Recently I have found myself becoming terribly apathetic about the things that I believe in. Being a high school student, I am faced with many "new" and "better" ideas about everything from Homosexuals, Presidents and Politics, and the art of being unbiased. I no longer perk up when I hear a discussion being started. I don't study up on history when I know a debate is at hand. I just am tired of preaching my beliefs to the same "open" and "accept everyone" people. I know this is a dangerous way to become, for many reasons.
I) When you stop fighting for what you believe in, the other side claims victory. -Now this is a simple statement but I don't think people understand the extreme message it is giving. When there is no opposing opinion, the other guy always wins. You no longer have a say because you don't take advantage of the power you had. Very dangerous.
II) The battles are no longer battles but one sided debates. -A lot like elections in pre-America kicking Saddam out of country" Iraq
III) What is right and wrong is decided not by you but by who didn't stop presenting their point. -This can be very important as well. When you don't stand up for what you believe in, someone else will do it for you. By this I mean, they will tell you what you believe and if you don't, well then "say hello to his little friend"
IV) You start to doubt your beliefs -When you no longer talk and discuss what you believe, then you begin to think less and less about it. This leads to confusion on what you DID believe was right or not. That leads to doubt which opens you up to someone who can take advantage of an "easily moldable" piece of clay.
V) Evil Prospers -What has always happened when the good men are too quiet? Bad men get even louder. Who is to blame? Those weak men who stopped spouting their thoughts.
So should I chastise myself and start to preaching the good word? I believe so. I believe this is how alot of adults become as they grow older. At least this is what the percentage of voters actually voting shows. Why let others decide for you? Down with apathy, for it is the true evil.
[ November 19, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
AMEN! Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
"For evil to succeed, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing." -Lord Kagan
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The opinions I hold most strongly are the ones that I have debated with people who are informed as to the opposing arguments. When I have such discussions, sometimes I change my mind. Sometimes I modify what I believe. When I don't, I am always more confirmed in my beliefs because I have had to logically test them.
In this way Hatrack was been great for me, as some people here have different veiws to me. However, almost without exception, they present these views logically and coherently, and in doing so allow me to examine and either modify or re-confirm my own veiws.
Apathy is dreadful - I am so glad that we have compulsory voting over here, otherwise our voter turnout would be more like the US. And when it's for something as important as choosing a national leader, I think mass particpation is vital!
However there is only one thing more irritating than apathy in my view: People who hear an opinion from some-one else (usually, but not always their parents) and repeat that opinion ad nasuem without actually thinking about it for themselves, or looking at opposing points of view.
If you don't know what you're talking about, be quiet! (ok, rant over)
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
When you know you're truly brilliant is when you stop shutting out other people "preaching the good word" when that "good word" is 180 degrees from what you believe.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
I usually keep quiet about things I don't know anything about (which is LOTS). Right now I'm taking an apologetics course, something I reccomend for everyone. It's really great. It opens my eyes, helps solidify what I believe, and most importantly gives a way to defend what I believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which apologists, out of interest?
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Actually, a guy at my church is teaching it. He's using the "TPM" method (Trancendental Presuppositional Method...forgive the spelling). We just started, so we haven't gotten very far yet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my opinion, to really study apologetics, you should be reading apologies written by people who DON'T belong to your faith.
Reading apologies written by people who ALREADY believe what you do will help you solidify what you already think, but won't exactly open your mind much.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
We haven't been reading much by others yet, but we'll get to it. Both people who believe what we do, and people who don't. I'm really excited about this! I've already learned a lot in just two classes! Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Excuse my ignorance, but what are apologies?
(at least I'm following my own rule and not giving you my opinion on them... )
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Apologetics are defending your faith. If you get in a debate with someone about the theology and stuff you believe, that would be apologetics.
(it is NOT apologising for what you belive)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
So it's justifications (wrong word - explanations?) for faith - and then I guess when you start looking at different religions, it's more like comparative religion.
Sounds interesting.
Religion is a hard one, because it's so personal. However I am much more tolerant of people who can defend their veiws with some logic/reasoning than I am of those people who state a belief based purely on 'it's true'.
Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
Our world has always been the way we make it. It's not what I believe, it is just a thought.
When you stop believing it does not mean you stop thinking, it simply means your mind is more objective, you can not accept as true non founded ideas. You are aware of other plausible notions and consider them.
Maybe you are starting to question want you had taken for granted.
Maybe you are overworked and could not care less about anything but sleep.
Maybe you're depressed.
If you have not stopped thinking, you have not stopped believing.
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Ralphie- So you start to "preach" other peoples word? strange idea. Holding on to what you truely beleive dosn't make you in less "brillant" if you were completely "moldable" and "open" you would not have any ideas of your own. I disagree with all or you statement.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Not arguing your beliefs does not mean you forget them. If I think something is wrong, I'd hope to have a reason good enough for me to remember it the next time the issue was raised, without having to reinforce my belief in the meantime by throwing it at others.
Obviously you think morality is subjective, as you say that not preaching leaves one open to the possibility of forgetting what you previously thought was good or evil.
Sometimes we should let people learn right from wrong by themselves, without people competing for the right to shove their thoughts down others' throats.
Since there are many issues on which there is no clear-cut case of right or wrong, you're just as likely to be promoting right by shutting up as you are by preaching.
Preaching is the pinnacle of arrogance (and I don't claim to be 100% free of either), and it only converts the weak-minded. I much prefer people who lead by setting a good example.
Being apathetic leaves you, and others, open to judge a situation on its individual merits, rather than having a preconceived notion of good and evil that must be maintained by regular debating.
So, yeah. An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching. That's me in a nutshell.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Naked Empire by Terry Brooks hasa good take on this subject. It is a fiction book, part 8 of the Sword of Truth series, and he uses this idea as the basis of this book.
Faith of the fallen, book 6 of the series, has a good take on socialism.
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching...thats kind of like a charatable jew? Or maybe a french war hero? *haha excuse the political incorrectness* Im not sure you even understand what you arn't preaching my freind. Apathy giving a way to judge things without bias? Is that what you are saying? Hmm. If you have apathy however, you don't care about the thing you must consider so you don't consider it at all! So what is the point? There is isn't one. I would reword your statement if I was you.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yeah, but if you were me, then I'd be you.
Not a fair trade. I'd have to learn English all over again.
Anyway, I think you're giving too much weight to the word "apathy". It doesn't mean "oblivious". I maintain that it's possible to give an opinion without being emotionally invested in a topic. It's not only possible, but easier to be objective.
There are a number of issues I couldn't care less about, but if someone were to ask me my opinion on one, I could quickly assess the situation and give an opinion. True, it wouldn't be as informed as it would if I spent my waking hours arguing about it, but neither would it be biased.
[ November 20, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Naked Empire by Terry Brooks
Naked Empire is by Terry Goodkind, not Brooks. And if you haven't yet read it, you are to congratulate. And if you ever feel the urge to do so, you might consider sticking a fork into your eyes as a less painful alternative.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I think what Frisco is aiming at is closer to "emotional detachment" than "apathy". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Don't let the connotations of the word throw you off.
That said, I think some issues are rather difficult to understand from a point of view of emotional detachment. Like it or not, emotion plays a major role in most tough decisions (if not the only role in some cases), so understanding the problem without empathy is practically impossible.
Dag- I'd stay away from swipes at groups of people if I were you (unless those groups happen to be murderers or bad spellers). You may enjoy putting forward the image of a rebel or bad-a$$ by flaunting the (often draconian) conventions of political correctness, but don't expect it to get you very far on this board.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching...thats kind of like a charatable jew?
Dag, was that an anti-Semetic statement? Are you suggesting that Jews can't be charitable?
**Ela**
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching...thats kind of like a charatable jew? Or maybe a french war hero? *haha excuse the political incorrectness*"
Oh, great. Earlier, I just figured you were one of those ignorant, arrogant jerks who couldn't figure out he wasn't all that funny. Now you're a bigot, too.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I think what Frisco is aiming at is closer to "emotional detachment" than "apathy". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Don't let the connotations of the word throw you off.
quote:ap·a·thy n. 1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference. 2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Yes, unbiased opinions are also easy if you're merely emotionally unattached...the fact that I'm also indifferent and unconcerned made me use the term "apathetic".
quote:That said, I think some issues are rather difficult to understand from a point of view of emotional detachment. Like it or not, emotion plays a major role in most tough decisions (if not the only role in some cases), so understanding the problem without empathy is practically impossible.
Being emotionally detached doesn't necessarily mean you have no emotion whatsoever. Being emotionally detached from a case, I think, means that you can look at it from a clean slate.
And if you're emotionally detached, I think it's easier to put yourself in the shoes of both parties on either side of any given issue.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Thanks, Ela and TomD,
I was numbed by the comments you highlighted, especially the first one.
I always hold my breath when someone waves the "PC" flag. In my experience, the term is often used to express a legitimate irritation with nitpicky language. It also gets used in a way that says "please don't criticize my bigotry."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just a quick pop into this thread to make sure the similarities between our names doesn't cause anyone to confuse me with Dag the bigot.
Dagonee *That's "Dag" + "o" + "nee".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
sndrake...
I agree, it's like the old They Might Be Giants lyrics:
"Can't shake the devils hand / And say you're only kidding"
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dag,
Sometimes when people first enter this bulletin board, they assume that being deliberately insulting, provocative, or inflammatory is a good way to get positive attention. It isn't.
OSC's watchphrase for this Bulletin Board is "We argue with passion, and we listen with respect."
You are welcome to hold unpopular views, and you are encouraged to defend such views thoughtfully, carefully, and with passion. You are not welcome to be deliberately inflammatory. This does not mean you must conform to some "PC standard;" however, you must be polite and courteous.
This is not your house. It is, in effect, OSC's living room, and he expects you to behave with common courtesy. That means: no flaming, no sneering, no inflammatory insults, etc. Behave like a grownup.
This also makes sense in advocating your cause, as if you are a jerk, people will assume your cause is the sort of thing a jerk would support. That does not do your cause any good.
Note also that when you signed the registration agreement, you agreed to the following:
quote:Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
We try to police ourselves, but we have an obligation to report inappropriate behavior to the moderator of the board if we cannot deal with it ourselves.
Be polite, even if you disagree.
[ November 20, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bokonon I agree, it's like the old They Might Be Giants lyrics
It is so depressing that you called that an old lyric.
“My Racist Friend” is a new, hip, fresh song. Flood is still on the Album Chart.
Isn’t it?
Dagonee *I’m not old. I’m not old. I’m not old.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"When you know you're truly brilliant is when you stop shutting out other people "preaching the good word" when that "good word" is 180 degrees from what you believe."
It's because she says things likes this that, despite her many, many, many dalliances with other men, I'm still willing to run away to Mexico with Ralphie at a moments notice.
Well, that, and her splendtastic mumba-jumbas.
edited: to add an extra many
[ November 20, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE MY RALPHIE!
*kills squick*
*slinks out of thread*
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
I think I should make a list of what I should be Sorry for: 1) Im sorry for making a childish joke about the jewish race. 2) Im sorry for saying France dosn't have any war heros.(well still not really sorry for this, simple fact and I will stand by that) 3) Im sorry for my lack of grammer and spelling correctness. I don't see it as important as getting what you want to say across to the person. I will work on this. 4) Forgive me for making you all beleive that I am: a bigot, a racist, arrogant, ignorant, and a troll (another thread). 5) Forgive me for wasting your time with my unorganized replies.
I think thats it. If there is any others just let me know and Ill edit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Methinks someone's forgetting a Frenchman who nearly took over the world. Well, some would call him a bit of an anti-hero, but I think he certainly qualifies as a militarily exceptional Frenchman.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Here. Try this. And you know, as much as I love to make fun of France, it's foolish to say that they don't have any war heroes just because they got trounced in World War II.
Oh my gosh. Did I just defend France?
[ November 20, 2003, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks, Dag.
Just act as if our host (OSC) were sitting at the table with you, and you wouldn't want to either offend him or embarrass yourself.
The grammar and spelling stuff may get you teased a bit (by people who know you), but it isn't important. The rest is.
Thanksd again, and Welcome to Hatrack. Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
true ol Nap. was good but he was too greedy, should have left Mother Russia alone. But your right, I should edit my second remark about the french war heros, because they do have some, just not many.
Members here are rather quick at reponding. Thanks for the link to that dictionary thing. Remarkable, I sure hate I missed it up untill now.
Lost in every war since The ol' Hundred Years one (you know with them fighting the Brits?) my freind Jon.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Im sorry for making a childish joke about the jewish race.
Jews are not a race. Humans are a race. Jews are a religious group, or, if you prefer, a culture.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Don't forget the guy who put a stop to Islamic conquest of Europe, or his grandson, who founded the Holy Roman Empire.
William the Conqueror is kind of a stretch, but LaFayette, who was a bit of help during our revolution fits the bill nicely.
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Jews are an ethinicty (no time to use the dictionary) and a religous group. I know that for a fact. Don't be too quick to find me wrong please. Not every religous jew is jewish in orgin.
William you could easily argue was not a Frenchman. Norman of corse yet are they considered french? I don't know.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
They spoke French, but I do not think they were ethnically French.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Despite what you know as a fact, Jews do not constitute a valid ethnicity. From Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice, under the section "Who are the Jews?":
quote:It is certainly wrong to think of the Jews as a "race". They do not even constitute a "type" within the Caucasoid stock. Such physical identifiablity as they have is due to the fact that in the region of the world where Judaism begain an Armenoid type was common. But this type included many peoples who were not Jews. The early Christians (converts from Judaism) were of course fully as Armenoid in appearance as the Jews themselves. And even today (if manners and customs of dress are disregarded), it would not be possible to distinguish Armenians and other Armenoids from Jews on the basis of physique alone.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I now this thread took a huge turn and all, but I just have to comment.
Gottmorder, I just wanted you to know that while Lord Nasher there may have said that, the actual quote is from Edmund Burke. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Since he lived from 1729-1797, I'd have to say that he probably said it before Lord Kagan. Though, it is a pretty obvious statement and I'm sure someone said something similar, somewhere in time, before that. But that is usually who is credited with the quote.
I like the way all y'all are showing how not to let evil succeed, by doing something though. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Ralphie- So you start to "preach" other peoples word? strange idea. Holding on to what you truely beleive dosn't make you in less "brillant" if you were completely "moldable" and "open" you would not have any ideas of your own. I disagree with all or you statement.
Wow.
On the plus side, Squicky got it and continues being my hizzo.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Let's also not forget that France didn't lose The Great War either...
France has many more war heros than the USA, by virtue of its considerable history. Also, just because you lose a war does not mean there were no heros for the other side. Or is Robert E. Lee not a hero? How about the Pole Thaddeus Kosciuszko?
So really, you'd be better off not defending much of what you have said in this thread (except the thread starter, which was thought provoking). You know as well as I do that those later comments were powder kegs (you realized they were slagging whole classes of people), and it's a dangerous thing to stand by such devices for long.
-Bok
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
(pooka in exile) I hate to admit it, but I also initially interpreted Ralphie's post as turning 180 degrees and not tolerating 180 degress from my own beliefs. When I read the later quote of it, I "got" it.
When I was a senior in high school someone said "you become what you resist". This always bugged me, and as a result I go around repeating it as often as I can without getting locked up.
Dag, are you from a country other than America? Just wondering. We do have several members who don't speak English as their first language and if so, welcome. If not, that's okay too. Sometimes I have to type with one arm or something, or I am really tired.
edit: sometime I feel like France has won "operation Iraqi Freedom"
[ November 20, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Jews are an ethinicty (no time to use the dictionary) and a religous group. I know that for a fact. Don't be too quick to find me wrong please. Not every religous jew is jewish in orgin.
Well, if you meant that some religious Jews are converts or descendants of converts, you are correct. (Actually, we all are. Avraham was a convert.) But considering that I have mostly Caucasoid features, while a close friend of mine has features that are distinctly Egyptian, I would debate your "ethnicity" claim. (She and I are both religious Jews, BTW, and can trace our lineages back for many generations.)
quote: thats kind of like a charatable jew?
quote: Im sorry for making a childish joke about the jewish race.
This was not a joke. Jokes are funny. What it IS is a malicious stab at others. As was this:
quote: Or maybe a french war hero?
Knock it off.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
When you get right down to it, apathy really is our biggest enemy. When people care about the truth and working to find it together, wrong ideas tend to get weeded out over time. But when there's apathy, bad ideas arise unchecked, because nobody cares to do or say anything about them, on the assumption that whatever they do or say won't matter anyway.
The apathetic arise because the "weeding out" of bad ideas happens to slowly or too inefficiently or with too much conflict for their taste. But the apathetic don't call it apathy - they call it being practical. They think there is no hope for their opinion to shine through, so they believe apathy is the only practical solution.
This apathy is a huge problem in America, and specifically, on this forum. For all the complaining about Hatrack going down hill that arises from time to time, it's apathy that's most to blame. And it's not the newbies that are apathetic - it's the oldest and brightest Jatraqueros, who have decided their contributions aren't really worth it. It's the ones who claim they've heard the same thing over and over, and that we will never get any closer to solving it, so we might as well stop.
In Hatrack as in America.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think the biggest evil is the person who claims to speak for Good, America, and makes blanket statements about a view he or she has seemingly never had.
People since the beginning of time have been searching for The Truth. Unsuccessfully. I prefer to search for My Truth--has very little to do, relatively, with finding The Truth--which may or may not be there, and if it is, it may or may not be reachable by a bunch of people trying to build a metaphorical tower to heaven.
Call it being practical if you like, but I really just don't care. I don't try and talk people into buying into my ideas because I don't believe there's one thing out there with the ability to make everyone happy. I'll support others in their quest to be happy, but I don't think that includes converting them to my way of life and my ideas. More often, it's the opposite. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Who was the only man in US history to graduate West Point without a single demerit? Robert E. Lee.
Good point, Bok, that even the side that loses has their heroes. Lee was admired by even his enemies, during and after the war. He had his triumphs (Chancellorsville) and defeats (Gettysburg), but really, graduating West Point with no demerits is freakin' amazing. The whole system is designed to give plebes (freshmen) demerits to humble them.
Hannibal has always been one of my heroes. He had 3 of the most complete victories in 2500 years of recorded conflict at Cannae, Lake Trasimene and Trebia River. He rampaged thoughout Rome for 18 years. The only way the Romans could defeat him was to cause turmoil back home in Carthage, where he lost the final battles of the 2nd Punic War, and salt was sown where Carthage once stood. But he's still a hero.
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Yes I agree completely that you don't have to win the war in order to be great or to be a hero. The person that comes to my mind is Gustavus Adolfus (sp). He led one of the only truely loyal armies into the 30 years war and had great victories, but he died in battle and Sweden never really did much afterwards. Stonewall Jackson is another who fits this situation. Had he not died, who knows how that war would have ended...but thats for another discussion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think the biggest evil is the person who claims to speak for Good, America, and makes blanket statements about a view he or she has seemingly never had.
Yeah, that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pretty evil guy...
But seriously, the person claiming to speak for Good is far less dangerous than the apathetic. Presuming people have some degree of good judgement, when two claims are put against eachother the better one will shine through as the truth, while the lesser view will be seen by most as false. But for this to happen a few things must be the case: Firstly, someone has to care enough to oppose the false view. Secondly, everyone else has to care enough to make the effort to accurately judge between the two. If both of these are the case, we have nothing to worry about in the long run - falsities will naturally die.
The problem is, when people are apathetic they don't bother to refute the falsities they hear, and they don't bother to check to see if the things they are told or believe might be false. Even if someone tries to point problems out them, they are often unreachable. It's a double effect. Their views go unchallenged, and they fail to challenge the questionable views of others. The result is the exact opposite of the society I described above. The result is that everyone is left alone to ponder their own views as they see fit, which may sound good to some tired of having to hear the crazy ideas of others, but which is quite a terrible thing when you take into consideration the fact that people NEED help to form good judgement.
If some kid grew up without the adults around them teaching them or helping them form solid beliefs, they'd grow up not only immoral but stupid. A kid can't figure things out for themself. But when said kid turns 14 or so, he or she comes to believe they can do everything themselves - often times better than everyone else can. This is not the case though, especially not in regards to forming good beliefs. There are far far too many adults (even very smart adults) out there with incredibly wrong ideas in their heads for us to ever think anyone can come up with Truth by themselves, much less everyone. It can only be effective as a collaborative effort. That's why we have churches, schools, and books. But none of these are substitutes for active participation in discussion with peers about real issues.
The problem with searching for "Your Truth" is precisely what you said - that it has little to do, relatively with finding The Truth. It is The Truth that allows you to accurately judge the world around you and what you should do to live in it. If Your Truth is too different from The Truth, you get in trouble. For some, it means they end up raping small children, because Their Truth tells them it's okay. For others it's mass suicide, because Their Truth tells them to join a given cult. For still others it may be as simple as voting for the wrong person for President. The point is, if "Your Truth" does not line up with reality, you're in trouble - and it likely will not if everyone has to invent their Truth on their own.
The mistake often made is thinking that a person who actively expresses their views has "converting others" as his goals. But that should not be the case. If it is, that person is also in danger, although not quite as much danger as the apethetic person. But the truth is, the goal of expressing views should not be to convert others, but rather to jointly find the truth. Being a proponent of a given view is only a tool to facilitate that end.
quote:"Whenever we try to propose a solution to a problem, we might try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves." - Karl Popper
[ November 21, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*shrug*
Whatever.
*eats Pop Tart*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Maaaaaaaaan!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:The problem is, when people are apathetic they don't bother to refute the falsities they hear, and they don't bother to check to see if the things they are told or believe might be false.
Will it make you feel better if I tell you you're full of crap?
You're placing a whole lot of values onto the apathetic soul, very few of which, if any, are even applicable to me--one of the most apathetic people I've ever known--or any apathetics I've ever known. Maybe all the apathetic people you know are stupid?
I think it takes a certain degree of intelligence to be apathetic. You have to know what not to care about.
I believe in (and love) learning. Does this mean I do so for anyone but myself? Not in my case. Will I correct someone obviously wrong? Probably. Arguing over facts is one thing--fighting over opinions, no matter how sure you are about them, is another.
quote:If Your Truth is too different from The Truth, you get in trouble. For some, it means they end up raping small children, because Their Truth tells them it's okay. For others it's mass suicide, because Their Truth tells them to join a given cult. For still others it may be as simple as voting for the wrong person for President. The point is, if "Your Truth" does not line up with reality, you're in trouble - and it likely will not if everyone has to invent their Truth on their own.
Thanks a lot. My ears are bleeding now. Feel free to save a stamp by not inviting me to your Utopia. I don't care if I do get my own number and a free brain chip.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If you are apathetic about learning, you don't also love learning. You either care or you don't. But you might be apathetic about some sorts of learning and loving of other sorts.
The sort of apathy I'm concerned with in this thread, I think, is apathy in regards to the class of knowledge known as "opinion," which is the one that is prevalent among my peer group.
You suggest that facts are worth arguing over, but not opinion. I would argue that, to the contrary, opinions are the things most worth arguing over. After all, facts can be found in books or through experimentation - you don't need to argue over them to figure them out. This is why I rarely bother to post about facts on Hatrack - they are either true or they ain't. What I have to say on the matter really has little to add, unless I happen to be a unique source of fact in some case. But opinions, on the other hand, cannot be found anywhere in a definite sense. Comparing or conflicting one against another is the only way to judge which is best. It is absolutely necessary to achieve well-formed opinions.
And no, apathetic people are not all stupid, but they do cause a heightened level of ignorance in society, in regards to whatever they are apathetic about. The worst society, as far as collective wisdom goes, is the society in which there is little discussion of any point of view, as people only have access to their own. (The second worst is where there is discussion of only one point of view and the best is where there is discussion of all.) The first of these is what apathy tends towards because, if you don't care about an issue, you don't talk about it. If you talk about it or share your ideas with lots of people, you're not really apathetic about it.
[ November 22, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
am i the only one who was a bit put off by the initial post? all that talk of "victory", "battles", "truth", and evil prospering. it seems to me that the greater apathy is to assume that your own opinion is absolutely infallible, and that if you were to change it you would be loosing some great conflict between good (onesself of course) and evil (those darn "'open' people"). to do so is to basically say that you don't care if you're right or not, or if other people's beliefs could be just as valid as your own, and to simply spend the rest of your life in a sort of mental stagnation.
i see the "apathy" good ol' Dag spoke of as the best thing that ever happened to him, because it's the only thing that's keeping him from becoming one of those angry, holier-than-thou, small-minded fanatics that in my opinion are much more of a threat that people who are apathetic about the morality of being homosexual or having a perfectly defined set of beliefs.
here's another quote i think this thread could use; "a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson (i think)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Actually, Dag's proven himself to be exactly that. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, you know, I think we're being more than a little harsh to Dag -- and there's no need. He strikes me as an earnest kid who's rebelling against authority, without really understanding why; he's got a good turn of phrase, and seems clever enough. I don't like his politics or his tone, either, but I'm not going to chase him away with a stick.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Agreed.
I never meant to imply that he couldn't change. I suppose "shown" would've been a good substitute for "proven".
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Lafayette was, in my mind, quite an extraordinary French war hero. I mean, who else was a significant factor in three separate and rather pivotal revolutions on two sides of the world over a period of 50 years?
And Tresopax... What Frisco said.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:it seems to me that the greater apathy is to assume that your own opinion is absolutely infallible, and that if you were to change it you would be loosing some great conflict between good (onesself of course) and evil (those darn "'open' people").
I agree, sort of. Acting like that at least requires you to care to some degree about an issue, so it isn't pure apathy. I'd call it foolishness more than apathy.
quote:i see the "apathy" good ol' Dag spoke of as the best thing that ever happened to him, because it's the only thing that's keeping him from becoming one of those angry, holier-than-thou, small-minded fanatics that in my opinion are much more of a threat that people who are apathetic about the morality of being homosexual or having a perfectly defined set of beliefs.
That's a poor excuse for apathy, though. For one thing, is it REALLY better to be apathetic than to be narrow-minded? (I don't know!) It will anger fewer people, but it will also result in you getting less done (good or bad.)
But for another, far more important thing, isn't it possible to be NEITHER apathetic nor narrow-minded? I would say yes, and that understanding what's wrong with apathy is half the distance to that goal.
quote:And Tresopax... What Frisco said.
In that case, EG... What I said in response to Frisco.
[ November 23, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Dag (Member # 5128) on :
Im a lost Troll, thats all it is to it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, one of the most charming things about this forum is how, maybe once or twice a month, a teenager will show up and post something you'd expect a teenager to post and how, in reponse, the putative adults here do their absolute best to attack and alienate that teenager. Man, you'd think people around here were insecure or something.
----- Dag, Welcome to the forum. I like the way that you express your ideas. I remember a time when I used to think somewhat similarily to you. I don't know if the me of that time would have benefitted or even listened to the advice that Ralphie gave and I underscored on the previous page, but the me now wishes that someone had given it to him. It might have made growing up a little easier and stopped me from doing some things I'm now embarassed of.
As to apathy, I can think of about 50 responses better than despair to pretty much any situation. For example, if you're not successful at changing people's minds, maybe you could try to learn from those experiences as to what would change people's minds. A big step is going to be realizing that people generally don't disagree with you because they are evil. People generally do have their reasons for their beliefs, and, while some of those reasons may be immature or weak or whatever, it's very rare that it's because they want to eat babies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The original post was fine by me, it was the behavior afterwards that was getting to me.
Dag has since moderated his posting style, and is no longer trolling.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
From a lot of frivolous reading I've done I noticed an interesting cycle:
Good Defeats Evil. Peace Blooms from Good. Apathy grows in Peace. Ignorance evolves from Apathy. Evil Blossoms from Ignorance.
Under further examination I discover that Good only defeats Evil when it is strong enough to overcome Apathy and Ignorance with Passion and Knowledge.
Then I discovered this occurs in real life too.
But what if you are Passionate about the wrong thing? What if you are willing to fight to the death for the wrong cause? An AlQuedan Terrorist has passion for his cause. Does that make him right?
No. He does not have the knowledge to discover his cause is wrong. He did not seek the knowledge, only accepted what he was told and that was all.
How do we get the knowledge? Ask and it shall be given. Open you mind to the idea that you may be wrong, and do not let the questioning of what is right be an attack on what is right, but a strengthening of it.
Evil's minions believe that they are doing good because that is what people they respect tell them. How does that different than a person who tries to do good but has never questioned themselves?
Evil can only cease to prosper when confronted by someone good armed with passion and knowledge. Knowledge without passion is apathy and destruction. Passion with out knowledge is that destruction.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
there may have said that, the actual quote is from Edmund Burke. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Since he lived from 1729-1797, I'd have to say that he probably said it before Lord Kagan. Though, it is a pretty obvious statement and I'm sure someone said something similar, somewhere in time, before that. But that is usually who is credited with the quote.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Well, if you meant that some religious Jews are converts or descendants of converts, you are correct. (Actually, we all are. Avraham was a convert.) But considering that I have mostly Caucasoid features, while a close friend of mine has features that are distinctly Egyptian, I would debate your "ethnicity" claim. (She and I are both religious Jews, BTW, and can trace our lineages back for many generations.)