social separability or marked delineations in culture when I argue these are often badly derived boundaries. If it weren't more like the geopolitical synthesis of one country versus another in the succinct territorial manners, and where have in time proliferated the cause of war over arbitrarily fought lines that hadn't previously existed. Often times the division, one should imagine, might come by way of the of the gross ideological amplifications which in turn lead to the precedence of monolithic political cultural overshadowing. It is easier of course to get people to move in mass as you might have hoped, if they could identify themselves as belonging to something that hadn't previously existed and something which hadn't divided populations of peoples firstly. Thus if patron saints were varied in terms of diversity, prolific and generally religious sectarian hostilities were already diminished, for the sake of consolidating ideological political power, it seems another move to get rid of the old cultural practices, and create any new monolithic uniting symbol...of course, this truly has nothing to do with religion and has more to do with political authoritarianism at its heart, and likely is given by way of the mechanisms of civilization more than any one particular belief system alone, and it seems in like kind that examples should abound in present times versus times past, or at least a recipe for consolidating political power is given in this manner, and likely if you were to read into the narrative of religious ideology, you were well on the track to missing the boat. More so one should imagine such being the case irrespective of belief systems. The French, of course, have limited more so than any terrorist freedom of speech in recent years, as has been the trend worldwide with the number of journalists being imprisoned in many other countries, and sadly this receives a lot less discussion conveniently much to the aid of the conspirators. This all likely justified on the other hand for security rule purposes. If you want to know who the enemy of freedom is...I am not certain this is supposedly ideological extremists or coming from the authoritarian populist house rule of the world in general. If you want to read into God through the masses, through sociology, likely you may find something quite devoid there. On the hand, personal faith is another matter. A good discussion might speak of the true culprits here, or why the good and bad of civilizations exist by way of the mechanisms...genocide after all wouldn't be as significant if technological infrastructure existed to amplify what already existed inside man? This to say communications systems, transport infrastructure, and the ability to manufacture and disseminate weapons in mass. Of course, in a modern age, we talk about the psychology of individuals, by what differentiated capacity one man is relative to another, or the ideological drivers, perhaps, religious extremism, or any other bit of governmental propaganda that happens to be coursing through the veins of power, and in some future age, it only seems enough where with all that power considered the dangerous frontier-ism that might have lurked if too much personal responsibility were given to the convenient weapons merchant down the street warehousing and supplying in mass nuclear weapons. Obviously statistics wouldn't bode well as much for the survivability of Earth in such circumstance if this were reliant upon personal responsibility and human nature, not that we haven't managed in other ways at scarring the Earth all the more without one more abomination of a freedom in hand.
In most circumstances I might resort to the existentialists for a given intelligibility to emotional/philosophical arguments considered. I am not much for the viability and health of a democracy in so much as based upon personal put downs.
The problem that I see and perhaps one of the greatest looming problems to individual faith resides in its judgement of one's view relative to the view of others...not that there isn't a natural tendency for any one person to judge him or herself in relations to others and especially so by the way of faith, but at least in terms of some of the core principles of faith, a personal interpretation is one given to the extent of being personal, to any extent rational, to another extent irrational. This is to say with human nature permitting, it is hard not conceiving of another's faith potentially comprising a spectrum of possibilities. In this context, a reading of the more dogmatic alleged 'rationalist' on these matters as I have seen in recent days potentially fail to the degree of the schools of any sciences given on these matters. At least within the sphere of psychology, for instance, neither so much the insistence for what practically amounts to a belief system, that may or may not be supported in so far as a consensual belief system, but hardly likens, for instance, the conviction that one should be considered 'insane' for such beliefs in so far as mainstream practice is concerned even if at times all the basis for judging another's belief system is given by the differences a consensual reality and that which appears irrational in mind to such reality, and even so often it seems that consensual reality, is given to a practicality on the matter of faith. It is certainly impossible for any human, for instance, to verify everything of material nature in reality...for instance, outside of the images that are given of a round earth that would convince others of this agreed upon truth, how many can afford the trip to space in verifying for themselves the truth of this matter, and how many readily can provide something of the arguments for a round earth? How many hadn't readily relied upon others in saying, or using logical proxies in verifying such truth which generally should isolate logical possibilities but themselves are inferences, or in other words, often times so much of academics itself institutionally is draws upon the psychology of faith and institutional authority in some manner (sure those who study may be given to lab work and verification on the matter of empirical data but the vast majority I'd would imagine are not)...here often times I see a muddling of logical reasoning here, that one offers the argument of authority and reason juxtaposed implicitly with faith without having realized offering this in the first place. This is to say the well reasoned have realized a relation between themselves and any number of reliant assumptions that inextricably lead to some manner of 'faith' even if it is drawn to faith in a body of men or women in saying, faith in some authority, faith in good governance, faith in the 'common good' of man, or faith otherwise. Unfortunately, the sciences of psychology may, outside of statistical inferences, provide less useful answers on the matter of realities when an agreed upon consensual reality should seem at odds with, for instance, when a view is particularly divergent to a given mainstream view. Arbitration of views, from the standpoint of science is likely preferential one should imagine preferential to any mainstream view, and even when likely a view is given in some manner of volume (as in a populace), if such view is neither conformed well enough to the auspices of such reality, likely leads to the motivated conjecture of any new theory...whether this should be mass hallucination/delusion, or something involving a sociological mechanism that inter relates human behavior and perception. This, unfortunately, may or may not provide answers at all with respect to the truth of the matter of perception(s). Not that such reasoning has led to any manner of temptation. To this extent, one potentially could be inclined to offer a rejecting argument such as if 'I haven't seen it. Can't re duplicate processes in seeing it, it therefore doesn't exist.' means necessarily, for instance, with respect to the body and branches of science that such argument is invalid. The problem comes by way of what potentially may or may not be here, or as asserted by previous mathematician/philosophers, there may be some truths that are without proof and possibly having any proof, and here I am tempted in saying that unfortunately the downside of a faith in conformed reality, in so far as human spheres are such that much in the world is potentially overlooked in the choice for easy dismissal, and at worst are contentious grounds, having been used in the past, for locking up individuals even if having some legitimate socially divergent experience. One might offer the muscularity of institutional authoritarianism at worst may have interceded in such process without so much consideration to truth otherwise.
Another point in saying, comes by way of ultimately the potential limitations of humanity as we know it in answering with sufficiency not only any number questions that may as well plague until an age of extinction, but also that if ever one could from such reality elucidate all manner of reality beyond it. Emotionally I think science and rationalism in some capacity may always fail in the captivity of human imagination which likely dreams beyond, having created abstract form that, for instance, preside beyond such existence, or that at least in terms of an existence of thought, philosophically speaking, why should a thought likely extend beyond the familiar forms of shadow on the walls? Even more unsettling a concept offered by Abbott's flatland, that is, it seems even our rational capacity allows us to imagine what physical properties should exist of a reality that we might claim otherwise hadn't existed, or if you read such account, it would seem by all accounts the person having a heard a voice that seemed to propagate inside him or herself, might have thought him or herself crazy as were an officiating psychologist that agreed that such an event must be a hallucination, or indeed as there is arguable limitation to the perceptions in human experience, an upper limit of say 20 khz range in frequency and a lower limit of 20 hz still leaves ample range of likely unheard sound that we know exists by scientific inferences, or the same for much of visible light, or much the same for the sense of taste, and potentially touch. It seems consensual reality in so far as human reality has undergone many revolutions up to now, and this entirely one should imagine likely remains for all one should know well into some future a dynamic prospect. It is hard to characterize understanding as being static and completely unchanging in so far as our relation in the universe and exactly concerning what is out there.
I think much to the better dialogue is a missed opportunity in recent times, especially so given the unfortunate rise of any number of political events, and part of this discussion is given to the often missed or overlooked discussion concerning the matter of faith, as it were though something of the basis for extremism alone. This is much like the often used and extension of ideological wars past which should seem the basis in creating social separability or marked delineations in culture when I argue these are often badly derived boundaries. If it weren't more like the geopolitical synthesis of one country versus another in the succinct territorial manners, and where have in time proliferated the cause of war over arbitrarily fought lines that hadn't previously existed. Often times the division, one should imagine, might come by way of the of the gross ideological amplifications which in turn lead to the precedence of monolithic political cultural overshadowing. It is easier of course to get people to move in mass as you might have hoped, if they could identify themselves as belonging to something that hadn't previously existed and something which hadn't divided populations of peoples firstly. Thus if patron saints were varied in terms of diversity, prolific and generally religious sectarian hostilities were already diminished, for the sake of consolidating ideological political power, it seems another move to get rid of the old cultural practices, and create any new monolithic uniting symbol...of course, this truly has nothing to do with religion and has more to do with political authoritarianism at its heart, and likely is given by way of the mechanisms of civilization more than any one particular belief system alone, and it seems in like kind that examples should abound in present times versus times past, or at least a recipe for consolidating political power is given in this manner, and likely if you were to read into the narrative of religious ideology, you were well on the track to missing the boat. More so one should imagine such being the case irrespective of belief systems. The French, of course, have limited more so than any terrorist freedom of speech in recent years, as has been the trend worldwide with the number of journalists being imprisoned in many other countries, and sadly this receives a lot less discussion conveniently much to the aid of the conspirators. This all likely justified on the other hand for security rule purposes. If you want to know who the enemy of freedom is...I am not certain this is supposedly ideological extremists or coming from the authoritarian populist house rule of the world in general. If you want to read into God through the masses, through sociology, likely you may find something quite devoid there. On the hand, personal faith is another matter. A good discussion might speak of the true culprits here, or why the good and bad of civilizations exist by way of the mechanisms...genocide after all wouldn't be as significant if technological infrastructure existed to amplify what already existed inside man? This to say communications systems, transport infrastructure, and the ability to manufacture and disseminate weapons in mass. Of course, in a modern age, we talk about the psychology of individuals, by what differentiated capacity one man is relative to another, or the ideological drivers, perhaps, religious extremism, or any other bit of governmental propaganda that happens to be coursing through the veins of power, and in some future age, it only seems enough where with all that power considered the dangerous frontier-ism that might have lurked if too much personal responsibility were given to the convenient weapons merchant down the street warehousing and supplying in mass nuclear weapons. Obviously statistics wouldn't bode well as much for the survivability of Earth in such circumstance if this were reliant upon personal responsibility and human nature, not that we haven't managed in other ways at scarring the Earth all the more without one more abomination of a freedom in hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment