Google doesn’t offer any definition of the word “egotheism”. Good. I’ll use it with the next definition:
Egotheism = a system of (moral) beliefs based on the principle that each individual has the right to form his/hers own system of beliefs, that is not necessarily transmissible to others.
By this definition, one “becomes” an egotheist when (and only when) one is able to formulate this system by oneself, based on*: education, tradition, dreams, myths, secular laws, “known” religions and whatnot. A true egotheist is preoccupied to understand the world/Universe around, its meaningfulness, the right/wrong balance etc. The goal is self-betterment/perfection, and not at all “convincing” the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is “teh best/truest/worthiest”.
Of course, there are a lot of “problems” to be solved: 1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? 2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? 3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”?
What say you?
A.
*note: randomly ordered list
[edited: thread title] [edited (dec. 2007): on the 4th page, it was commented that this term is already in use with a different definition. So, in this thread, the term doesn't have the "official" definition, but the one proposed above.] [edit: on the 5th page, the term was changed to "egotruism" ]
[ December 20, 2007, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think it's consistent to form beliefs entirely on one's own and then try to convince others that one's own beliefs are the "best."
And of course, any society is going to need basic laws to maintain order, so it wouldn't work to overthrow the current legal system.
-pH
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Does it follow from the definition that egotheism HAS TO overthrow the current legal system?
A.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
....no.
-pH
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't think it's consistent to form beliefs entirely on one's own and then try to convince others that one's own beliefs are the "best."
Does that extend to all beliefs? Including beliefs about tables and chairs?
Don't get me wrong, I have all sorts of problems with the way religion is typically taught to children. The notion that one's faith should be "freely chosen" is openly espoused by people who then turn around and subvert young minds that are not yet prepared to choose freely. I think that some day people will look back on this sort of indoctrination as barbaric.
But the notion that it's wrong to try to convince your peers, by giving them your evidence and testimony, seems just totally mistaken. If what you've experienced justifies your own beliefs, it could justify someone else's. And you have a responsibility to others not to leave them in the dark.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The notion that one's faith should be "freely chosen" is openly espoused by people who then turn around and subvert young minds that are not yet prepared to choose freely.
I agree. See “problem” #2. And to answer that, I think we have to answer #3 first …
quote:But the notion that it's wrong to try to convince your peers, by giving them your evidence and testimony, seems just totally mistaken. If what you've experienced justifies your own beliefs, it could justify someone else's. And you have a responsibility to others not to leave them in the dark.
It seems reasonable when we’re talking about tables and chairs. That could easily be part of the basic education
A.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So why is it OK for me to try to convince my peers about everyday facts, but not about my religious beliefs?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I've never heard this term, but I feel like it is fitting to me.
I feel like a Hinduchristianbuddhistjewishtaoistmuslimpagan.
I like parts of all of these religions, but not the whole of any of them. They all have issues and main tenets that I can never agree with.
Particularly, they all have some absurd teachings about and against women. Bah on that. I don't think any god would demean women, but let men go running around free and plotting wars and the like. (Not ALL men obviously, but look at history folks.) Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: So why is it OK for me to try to convince my peers about everyday facts, but not about my religious beliefs?
I have the “funny” feeling that this is a “trick question”. Personally, as an adept of egotheism, I think it is quite possible that there are other people for whom, the facts about chairs and tables have the same relevance (or even less) than their religious beliefs. That’s perfectly ok.
But then those others should, IMO, also understand that there are some (e.g. myself) who have other “priorities”. So when “convincing” comes into play, we should be talking about some “common ground knowledge”. This would basically be the experiences/beliefs/facts/experiments/etc that everybody could agree upon (typically “scientific” stuff , but I don’t use this as a strict definition here). As for the “specific personal religious beliefs”, maybe it would be better if they weren’t “indoctrinated”, but left to the famous “free choice”/”free will” level.
A.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that, to varying extents, everyone is already an egotheist. Not many people* actually submit themselves entirely to the rules of another.
*Even if you conciously follow all the tenets/commandments/rules/ideals of your religion, you still subject them to your own interpretation or to an interpretation with which you, personally, agree.
This is true even if you are forced, say in a theocracy, to follow certain laws. Your compliance does not shape your belief.
The individual is a major part of any modern religious belief- I should think such thought was far less common the further back you go.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Teshi, true, but the "second part" of egotheism is the one about "not necessarily transmissible to others". Meaning that the moment you try to impose your views (except the common ground knowledge) you're not an egotheist anymore.
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By this definition, one “becomes” an egotheist when (and only when) one is able to formulate this system by oneself, based on*: education, tradition, dreams, myths, secular laws, “known” religions and whatnot. A true egotheist is preoccupied to understand the world/Universe around, its meaningfulness, the right/wrong balance etc. The goal is self-betterment/perfection, and not at all “convincing” the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is “teh best/truest/worthiest”.
Egotheism sounds like it is equivalent to extreme selfishness. I find it to be pretty cruel to care nothing about whether other people are making all the wrong decisions or holding all the wrong beliefs about the world. Certainly, any parent who doesn't care about the belief system of their children is doing them a serious disservice. And any friend that would let you walk into doing some horrible mistake is not a very good friend.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Trying to understand how this is different from my experience. With the possible exception that, when asked, I will try my best to explain what I believe.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But then those others should, IMO, also understand that there are some (e.g. myself) who have other “priorities”. So when “convincing” comes into play, we should be talking about some “common ground knowledge”.
That sounds very sensible. I guess my point is that it's hard to draw the line.
I mean, my own understanding of the publicly available evidence that I have rules out all sorts of religious beliefs. And while I try not to be a dick about it, I would like to convince others of the truth.
Rather than being some kind of ideology, I think what you're calling "egotheism" just boils down to common sense. It's rude to presume that other people are ill-informed about religion. I know some theists who've seen the same evidence I have, and thought just as long and hard about it, and I leave these people alone because I know they have nothing to gain from arguing with me. But when I meet a theist who I think could gain new insight from my opinions, I express them and try to convince the guy that I'm right.
Even if he doesn't end up agreeing with me, he'll understand his own views better.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Certainly, any parent who doesn't care about the belief system of their children is doing them a serious disservice.
A parent should care about his child's belief system. He should also care about that child's epistemic integrity. No one should be forced to hold inauthentic, indoctrinated beliefs. But this is often what happens when a child is "raised in a faith."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Meaning that the moment you try to impose your views (except the common ground knowledge) you're not an egotheist anymore.
I think you're stretching the "not necessarily transmissable to others" part of your definition when you make a statement like this. It is hard for humans not to share their ideas- simply by coexisting our individual ideals, commandments, dreams, etc. will inevitably become common.
Of course, according to my own theories about religion, most religions begin this way- with one person who then attracts many to his or her cause.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Certainly, any parent who doesn't care about the belief system of their children is doing them a serious disservice.
A parent should care about his child's belief system. He should also care about that child's epistemic integrity. No one should be forced to hold inauthentic, indoctrinated beliefs. But this is often what happens when a child is "raised in a faith."
My parents (bless them!) did not choose religion for me or my siblings. They allowed us to explore and choose our own - or none. Four of the six of us are regular church goers - by which I mean that if we miss a Sunday people wonder why.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Been done...
Wiccan rede: so that it harm none, do what thou willt.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thanks, none of us knew that.
Right, Jenny? Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Wonder how it could be translated into political theory.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Hmmmmmm . . . isn't there already a word in the lexacon for this -- "Hedonism"
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Ok, ok, I was just being a snot. I’m not really serious.
Although, I do think some people do seek to be a law unto themselves, consider themselves above the law, and accept only those beliefs that allow them to do what they want. Amoral is what it is called, I guess.
But I don’t think you meant it that way at all. I can understand where a person looks at all the nonsense being put forth by preachers of various disciplines, and just wants to find something that makes some sense.
There is certainly a lot to be said for that approach.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Egotheism sounds like it is equivalent to extreme selfishness. I find it to be pretty cruel to care nothing about whether other people are making all the wrong decisions or holding all the wrong beliefs about the world.
How can you define the “wrong beliefs about the world”? The fact that I don’t believe in (the existence of) a deity called <insert name here> does it mean (for you) that I have the wrong beliefs about the world?
Maybe there is some clarification needed: There is nothing wrong with sharing your personal views (including the religious ones). But teaching “the truth” about religion is not saying “this is what I have faith in and this is the only true faith”. That’s why I proposed the “problems” in the first place, and especially the 3rd one. I personally think that religion should be taught as a historical/geographical description of the “map of religions”. After seeing the “different options”, one could make a choice. It is obvious that it’s nearly impossible to know about each and every one of the religions in the history of the world, but the conclusion of a general presentation should sound like: “We’ve seen X religions in more or less detail, but be aware that there are still more that we didn’t see yet”. But presenting only one option, or saying that only one is valid, that I call indoctrination.[note: I obviously consider religious beliefs outside the “common ground knowledge”]
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Certainly, any parent who doesn't care about the belief system of their children is doing them a serious disservice. And any friend that would let you walk into doing some horrible mistake is not a very good friend.
Certainly. This is kind of why I started this topic
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I guess my point is that it's hard to draw the line.
I completely agree. This is the “biggest” problem. The notion of CGK (“common ground knowledge”) wants to be of some help. To simplify at the extreme, I’d say that Science is easily included in CGK, while the “shape of the true deity” is not, because people can’t agree on that. Yet there is more to CGK than Science. The laws of the society where one lives, for example, should also be included, together with the context. Crossing a street while the red light is on is widely seen as <wrong> but working 40 hours a week and having 20 days of paid vacations every year has to do with the country you’re in. And of course, learning that there are countries that have 35 working hours a week and 40 days of paid vacations every year might convince someone to change one’s residence. Or not. But the choice is (i.e. should be) personal.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: It's rude to presume that other people are ill-informed about religion.
Egotheism specifically maintains that each and every person is RIGHT about his/hers beliefs. Once that you’ve made your informed choices, they are yours. If “ill-informed” means “uninformed”, then the solution is education.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I think you're stretching the "not necessarily transmissable to others" part of your definition when you make a statement like this. It is hard for humans not to share their ideas- simply by coexisting our individual ideals, commandments, dreams, etc. will inevitably become common.
"Not necessarily transmissible to others" actually stands for the concept of imperfect communication. We cannot expect to understand perfectly a complex message (e.g. a system of beliefs) of another person. But it is not even necessary. Each and every one of us has a sum of experiences accumulated through education, dreams, TV etc or simply put, through life. That should be the base of the system of beliefs, and NOT the perfect copy of some other person’s system. When you want to impose your POV upon other person, you dismiss his/hers right to form a personal opinion. (that’s against Egotheism!) Share the knowledge that you have, don’t say that you have exhaustive knowledge on a subject if it’s not the case and let “the student” make the choice about it. The age of the student is relevant here, a 3 year old has to be kept by hand while crossing the street, but at some point we have to “let go”
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Although, I do think some people do seek to be a law unto themselves, consider themselves above the law, and accept only those beliefs that allow them to do what they want. Amoral is what it is called, I guess.
Egotheism is not that at all. Respecting the (laws of the) society you live in might be a good trait to include in the CGK.
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How can you define the “wrong beliefs about the world”?
Beliefs that don't reflect the truth. For instance, if you believe God doesn't exist, and God does exist, then your belief is wrong. And vice versa.
quote:But presenting only one option, or saying that only one is valid, that I call indoctrination.
But the fact is that there IS only one true reality, and thus only one set of beliefs is correct. All other beliefs that conflict with that one truth are mistaken.
If someone says "I believe I should drink poison so I will go to heaven" should I respond "My beliefs are different, but yours are valid too"? Heck no! You should say "Drinking poison is a bad bad idea. Your beliefs are wrong - and I won't let you do it." You may call it indoctrination, but allowing someone to die or do other foolish things because you don't want to "indoctrinate" them is very selfish.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Okay.. I say we go back to first edition rules on this..
Jesus Armor Class -20 Hit Points 2,000 Main Weapon, +20 Flaming Sword
Shiva Armor Class -20 Hit Points 2,000 Main Weapon +20 Trident
Bhaal...
Oh.. Sh*t. Are they ganna haff to fight it out!?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Egotheism specifically maintains that each and every person is RIGHT about his/hers beliefs. Once that you’ve made your informed choices, they are yours.
Whoa, hold on there.
What about logic? As in, A or not A? Either God exists or he doesn't.
If Egotheism goes along with relativism about truth... well, then, I withdraw my support. I didn't understand what you were getting at.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:How can you define the “wrong beliefs about the world”?
It's easy! Suppose you believe there's a cup in your hand. Then your belief is wrong if there isn't a cup in your hand.
Now, suppose you believe that God exists. Then your belief is wrong if God doesn't exist.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Destineer, Logic is Logic. And it is part of the CGK.
But the existence of "God" is not a subject for Logic. Let's not get into the "proof of existence of deity X" debate. As long as there is no GENERALISED opinion about "existence of deity X" I see no point in learning (as a CGK) either "deity X exist" or "deity X doesn't exist". What would be the use? Let everyone have A PERSONAL opinion about that, and just "pass on" the CGK.
A.
PS: Tresopax, I saw your post, I'll come back to that soon.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:How can you define the “wrong beliefs about the world”?
It's easy! Suppose you believe there's a cup in your hand. Then your belief is wrong if there isn't a cup in your hand.
Now, suppose you believe that God exists. Then your belief is wrong if God doesn't exist.
Ok about the cup.
Yet, there is no LOGICAL proof of things about any deity. Can we agree on that? Logically speaking, "the existence of the deity X" is a matter of postulate. You can start with the positive postulate, or the negative. But the choice is yours (i.e. personal).
(Note: this is in response to Tresopax too)
A.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Egotheism doesn't sound so much as a system of belief so much so as a system for determining what to believe.
How is this different from plain old moral relativism?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yet, there is no LOGICAL proof of things about any deity. Can we agree on that? Logically speaking, "the existence of the deity X" is a matter of postulate. You can start with the positive postulate, or the negative. But the choice is yours (i.e. personal).
You don't just CHOOSE what to believe. The evidence presented to you determines what you should believe. It isn't a choice. It's a judgement.
There is no logical "proof" that God exists. There is also no logical "proof" that any given cup exists. But there may be very strong evidence for both.
You should be believing whatever seems most likely given the evidence you know about. You certaintly should NOT be believing things that you want to "choose" to be true but which contradict what the evidence seems to show. For instance, if you see no cup in your hand and have no evidence of any cup in your hand, you can't just choose to believe there is a cup in your hand because you'd like to have a drink.
Similarly, if you have a jar marked poison, you can't just "choose" to believe that magic water is inside. If you did believe such a thing, it would be immoral of me to let you go on continuing to believe it, without trying to convince you otherwise - because letting your hold that belief could result in your death.
Along the same lines, if I think there is a very good reason to think that not following a certain religion will result in eternal damnation for you, it would be extremely immoral of me to simply let you fall into that fate. If I cared about your well being, I would have a moral responsibility to convert you to that religion, in order to help you avoid eternal damnation - which would presumably be a fate even worse than mere death.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Not knowing whether P is true doesn't mean P is neither true nor false. It just means you don't know. Something can exist without its existence being logically provable -- in fact, nothing (except, debatably, numbers and other mathematical objects) can be proven to exist by logic alone.
The cup falls into this category as well. There's no logical proof of the cup's existence, but there is a matter of fact about whether it exists.
quote:How is this different from plain old moral relativism?
Um... for one thing, I don't see the 'egotheist' making any claims about morality.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What moral claims do you see the relativist as making?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Egotheism doesn't sound so much as a system of belief so much so as a system for determining what to believe.
Actually, that would be a gross misinterpretation of egotheism. It is by definition a system of beliefs that allows you to form your own opinion abut everything, while presented with “all the evidence”. As an egotheist that I consider myself, it is absolutely irrelevant for you what I think about the deity X. I can present you with my beliefs, I can even present you my “proofs” about it, but I’ll never expect you to convert to my “particular religion”. If you are happy with yours, and I’m happy with mine, why bother with the “conversion”? As far as CGK goes, that shouldn’t be a problem for anyone to learn. Only defining what CGK actually is, wouldn’t be that obvious. That’s why I hope this debate would be helpful
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: How is this different from plain old moral relativism?
Please define for me “plain old moral relativism”.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You don't just CHOOSE what to believe. The evidence presented to you determines what you should believe. It isn't a choice. It's a judgement.
Ok, here is where we truly disagree. Egotheism stipulates that you actually have to CHOOSE what you want to believe. It is best to have “all the evidence” first, make a judgment, and finally make a CHOICE. But there is nothing that one should believe, especially in the religious part of the spectrum. Again, the CGK part should be defined as the really unbiased, clear, logically supported part of Human Knowledge. So as far as I understand, we really are arguing about the “stuff outside CGK”.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: There is no logical "proof" that God exists. There is also no logical "proof" that any given cup exists. But there may be very strong evidence for both. You should be believing whatever seems most likely given the evidence you know about. You certaintly should NOT be believing things that you want to "choose" to be true but which contradict what the evidence seems to show. For instance, if you see no cup in your hand and have no evidence of any cup in your hand, you can't just choose to believe there is a cup in your hand because you'd like to have a drink.
I can accept that for you, the existence of the cup is at the same level of “rationality” as (or even less than) the existence of some given deity. For me those two matters are entirely different. If the cup exists, I can use it to drink some eventual fluid. I cannot drink with it if I just (want/choose to) believe it exists, but actually there is no cup in my hand. So the actual existence of the cup makes a difference when it comes to “what can I do with it”. On the other hand, the existence of the deity is irrelevant for my life (I choose to believe that). There isn’t something I can’t do if choose to believe that deity X doesn’t exists, as opposed with the situation where I choose to believe that deity X does exist. I’m the same. I have the same capacities. So convincing me about the existence of the cup can help me improve/understand my capacities. But convincing me that the deity exists won’t bring anything more (that I miss) in my life.
If you say that even if I have a cup in my hand, I cannot really (logically) “prove” that the cup exists, and that I have to use that as a postulate, then we really are talking about different kinds of reality (of the cup). If in your view, you have the same certainty about the existence of a given deity as of the cup in my hand, I see no problem in that. As an egotheist I already agreed that you have the right to believe whatever you choose. But I don’t see why I would have to believe what you want me to believe, as related to one particular deity.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Similarly, if you have a jar marked poison, you can't just "choose" to believe that magic water is inside. If you did believe such a thing, it would be immoral of me to let you go on continuing to believe it, without trying to convince you otherwise - because letting your hold that belief could result in your death.
If I counted correctly, it is the 3rd time you bring this example into discussion. The known effects of a given (marked!) potion/poison can be included into the CGK.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Along the same lines, if I think there is a very good reason to think that not following a certain religion will result in eternal damnation for you, it would be extremely immoral of me to simply let you fall into that fate. If I cared about your well being, I would have a moral responsibility to convert you to that religion, in order to help you avoid eternal damnation - which would presumably be a fate even worse than mere death.
Well you see, there is where your analogy crosses the line. What you think about <damnation>, <fate>, and some particular <religion> is definitely not CGK. You cannot force me to accept your <help> in these matters. Maybe I think that the way you try to convert people to your faith is a sign of the <devil> (by some definition) and that you should be punished for it. “Along the same lines”, I could justify whatever religious war I want, because “my deity is the right one, and yours is not”. This kind of reasoning is what egotheism tries to avoid. Justifying the need to “punish” the others based on ONE POINT OF VIEW (especially in the realm of religion) is not the best way to get to tolerance and a “healthy society”.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Not knowing whether P is true doesn't mean P is neither true nor false. It just means you don't know. Something can exist without its existence being logically provable -- in fact, nothing (except, debatably, numbers and other mathematical objects) can be proven to exist by logic alone.
The cup falls into this category as well. There's no logical proof of the cup's existence, but there is a matter of fact about whether it exists.
Again, ok about the cup. Are you saying that the existence of a deity X is also a matter of fact? If it is for you, ok. But it is definitely NOT a matter of fact for me.
A.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually you mixed the examples with the cup. If someone tells you that a cup of poison is really magic water, you could truthfully say they were wrong and try to prevent them from drinking it on that basis, based on empirical evidence that poison kills human beings. If, as in your first example, that person said that drinking that poison would enable them to go to heaven, it might be true. Your belief that it is not is just that. Unprovable, unknowable. You're still welcome to tell them that they're wrong (since they are, according to your beliefs) but the outcome isn't testable.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead exist relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.
Most of the traits you're espousing - tolerance, self formulation of principles - are hallmarks of relativism.
quote:But the fact is that there IS only one true reality, and thus only one set of beliefs is correct. All other beliefs that conflict with that one truth are mistaken.
My belief that I like Pepsi seems to me to invalidate your claim.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Are you saying that the existence of a deity X is also a matter of fact? If it is for you, ok. But it is definitely NOT a matter of fact for me.
It is a matter of fact. The fact may be true or false, but the deity in question either exists or it doesn't. The belief in deity x might exist for some people and not for others, but I can't see anyway for that to be true of the deity itself.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What moral claims do you see the relativist as making?
That there are no absolute moral truths.
The egotheist, as I understand it, is saying only that there are no absolute truths about the existence and nature of God.
quote:My belief that I like Pepsi seems to me to invalidate your claim.
You do, in fact, like Pepsi, don't you? If so, the belief is true. If not, it's false.
quote:Are you saying that the existence of a deity X is also a matter of fact? If it is for you, ok. But it is definitely NOT a matter of fact for me.
My view is that the idea of a matter of fact for someone is incoherent. Things are never both true for me and false for you -- that we can know by logic, since logic is governed by the law of the excluded middle. For any proposition A, logic tells us that either A is true or not-A is true.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:You do, in fact, like Pepsi, don't you? If so, the belief is true. If not, it's false.
Heh. A rephrase then. What about my belief that Pepsi is, in fact, better than coke?
quote:The egotheist, as I understand it, is saying only that there are no absolute truths about the existence and nature of God.
The definition suminonA provided does not make that distinction. It seems to me that belief in the divine is one example among many that could fall under this claim.
EDIT - been rereading the thread. It seems like the main difference is that the egotheist is more wary about the transmission of beliefs.
quote:There is no logical "proof" that God exists. There is also no logical "proof" that any given cup exists.
Some philosophers have argued, quite well, that being able to point at the cup and say, "this exists" is sufficient proof that the cup exists. Also, I have a clear concept of what it would be like for deity X not to exist when I speak of X. I do NOT have a clear concept of what it would be like if the cup I were drinking from now were not to exist.
[ May 25, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Doesn't justifying egotheism disqualify you from being an egotheist?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Again, the CGK part should be defined as the really unbiased, clear, logically supported part of Human Knowledge. So as far as I understand, we really are arguing about the “stuff outside CGK”.
No, it sounds like what we are really arguing about is what is to be considered "unbiased, clear, and logically supported". You are simply using the concept of a "CGK" as a catch-all to include everything and anything that you think we need to convince people to believe.
Your definition of the CGK makes it into a subjective thing. What is "clear"?
If I think that my belief in God's existence is clear, logically supported, and unbiased then why doesn't that make it part of the CGK?
quote:What you think about <damnation>, <fate>, and some particular <religion> is definitely not CGK.
Why not?
You admitted yourself in your last post that it's up to me to decide if my conclusions about religion are on the same level of rationality as my beliefs about the existence of the cup. If I can do that, and if I consider Christianity to be clear and totally logically proven, why can't I consider my belief in that religion to be part of the CGK? And thus why can't I be an Egotheist who also happens to force my religion down the throats of others (on the grounds that it is clear, unbiased, and logicall supported)? Given the way that you are using the "CGK" as a catch-all for anything you want to be considered certain fact, I see no reason why that would not be possible for those who'd place religion in the CGK, along with the existence of cups and the danger of drinking poison.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My problem with this debate:
All religions are egotheism.
The question remains, who's ego will you follow--your own, or that of a given religious leader.
Certainly there are religious leaders more worthy than me, but it is equally as certain that there are those who are less worthy. Without personal knowledge of which is which, I can only rely on myself, logic, luck, predestination, or those around me. Each has its flaws and its advantages.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Thank you for the link. (It’s not that I was too lazy to look for some references myself, but I thought that If you brought that up, a link would be nice too )
Now, if I were to decide for myself (hey, what do you know, I am!) I’d propose to include moral relativism into the CGK.
Why isn’t moral relativism equivalent to egotheism? Well, because moral relativism would simply be a CONSEQUENCE of egotheism. Egotheism is the “starting point”. If you accept that there is no absolute (i.e. universal) truth (so each and every one has the right to choose a personal one), applying it to moral rules/values you get moral relativism. Applied to science you realize that there are no “definitive laws of nature”, we can (and should) continuously search to improve our theories about the Universe. Einstein improved the “laws” written down by Newton, but they are not “the ultimate laws” either. (Those laws are useful, nonetheless!)
Conclusion: As much as I understand moral relativism, It’s inconsistent to say that you are an egotheist AND do not agree to moral relativism basic traits.
On the same page linked above, there is this part (let’s be fair and present “both sides”) :
quote:Social impact of moral relativism
Some people attribute the perceived post-war decadence of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by moral relativism. According to writers such as Pope Benedict XVI and Marcello Pera, after about 1960 the Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and replaced them with continuously-evolving relative moral rules. In this view, sex has become separated from procreation, which led to decline of families and to depopulation (compensated by immigration). Currently, Europe faces challenges from recent immigrants who brought with them absolute values which stand at odds with moral relativism.[…]
What I would argue with is the idea that moral relativism itself was the cause of the decadence of Europe. Actually, the WRONG application of its principles led to decadence. And even more relevant, their application by the people who WEREN’T READY to do it. Without enough education, one cannot (i.e. shouldn't) “become” egotheist!
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Are you saying that the existence of a deity X is also a matter of fact? If it is for you, ok. But it is definitely NOT a matter of fact for me.
It is a matter of fact. The fact may be true or false, but the deity in question either exists or it doesn't. The belief in deity x might exist for some people and not for others, but I can't see anyway for that to be true of the deity itself.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Are you saying that the existence of a deity X is also a matter of fact? If it is for you, ok. But it is definitely NOT a matter of fact for me.
My view is that the idea of a matter of fact for someone is incoherent. Things are never both true for me and false for you -- that we can know by logic, since logic is governed by the law of the excluded middle. For any proposition A, logic tells us that either A is true or not-A is true.
Yeah, my bad. I used “matter of fact” the wrong way. Sorry. You are right, for any given deity, it either exists or it doesn’t. That’s a fact
I was using “matter of fact” as equivalent to “absolute truth”. So I was trying to say that if you are absolutely sure that “God exists” (i.e. it is a fact), It is not the case for me (because I’m an “atheist”, not because I’m an egotheist!).
A.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe that the secret to understanding and defending egotheism is not by saying that they believe that all beliefs are equally right, but that they believe that all beliefs are unequally wrong.
Determining where they are wrong is the hard part.
Ultimately the only one who can make that determination is ourselves. We either believe in what we personally think is right or we believe what we believe others have show us to be right or we use logic or we use faith or we use some other method, but it is a method that, ultimately it is each individual who chooses.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: Ok, ok, I was just being a snot. I’m not really serious.
Although, I do think some people do seek to be a law unto themselves, consider themselves above the law, and accept only those beliefs that allow them to do what they want. Amoral is what it is called, I guess.
But I don’t think you meant it that way at all. I can understand where a person looks at all the nonsense being put forth by preachers of various disciplines, and just wants to find something that makes some sense.
There is certainly a lot to be said for that approach.
Actually, I have been trying to solve the problem of combining anarchism with facism to create the first fascist-anarchist state. I think the Mafia is probably about the closest example.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:The egotheist, as I understand it, is saying only that there are no absolute truths about the existence and nature of God.
The definition suminonA provided does not make that distinction. It seems to me that belief in the divine is one example among many that could fall under this claim.
EDIT - been rereading the thread. It seems like the main difference is that the egotheist is more wary about the transmission of beliefs.
Yes, the definition of egotheism does not make a distinction between the beliefs in a deity and other beliefs. It simply states that every individual has the ritght to make the choices. And the thing about “transmission” is also right, knowing that it doesn’t mean “no sharing”, but “no imposing”.
The 3 questions that I proposed in the first post are the base of the debate about the eventual “implementation of egotheism”.
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:There is no logical "proof" that God exists. There is also no logical "proof" that any given cup exists.
Some philosophers have argued, quite well, that being able to point at the cup and say, "this exists" is sufficient proof that the cup exists. Also, I have a clear concept of what it would be like for deity X not to exist when I speak of X. I do NOT have a clear concept of what it would be like if the cup I were drinking from now were not to exist.
Concerning the last sentence, I think it is quite simple. If the cup you are drinking from now were not to exist, you couldn’t be drinking from it. You would be either using another cup, or spilling the liquid all over you. What is not clear about that?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Doesn't justifying egotheism disqualify you from being an egotheist?
Very good point. If you look carefully at the definition, egotheism doesn’t stipulate WHAT to believe, but rather HOW TO FORM your beliefs (it says specifically that every person has the right to choose his/hers beliefs). So if the system of beliefs is the issue, egotheism is a “meta-issue”. It’s on one “level” up. Justifying egotheism is an epistemological matter.
So, when I proposed the first question:
quote:1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs?
I meant: is the egotheism a valid starting point for building a system of beliefs? (I agree that my formulation was somehow “misleading”, but it was unintentional. Having this discussion is precisely useful for clarifying the concepts )
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Again, the CGK part should be defined as the really unbiased, clear, logically supported part of Human Knowledge. So as far as I understand, we really are arguing about the “stuff outside CGK”.
No, it sounds like what we are really arguing about is what is to be considered "unbiased, clear, and logically supported". You are simply using the concept of a "CGK" as a catch-all to include everything and anything that you think we need to convince people to believe.
Right, when we define “stuff outside CGK” we are also defining (indirectly) “stuff inside CGK”. And that is because we are searching for a “way to draw the line” between them. The concept of CGK is my way of approaching the 3rd question, the one about “education”. I don’t pretend to define (by myself) the LIST of things/ideas/beliefs to include into CGK. I came with some examples (Science, laws of conduct in society). This debate is meant to help us come closer to the “building” of the CGK list
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Your definition of the CGK makes it into a subjective thing. What is "clear"?
Well, if you say that then you’re saying that “every human thing” is subjective. For me, the definition of a cup is clear, the definition of a deity isn’t clear. The rest of this post will make this distinction more clear. Hold on.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If I think that my belief in God's existence is clear, logically supported, and unbiased then why doesn't that make it part of the CGK?
quote:What you think about <damnation>, <fate>, and some particular <religion> is definitely not CGK.
Why not?
You admitted yourself in your last post that it's up to me to decide if my conclusions about religion are on the same level of rationality as my beliefs about the existence of the cup. If I can do that, and if I consider Christianity to be clear and totally logically proven, why can't I consider my belief in that religion to be part of the CGK? And thus why can't I be an Egotheist who also happens to force my religion down the throats of others (on the grounds that it is clear, unbiased, and logicall supported)? Given the way that you are using the "CGK" as a catch-all for anything you want to be considered certain fact, I see no reason why that would not be possible for those who'd place religion in the CGK, along with the existence of cups and the danger of drinking poison.
To answer those questions I’ll use the (over)simplified example of a “human society” formed by an uneducated person (myself), an (honest) Muslim, an (honest) Christian and an (honest) atheist. The honest part is rather important, because if biased thinking is involved in every single matter, then nothing is achievable in common. (Note: biased thinking in religion is a matter of definition IMO, so I can’t “require” unbiased religious thinking.)
So, I want to learn about the existence of cups. I meet with the rest of the society and talk about it. We define some properties of the cup (shape, colour, composition etc) and we take turns in testing it. (I suppose we use the same language, so “round” for me is also “round” for the others.) I see no way to get to different conclusions about the existence of a given cup. If I have a cup in my hand, and I share my knowledge about its properties, the others can see (i.e. conclude) for themselves if the cup I’m describing is “real” or not. So if the way of deciding about the existence of a cup is agreed by “all the society” then we include it in the CGK. Note: If I decide that touching, smelling, tasting and any other testing is NOT enough for me to decide that a given cup really exists, nobody can (nor should) force me to believe otherwise. (They might call me “crazy” and they might be right, but for me it wouldn’t make any difference).
Next, I want to learn about drinking (marked) poisons. I’ve never heard of a poison before, so for me it is a liquid like any others (I’ve already learned about the gaseous/liquid/solid states of matter). The honest part of the society would share with me their knowledge (scientific studies, personal experience etc) about poisons, so I’ll be warned that drinking it might result in sickness/death. (If any of the members of the society is dishonest and wants to se me dead, the resulting advice would obviously be biased). If I decide to trust the others, I might choose to believe them in this matter and I won’t drink the poison. Even more, I might learn some ways to detect (unmarked) poisons, so I’d be able to avoid poisoning in the future (I already assumed that getting sick/dead because of a poison is a “bad” thing, and that “judgement” is included into the CGK). Note: If I learn that drinking poisons might result in death, and learn how to detect poisons, and also believe that dying is the best for me, then my choice is personal and no one could (nor should) stop me from drinking poison.
Next, I want to learn about religion. The Muslim would present me a whole history and a list of known prophets, a lot of holy writings, the conclusions that Muslims got from it concerning morale, sin, divinity and so on. The Christian would present me a whole history and a list of known (yet different) prophets, a lot of (but different) holy writings, the (somewhat different) conclusions that Christians got from it concerning morale, sin, divinity and so on. The atheist would tell me that there is no deity, and that morale, sin and the idea of divinity are constructs of the human society, and even without the existence of a deity, a person/society can still follow moral laws, and be a good person. And also, from the history books I learn that there are/were many more different religions, each with its characteristics, teachings, conclusions and all that. Therefore, I have the choice to make. What religion is the “true” one? Nobody in the society around me agrees on the matter. So I decide NOT to include any of them into CGK. Note: I might learn about the other religions and decide to build one of my own (either a “combination” of the existing ones, either something completely original). It will be as true as all the others, meaning that is true for me, the same way the others hold true their own religion.
Remember, the first letter of CGK stands for “common”.
If this doesn’t answers clearly enough your questions please say so and I’ll come back with “more details”.
A.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:If the cup you are drinking from now were not to exist, you couldn’t be drinking from it. You would be either using another cup, or spilling the liquid all over you. What is not clear about that?
I think you misunderstand. I think the cup exists, and the cup exists. I don't have a clear conception of what it would be like for me to think the cup exists, act as if the cup exists, but not have the cup actually exists.
I do have a clear concept of what the world would be like regarding a god who is thought to exist, but does not actually exist. That world would be exactly like this one.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I think you misunderstand. I think the cup exists, and the cup exists. I don't have a clear conception of what it would be like for me to think the cup exists, act as if the cup exists, but not have the cup actually exists.
How could you think the cup exists, if it actually didn’t? Can’t you make the difference? As more than once was said on this thread, a thing either exists or it doesn’t. If we have a way of knowing (i.e. deciding) if a thing really exists, then there is no doubt. But ultimately it's a personal choice when it comes to “accepting evidence”.
I am sure if a given cup exists or not. I’m not sure if a given deity does. In the second case I choose to believe that the deities described by others don’t actually exist, mainly because it won’t affect me in the least if they do (again, that’s the atheistic part of my self-built system of beliefs, a system build starting with egotheism).
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: My problem with this debate:
All religions are egotheism.
You can call egotheism a “religion” inasmuch the system of beliefs built on it contains religious beliefs. This means that not all egotheists have to be religious. If I might say so, the “pure” egotheistical view about religion is something like: “There are many (different!) religions in the world. Each and every one of the individuals might (or not) subscribe to one (or more) religions. And any particular religious view I might have, it’s mine, and I can share it with the others, but I’m not going to impose it onto them.”
So, egotheism is not in ITSELF incompatible with religion, nor equivalent to it. One can be an egotheist and a Muslim. Or an egotheist and a Christian. Or an egotheist and a Buddhist.(Disclaimer: I say that with my limited knowledge about those religions!) And definitely one can be an egotheist and an atheist simultaneously.
But let’s take an example (it is a hypothetical because I don’t know what is the case about this particular deity): If someone believes in the Christian God, and also believes that this God commanded that all non-believers should be converted to the Christian religion, than that person can’t be an egotheist. Forced conversion (and obviously religious indoctrination) is against the very point of EGOTHEISM.
Important NOTE: I’ve used the term “EGOTHEISM” as a starter for this topic (as opposed to … “EGOSOPHISM”) because the concept I’m talking about tries to address (even if indirectly) the religious paradox of those many “unique and true”- thus reciprocally exclusive - deities. There is CGK (common ground knowledge) that we still have to define (in common!), but once that is solved (I see that as an easier task than searching for a “ultimate deity” accepted by all), we are free to add whatever religious beliefs we want to it, at a personal level.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The question remains, who's ego will you follow--your own, or that of a given religious leader.
Again, good point. Many individuals consider a given religious leader as a well informed person, a trustworthy one, and so, why bother learn and judge and take the responsibility of a choice in religious matters (and sometimes not only in those matters), when it is quite a lot easier (not saying that they are “lazy”, I’m mainly talking about assuming the responsibility) to follow their “divinely inspired word”? Egotheism states that you’re free to choose. Trust yourself or some other person? You take responsibility of your own decisions, or take responsibility of the fact that you let another person make those decisions for you?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe that the secret to understanding and defending egotheism is not by saying that they believe that all beliefs are equally right, but that they believe that all beliefs are unequally wrong.
No, it is not “better” to put it that way. Acknowledging that every personal choice (particularly in the realm of religion) is equally right (at a personal level) offers the possibility not to destroy the reasons those persons needed the religious beliefs in the first place. If you say that all beliefs are equally wrong, you’re making a negative judgement that cannot be proven anyways.
quote:Determining where they are wrong is the hard part.
If you admit that they are RIGHT, you don’t need to prove anything about it. Why engage in a battle you know it is hard AND impossible to win?
Actually this recalls me a “ZEN-ish” joke:
- Master, I’ve been talking with a friend of mine who told me that there is an omnipotent, undetectable deity that watches over us all, and judges us continuously, and in the end it will rettribute or punish us according to some rules. - Yes, your friend is right. - But them I’ve met an atheist who told me that there is no deity, especially not an omnipotent and undetectable deity watching and judging and so on. - Yes, your second friend is also right. - Wait, they cannot be right at the same time, this deity cannot exist and not exist at once! - Yes, you are also right! [/joke]
Reading this joke as an egotheist, I cannot but completely agree with the Master. The friends are right at a personal (religious beliefs) level, and the “student” is right on a logical level. But as they relate to different kinds of “problems” (i.e. realms) they are not incompatible. Yet, funny is funny.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Ultimately the only one who can make that determination is ourselves. We either believe in what we personally think is right or we believe what we believe others have show us to be right or we use logic or we use faith or we use some other method, but it is a method that, ultimately it is each individual who chooses.
Here we agree completely
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Therefore, I have the choice to make. What religion is the “true” one? Nobody in the society around me agrees on the matter. So I decide NOT to include any of them into CGK.
But most people in society DO agree on religious issues. Assuming you live in America, most people believe that God eixsts, for one thing. Only a minority does not. Isn't that enough to consider it part of "commonly" accepted knowlege?
Or do you need ALL people to agree on it? If so, then you can't include "Drinking the poison is a bad idea" as part of the CGK, because there is at least one person who does not believe the drink is poison. He believes it is magic water that will send you to heaven, and that you should drink it.
Other things that not everyone accepts as true: Murdering, raping, or assaulting people is wrong Freedom of religion is a good thing. The world is round Evolution occurred The Bird Flu is a potential danger to us Global Warming is real The Holocaust happened Black people are not inherently better or worse than white people
It seems to me that the Egotheist could not teach that any of these are true. For instance, he would have to suggest that everyone decide for themselves whether or not the Holocaust happened, because not everyone agrees on it. In the age of segregation, an Egotheist could not have told people they are wrong to believe blacks are inferior to whites. And an egotheist in China could never protest the lack of religious freedom there, because that would be in effect telling other people what to believe, on issues that very much have no commonly accepted answer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Common knowledge and common beliefs are two different things, Tres.
I would think common knowledge would include, not what most people believe, but instead what most people believe on the basis of reliable, communicable evidence.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tresopax, before answering to that, I think some more “structural definitions” would be useful:
Let’s “divide” the Ground of Knowledge into 4 parts:
1) Common Ground Knowledge [CGK]– the part that contains the most widely accepted as “true” knowledge ---> the “clear, unbiased, logically provable” knowledge. Scientific facts, such as “The Sun is a star and Earth is a planet orbiting around it in a system of reference related to the Sun” are easy to integrate here. (note: Those that are “very strong beliefs”, supported by (scientific) theory and evidence, they may be called “facts”, as long as a better definition is not workable. This is knowledge about which “democratic referendum” is irrelevant. Gravity “follows” its laws (affecting everybody) whether people like it or not.)
2) Regional Ground Knowledge [RGK] – the “rules of the society one lives in” ---> typically the “secular law” of the country/region where one lives. Those are defined in each region, and called simply “laws”. Typically the Tribunals (i.e. Courts of Law) judge cases by these laws. This part is usually submitted to “referendum”, except for the cases when it is not (tyrannies, dictatorships and the like)
3) Family Ground Knowledge [FGK] – the rules accepted at the level of one’s family or circle of friends for example ---> “rules” like: “When eating dinner as a family reunion, Grandpa should be seated closest to the TV set” or “When going out with friends, we share the bill”. These are either passed on, generation by generation, either agreed upon before each occasion. Two families living next to each other might have very different “rules” concerning any particular subject.
4) Personal Ground Knowledge [PGK]– the personal beliefs that do not need justification, nor exterior control. ---> When someone says: “I believe in a given deity and there is nothing you can do or say to change my belief”, or “I don’t need proof for my belief, It just is like that (for me)” then they are expressing typical knowledge that is purely based on personal construct.
Normally (IMO), CGK should be included into RGK, which should be included into the FGK, which in turn should be included into PGK. Yet by no means can overlapping (i.e. imperfect inclusions) and discordances be totally eliminated. So let’s not make a judgment based on what I think is “normal”, and accept from the start that those parts are in a quite complex relation. (We’ll try to define it as precisely as possible through debate.)
If we utopically try to define CGK as the part of knowledge/rules that absolutely everybody agrees upon, then we might drop it already, as it can be easily reduced to nothing. There could always be somebody to sustain (just for the sake of proving that “there is no CGK”) that we cannot trust our senses and/or experimental apparatus to hold the scientific laws as true. (For me, at least Science is irrefutably included into the CGK.)
As for the “moral rules”, they are usually integrated into RGK, nonetheless I strongly believe that a CGK “moral code” would be good to have/define. What do you thing about that?
Sure, there are specific moral rules at the FGK level, and as long as they don’t contradict the rules of the RGK, that family can live in the respective society.
What about PGK? Well, I’d say that as long you have a PGK belief that doesn’t affect the others, you are free to hold it above anything else. If you “secretly” believe that the Sun is some green cube and that your eyes are misleading you, then go ahead. Maybe there is some usefulness for it in your system of beliefs, I’m not the one to judge you for it. Note: This belief might still “affect” (in a negative manner) others if you speak to a bunch of uneducated young people and never bring into discussion that there are others who believe otherwise (namely the scientific facts). Not admitting that you might be wrong (and not accepting to consider all evidence available) is the first sign that you are NOT an egotheist. (That is because when you are “150% right”, you’ll want everybody to agree with you).
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
That said (see my previous post), let me “dissect” your last post:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But most people in society DO agree on religious issues. Assuming you live in America, most people believe that God eixsts, for one thing. Only a minority does not. Isn't that enough to consider it part of "commonly" accepted knowlege?
As I don’t want to see the definition of CGK perverted, I’d have to answer NO. At most, it could be part of the RGK. Still, If I were to live in USA, in a region where 99% of the population is Christian, and “secretly believe in Buddha”, thus being a Buddhist (at a PGK level), it wouldn’t affect the others, and I shouldn’t even have to keep it secret. It is not morally (or otherwise) wrong (see the First Amendment of USA constitution – a RGK law) to believe what I want at a religious level. So in the end, making “the existence of God” a part of RGK would be quite irrelevant. So why should we? But as there are at least a few more continents that disagree with your (ptentially RGK) rule, it can’t be a CGK rule at all.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Or do you need ALL people to agree on it? If so, then you can't include "Drinking the poison is a bad idea" as part of the CGK, because there is at least one person who does not believe the drink is poison. He believes it is magic water that will send you to heaven, and that you should drink it.
You see, this (“He believes it is magic water that will send you to heaven, and that you should drink it.”) is typically a belief that AFFECTS others, especially if the person insists to share it as an ("unbiased") advice. If it is PGK for him and acts on it without affecting others, then it’s quite OK, as far as I’m concerned.
For those who believe that their life (and of others) is worth nothing, or that they “win” more in death than otherwise, any warning like “High voltage – risk of death by electrocution!” are laughing jokes. Yet there are those who believe that is worth avoiding death by electrocution, so the HONEST thing to do is to put on the warning in a visible manner and let people choose for themselves.
To sum up: “Drinking poison is a bad idea” might not qualify for CGK, but “Drinking poison might lead to death” surely does, doesn’t it?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Other things that not everyone accepts as true: 1)Murdering, raping, or assaulting people is wrong 2)Freedom of religion is a good thing. 3)The world is round 4)Evolution occurred 5)The Bird Flu is a potential danger to us 6)Global Warming is real 7)The Holocaust happened 8)Black people are not inherently better or worse than white people. It seems to me that the Egotheist could not teach that any of these are true. [note: numbers were inserted for easier reference.]
#1 is a RGK in most of the “civilized” parts of the world; therefore I’d include it into CGK. (Because I like to live in a civilized society where #1 is at least RGK) #2 is a basic premise for egotheism. Those that don’t accept that, should not be discussing any CGK (as it is a concept related to egotheism) #3 is scientific fact. Anybody can hold that as false into their PGK if they want (remember the “clause” about don’t effecting the others in a negative manner) #4 That is not strictly speaking “scientific fact” but at least “Evolution is a sustainable theory for the state of species today” should make it into CGK. Also, “There are scientist that sustain ID as an alternative to evolution” should be included into CGK. #5 As there are already cases of human infection, and biologists can study it scientifically, the “The disease X presents a potential danger” is definitely acceptable into CGK. (See the poison example.) #6 “There exists a theory of Global Warming” is a fact. If it is right or not, it depends on what that theory asserts and what “evidence” there is for it. (btw, “Global Warning is real” should not be included into CGK before it is demonstrated scientifically) #7 That is an “historical fact” (as much as any historical fact is) as long as there is evidence for it, historical or otherwise. History is useful as a learning vehicle (i.e. it adds to “present experience”). Every ignored fact in history (usually what the winners writing it leave out) is useless. Every acknowledged fact in history is a potential lesson for the future. #8 Another “belief” that (when negated) STRONGLY affects others (like any other discriminatory belief). It (the negative form) shouldn’t have, at any rate, JUSTIFIED the enslavement during segregation. Another potential lesson in history. There might be today regions where #8 is not RGK, but again, like in the case of #1, I’d like to see it into CGK.
quote: For instance, he would have to suggest that everyone decide for themselves whether or not the Holocaust happened, because not everyone agrees on it.
An egotheist would suggest deciding what kind of proof do you need for believing that any certain historical event ever happened.
quote: In the age of segregation, an Egotheist could not have told people they are wrong to believe blacks are inferior to whites.
People could have believed that at most on a PGK level. Yet, as I sayd before, A PGK belief would never be enough to justify harming other individuals. And when presented with the “argument”: “blacks are not individuals, but some equivalent of animals” then science should (have) address(ed) that matter. [Segregation was thus possible, not only because science developed “slowly”, but because IMO other PGK (religious in nature) was blocking it]
quote: And an egotheist in China could never protest the lack of religious freedom there, because that would be in effect telling other people what to believe, on issues that very much have no commonly accepted answer.
I don’t see how “defending religious freedom” equals “telling other people what to believe”. To believe that you are free to learn the available data on a subject before making a decision on that subject is not at all a religious belief, is it? (Again, I say it is an epistemological matter.)
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
There are many distinctions being made here, but the whole issue still boils down to the same thing: How is it not extremely immoral to allow someone to suffer eternal damnation simply because your belief that he will suffer it does not fit into whatever you decide to define as the "CGK"?
Even if you could find no evidence to prove that something is poison, even if everyone in the world disagreed with you, and even if the death-inducing effects of a drink were NOT part of the CGK, I still don't see how you could in good conscience let your friend drink that thing that you nevertheless believe is poison. That's essentially what the wrong religious beliefs can seem like to some religious individuals - a sort of spiritual poison that you cannot prove is poison, and that not everyone else realizes is poison, but yet that that particular religious individual believes can seriously damage one's spiritual well-being nonetheless.
Consider a cult. Would an egotheist let his friends join bizarre cults that might ruin their lives?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tresopax, we are still "too far away" to get "over the wall" between our reciprocal views in one single “jump”.
So I have a question for you: Do you agree that any person (strong/educated enough) has ultimately the responsibility of his/her own choices?
I’m inserting the “strong/educated enough” part because: Suppose I have a 3 year old daughter. I’ll keep her hand while crossing the street, I’ll even help her tie her shoelaces, but there will come a time when she will HAVE TO do those things by herself. She will eventually (in a few years) learn the rules about the traffic lights on the street, and she will have strong enough arms to tie a strong knot (and master the necessary know-how ). Starting that point, it is her responsibility to tie her shoelaces, and observe the traffic lights when crossing the street. Do you agree abut that?
A.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe that the secret to understanding and defending egotheism is not by saying that they believe that all beliefs are equally right, but that they believe that all beliefs are unequally wrong.
No, it is not “better” to put it that way. Acknowledging that every personal choice (particularly in the realm of religion) is equally right (at a personal level) offers the possibility not to destroy the reasons those persons needed the religious beliefs in the first place.
This is flawed thinking either way you look at it. For every "belief" one person has, there's at least one person out there who thinks differently. Somebody is wrong. There's either a god or there isn't. Homosexuality is either genetic or it isn't. Bush is either a liar or mentally retarded . To believe everyone's beliefs or choices could be right (even "on a personal level" as you put it) is not only a bit naive, it defies logic.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
First of all, I apologize that my contributions to this thread are so sporatic. The topic interests me, but I don't have much free time to read and analize everything. Bear with me if I repeat something already said.
Now, I must admit I don't really like this term "egotheism".
Why not make it simple:
Forget about whether or not someone else's beliefs are right. Don't let someone else's beliefs influence your own (that's called blind faith, and that's just dangerous). Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying don't listen to what other people have to say. An open mind is important. But your beliefs should be based on your own research/knowledge/experience (that part sound familiar?).
And most importantly, these beliefs of yours should be able to stand under repeated scrutiny by you, your family, your friends, and your enemies. If you can't question the validity of the very core of your beliefs, then you can't truly "believe" them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There are many distinctions being made here, but the whole issue still boils down to the same thing: How is it not extremely immoral to allow someone to suffer eternal damnation simply because your belief that he will suffer it does not fit into whatever you decide to define as the "CGK"?
This brings up an interesting issue for those who believe in grace-based salvation.
What if you could brainwash people into sincerely believing in God? Would you have a moral obligation to do this, given that it would save their immortal souls?
Or would it save them? Does God just want us to believe in him, or does he want us to believe for the right reasons?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:What if you could brainwash people into sincerely believing in God? Would you have a moral obligation to do this, given that it would save their immortal souls?
Then their belief, by definition, would not be "sincere." This is quite possibly my biggest problem with an increasing number of so-called Christians today. They don't have a clue why they believe.
Let's look at it this way. Human beings, whether through God or evolution, were given free will, comprehension, intelligence - whatever you want to call it. It is this distinction that makes us not just the top of the food chain, but different from any other species in known existence, especially from a religious perspective, as it is this intentionally given gift from God that allows devotion to Him to be truly sincere.
On a different note, what exactly are the "right" reasons to believe in God? We don't know. We can't know. All we really have is guesses, which is one of my many many qualms with any religion in the first place. How can anyone possibly believe - in anything - so readily, so blindly. The ironic thing is this behavior is completely unacceptable in any other situation.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: This is flawed thinking either way you look at it. For every "belief" one person has, there's at least one person out there who thinks differently. Somebody is wrong. There's either a god or there isn't. Homosexuality is either genetic or it isn't. Bush is either a liar or mentally retarded . To believe everyone's beliefs or choices could be right (even "on a personal level" as you put it) is not only a bit naive, it defies logic.
rollainm, as was said here before, Logic is (or should be) part of CGK. I completely agree that logically speaking, someone is always “wrong” (especially when it comes to the “existence” of something). But you are mixing levels that IMO have nothing to do with each other. 1) The existence of any given deity is one level, and has to do with spirituality and personal belief (I say it should be included into PGK). The fact that the Buddhist’s belief in Buddha is equally justified (for the Buddhist) as it is for a Muslim the belief in Allah (for the Muslim) makes this matter to fall outside CGK. 2) The genetic source of Homosexuality is a scientific matter (entirely another level), and as long as there are no sufficient proofs to one conclusion or the other, there is no justification to include into CGK either the affirmative, or the negative. If you include one of them in your PGK without prior conclusive results of research, than it should remain just that: a PGK belief. 3) The judgment of the character of any given person should be by default a PGK matter. What you think about others mental sanity is based on your system of beliefs (the one you’ve chosen to follow, either an original one, or otherwise a copy). The fact that mental insanity can be “faked” might be a “CGK warning”. You see the behavior and decide what it means. And of course, if you believe that a given person’s insanity might affect in a negative manner the (life of) others (like letting one deciding the war politics of a powerful country) you might decide to have the moral obligation to warn the others (I would). But if the others believe you or not, is not your decision to make.
So let’s set a thing straight: When the egotheist says that “everyone has the right to form a personal system of beliefs”, it DOESN’T VALIDATE that system as the BEST or THE RIGHTEST for everyone. Saying THAT, would defy - as you (and not only you, but others and myself included) agree - the basic laws of LOGIC. Therefore, the egotheist says that in matters outside the CGK (which has to be, by definition, COMMON to all) and outside the RGK (which has to be, by definition agreed by a majority in the case of a democratcy) and outside the FGK (which is decided "AD HOC"), outside all those, the value of each judgment is personal (i.e. is PGK). BUT, that DOESN’T ELIMINATE, at any rate, THE RESPONSIBILITY (at any of the levels) of each choice/action that is a byproduct of your beliefs.
If you live in a society where killing people is considered a crime (a RGK law) and you have a personal belief that “killing is ok”, that’s right for you (I mean it might have some justification, or not, as a PGK belief) but if you act according to it (i.e. kill someone) you HAVE TO BE PUNISHED according to the RGK law. If you don’t want to live by the RGK law, you have to leave the region where that law applies. On a deserted island, where all the people agree with your PGK about killing, it might be fun for you to live.
A.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: But you are mixing levels that IMO have nothing to do with each other.
Categorize it however you will, to disregard logic so you can blindly believe something guilt free is just plain ignorant.
quote: 1) The existence of any given deity is one level, and has to do with spirituality and personal belief (I say it should be included into PGK). The fact that the Buddhist’s belief in Buddha is equally justified (for the Buddhist) as it is for a Muslim the belief in Allah (for the Muslim) makes this matter to fall outside CGK. 2) The genetic source of Homosexuality is a scientific matter (entirely another level), and as long as there are no sufficient proofs to one conclusion or the other, there is no justification to include into CGK either the affirmative, or the negative. If you include one of them in your PGK without prior conclusive results of research, than it should remain just that: a PGK belief.
Fine. I agree with 99% of these statements. But the FACT still remains that these things either exist or they don't. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal beliefs are or what they mean on a personal level. They are either right or they are wrong. Period. You cannot just disregard logic. Logic and reasoning go hand in hand with any decision that is not solely emotionally driven.
quote: 3) The judgment of the character of any given person should be by default a PGK matter. What you think about others mental sanity is based on your system of beliefs (the one you’ve chosen to follow, either an original one, or otherwise a copy). The fact that mental insanity can be “faked” might be a “CGK warning”. You see the behavior and decide what it means. And of course, if you believe that a given person’s insanity might affect in a negative manner the (life of) others (like letting one deciding the war politics of a powerful country) you might decide to have the moral obligation to warn the others (I would). But if the others believe you or not, is not your decision to make.
Wow...yeah...I really thought the rofl smiley was enough to signify the humor here. I was jokingly implying that Bush's statements and decisions can only be that of a liar or a person who is mentally deficient. Obviously, this is just an exaggeration of my opinions of the man.
What I'm getting at here is that egotheism is not a valid system of beliefs. It's a play on words. It's self justification based on circular reasoning.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Categorize it however you will, to disregard logic so you can blindly believe something guilt free is just plain ignorant.
Could you be so kind as to explain with arguments this assertion? What part of egotheism disregards logic? Do you think that the fact that egotheism has nothing against the Buddhist believing in Buddha “guilt free” and at the same time the Muslim believe in Allah “guilt free” (and of course, the atheist believe in none “guilt free”) is “plain ignorant”?
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But the FACT still remains that these things either exist or they don't. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal beliefs are or what they mean on a personal level. They are either right or they are wrong. Period. You cannot just disregard logic. Logic and reasoning go hand in hand with any decision that is not solely emotionally driven.
Again, could you be so kind as to explain with arguments this assertion? What part of egotheism disregards logic?
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Wow...yeah...I really thought the rofl smiley was enough to signify the humor here. I was jokingly implying that Bush's statements and decisions can only be that of a liar or a person who is mentally deficient. Obviously, this is just an exaggeration of my opinions of the man.
Wow… yeah … I was actually talking about Hitler.
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: What I'm getting at here is that egotheism is not a valid system of beliefs.
You know, you’re the first to address directly one of the 3 questions that I proposed in the initial post. Thank you. (You are entitled to believe that, but unfortunately the “objections” that you’ve raised until now do not convince me of the “invalidity”. I accept that I might be wrong, but I won’t accept anything without rational justification).
quote:It's a play on words.
Quite true, it comes from: “build your own religion!”
quote:It's self justification based on circular reasoning.
I honestly don’t see what you are talking about. I have addressed all your objections, but you keep coming back with “egotheism disregards logic”. Can you prove that logically? I have explained the “one given deity can either exist or not” issue several times until now. Please point me to the flaw of my reasoning.
A.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
First of all, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I'm not attacking. I'm sorry if I come off that way. My "Wow...yeah" was not an implication that you're stupid for taking my comment seriously. It was just an acknowledgement of the misunderstanding.
quote: Wow… yeah … I was actually talking about Hitler.
Yeah, but it was in response to my silly Bush comment. I felt it was unnecessary for you to waste your time explaining anything here. But you did, and that's fine. No harm done.
quote: Could you be so kind as to explain with arguments this assertion? What part of egotheism disregards logic?
This part:
quote: Egotheism specifically maintains that each and every person is RIGHT about his/hers beliefs.
This is really the only problem I have with your definition of egotheism. No matter how you word this, no matter how many levels of knowledge you define, it's just not true. A person can believe he's right, but that doesn't make him so, not even "for himself." I can believe two plus two is five all day long. But I'd be wrong, not right. Now if all you mean by your statement is that, as an egotheist, you should respect everyone else's beliefs as genuinely theirs, then I have no problem with that. Egotheism is logical at its core. Why throw it out here? When it comes to another's beliefs, what's wrong with just leaving it at this:
quote: "Not necessarily transmissible to others" actually stands for the concept of imperfect communication. We cannot expect to understand perfectly a complex message (e.g. a system of beliefs) of another person. But it is not even necessary. Each and every one of us has a sum of experiences accumulated through education, dreams, TV etc or simply put, through life. That should be the base of the system of beliefs, and NOT the perfect copy of some other person’s system. When you want to impose your POV upon other person, you dismiss his/hers right to form a personal opinion. (that’s against Egotheism!) Share the knowledge that you have, don’t say that you have exhaustive knowledge on a subject if it’s not the case and let “the student” make the choice about it.
I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So I have a question for you: Do you agree that any person (strong/educated enough) has ultimately the responsibility of his/her own choices?
Yes, I do. But I believe other people may ALSO have responsibility for those choices too. Two people can have responsibility for the same thing.
For instance, it may be your daughter's responsibility to observe traffic lights when crossing the street. However, it is ALSO your responsibility to make sure she obeys traffic lights. In fact, if she was in danger of being hit by a car, I'd say it was ALSO any passerby's responsibility to make sure she obeys traffic lights enough to avoid getting hurt. She may have the ultimate responsibility for her choices, but that doesn't mean other people can just look the other way when she makes dangerous mistakes. They have a moral duty to at least make an effort to help her avoid serious harm.
Similarly, you are ultimately responsible for choosing the right beliefs. But that doesn't mean I should look the other way if you choose dangerously wrong beliefs. I also have a moral responsibility to help you, to a certain degree.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:How could you think the cup exists, if it actually didn’t? Can’t you make the difference? As more than once was said on this thread, a thing either exists or it doesn’t. If we have a way of knowing (i.e. deciding) if a thing really exists, then there is no doubt. But ultimately it's a personal choice when it comes to “accepting evidence”.
I am sure if a given cup exists or not. I’m not sure if a given deity does. In the second case I choose to believe that the deities described by others don’t actually exist, mainly because it won’t affect me in the least if they do (again, that’s the atheistic part of my self-built system of beliefs, a system build starting with egotheism).
You've essentially made my point for me. I was arguing (though, as I look back, I realize how unclear it was) that belief in a deity is very different from belief in something like a cup, responding to a couple people who argued that it was the same (or at least decidedly similar).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I'd say it was ALSO any passerby's responsibility to make sure she obeys traffic lights enough to avoid getting hurt. She may have the ultimate responsibility for her choices, but that doesn't mean other people can just look the other way when she makes dangerous mistakes. They have a moral duty to at least make an effort to help her avoid serious harm.
Similarly, you are ultimately responsible for choosing the right beliefs. But that doesn't mean I should look the other way if you choose dangerously wrong beliefs. I also have a moral responsibility to help you, to a certain degree.
Where do you see this moral responsibility as ending? Basically, what I'm asking is how far out of my way I would be required to go to help a person. Obviously, I'd want to save the child that was drowning in front of me and, equally obviously, I can't help someone who has a problem I don't know about. But that's a huge spectrum. If I know that there's a genocide going on in Darfur, what are my responsibilities to those people?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
rollainm, after your last post I suspect that we actually do agree … [/seriously joking]
quote:Egotheism specifically maintains that each and every person is RIGHT about his/hers beliefs.
This is the problem? Ok. Look at it closer. You’ll see it is the most tautological part of egotheism! It says “…RIGHT about his/hers beliefs”. I mean, do you think that there is an honest person out there who strongly believes something he/she HOLDS AS TRUE, is actually FALSE? [TAUTOLOGY] If you think is true, it is true for you [/TAUTOLOGY] Can you be wrong? Certainly. But then there is YOUR way of dealing with it: a) you accept that you might be wrong about your belief, and try to learn more, so you could make a more informed CHOICE (of belief) in the matter OR b) you don’t accept that you might be wrong, based on the evidence that you already have, and the subject is closed (for you). All the others that don't agree with you are wrong (in your opinion).
Egotheism acknowledges that (when you are strong/educated enough) all choices are yours, together with their responsibility.
As for the issue about a specific political figure, don’t worry. I didn’t feel stupid at all. You made a comment (as a joke) about a specific person (you named that person). I addressed that comment without direct reference to a particular person (no name reference there), because I was considering the (valid) idea contained in your comment. I was talking about judging, warning and acknowledging the right of choice of each individual. I’m glad no harm was done
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:So I have a question for you: Do you agree that any person (strong/educated enough) has ultimately the responsibility of his/her own choices?
Yes, I do. But I believe other people may ALSO have responsibility for those choices too. Two people can have responsibility for the same thing.
For instance, it may be your daughter's responsibility to observe traffic lights when crossing the street. However, it is ALSO your responsibility to make sure she obeys traffic lights. In fact, if she was in danger of being hit by a car, I'd say it was ALSO any passerby's responsibility to make sure she obeys traffic lights enough to avoid getting hurt. She may have the ultimate responsibility for her choices, but that doesn't mean other people can just look the other way when she makes dangerous mistakes. They have a moral duty to at least make an effort to help her avoid serious harm.
Similarly, you are ultimately responsible for choosing the right beliefs. But that doesn't mean I should look the other way if you choose dangerously wrong beliefs. I also have a moral responsibility to help you, to a certain degree.
You know what? I have NO objection to what you said here. Can it be that we actually do agree?
Where I talk about “strong/educated enough” you talk about “have a moral responsibility to help you to a certain degree”. Isn’t it the same thing?
So I’d say that it all boils down to “what certain degree”? This is precisely why I’ve started this topic/debate. I’d like to see/learn the opinion of other people about that
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Having arrived to this point, I’d like to reiterate the questions from the starting post, add some more and give my (present) answers:
1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? Yes, I obviously think it is valid. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother to defend it.
2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? It is the age when one can take responsibility for his/hers beliefs/choices. When that person is strong/educated enough.
3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”? CGK, RGK and FGK.
4) Is CGK a valid concept (i.e. does it exist)? Yes, I hope it is. Without that, everything is so much more difficult …
5) What could we include into the CGK? Logic, for starters. Mathematics. Physics. Science in general. History (i.e. all available versions). And as much more as we can.
6) Could we include moral values into CGK? I’d like to see that happen. But they should definitely be part of RGK at least.
7) Should we include any particular religion into CGK? No. There is no reason for it. Moral values do exist outside religion, at least at a RGK level.
What say you?
A.
[edited for clarity]
[ May 28, 2006, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: [TAUTOLOGY] If you think is true, it is true for you [/TAUTOLOGY]
I'm not entirely sure you understand what tautology is.
From reference.com:
quote: tau·tol·o·gy
1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
My statement "Either there is a god or there isn't" is an example of tautology in the logical sense. I used it as an example of logic (synonimous with tautology), but it is otherwise a "needless repetition of the same sense in different words."
Commonly heard phrases such as "free gift" (by definition, a gift is something given freely), "PIN number" (personal identification number number), and "ATM machine" (automated teller machine machine?)are examples of tautology in the repetitive sense.
Your statement "If you think it is true, it is true for you" is not an example of tautology in either sense. "You think it is true" is not synonimous with "It is true for you."
Yes, I realize there is a way it can be. It requires you to define "truth" in a strictly subjective sense. But subjective truth isn't technically "right" or "true." It's just what you believe is "right" or "true." By definition, truth is objective. What is true or false is completely independent of what we think is true or false.
On a completely different note:
quote:5) What could we include into the CGK? Logic, for starters. Mathematics. Physics. Science in general. History (i.e. all available versions). And as much more as we can.
Can we really include science? Science, again by definition (I really am wearing out the dictionary tonight), is technically theoretical. So basically we're including a different system of beliefs entirely as "common ground knowledge."
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
rollainm, yes, I intended to use the term "tautology" by the dictionary definition. Thanks anyway for your examples. (btw, I don’t agree that "Either there is a god or there isn't" qualifies for tautology. There is no repetition here. It is simply a TRUISM. But hey, if TRUISM is a tautology, then so be it.)
Now, I see where our “incompatibility” of views comes from. You use TRUTH/RIGHT in the Platonic sense, of ABSOLUTE (objective) concepts. That’s ok, but I don’t think THAT actually has a correspondent in our reality. Therefore I use “truth/right” in the subjective way, so with that, “my” tautology goes by the definition
Please try to not to misinterpret the phrase above (“the subjective truth/right”). I completely agree that using Platonic concepts, there either is a God, or it doesn’t, and that “If God exists and I think it doesn’t, then I’m wrong (and vice-versa)”. But here is what it means for me “subjective truth/right":
The Platonic truth value of the proposition “God exists” is something that I cannot PROVE (neither for myself, or others). Therefore for me that is a matter of POSTULATE (or AXIOM).
Theists start their system of (religious) beliefs with the positive form of this postulate: “God exists” and therefore they found “proof” (otherwise called confirmation of an already formed opinion) of it everywhere. They are (and have the) RIGHT to do that. (Egoteism says it).
Atheists (or at least myself) start their (my) system of (religious) beliefs with the negative form of the proposition, as a postulate: “God does not exist”. In my case, I don’t need to “prove” this postulate (as it should be with all postulates) and when I find something that Science still doesn’t explain (the miracles, the “supernatural” etc) I don’t (can’t) attribute it to any divinity. I just accept that I don’t know (yet) the explanation and therefore go looking for the answers (if the question is important enough for me). I (and egotheism) say that I also have the RIGHT to do that.
The fact that Theists and Atheist cannot be RIGHT (as Platonic truth value) AT THE SAME TIME is Logical and I don’t (and never did) deny it. But DOES IT MATTER in the REAL world?
My favourite analogue for this is the Euclidian Geometry [EG] (the formal system). There is more than one postulate at the base of this system. There are 5. Euclid included the 5th postulate (something like: “By a point exterior to a line, there passes one, and only one, line parallel to the first one.”) And this last one is (i.e. was) the most “controversial”. The controversy was started because it was so “obviously true” that many mathematicians tried to deduce it from the first 4 postulates. They thought it was “superfluous” as a postulate and that it should be a Theorem (i.e. demonstrated). Do you know the rest of the “history”? The “obvious truth” (meaning that it was thought to be a Platonic truth in the matter) of the “parallel postulate” was not so “true”. There are other geometries, entirely consistent and USEFUL in the real world than EG –the one using the 5th postulate with “one and only one”. As the Generalized Theory of Relativity “showed”, the Cosmos is not built using EG. It (the EG) is a very useful approximation of the “space” at a small scale, but at larger scales, the approximations are too gross.
So who is RIGHT? Which one of the Geometry systems is THE TRUE one? EG (“there is one and only one parallel”), absolute geometry (no postulate #5!), hyperbolic geometry (“there is an infinite number of parallels”) or elliptic geometry (“there is no parallel”)?
Obviously, they CANNOT be ALL TRUE at the same time, right?
So Science doesn’t teach you “Euclidean Geometry” as being the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It presents you with all the knowledge, and you can choose the utility of each and every one for your purpose. Likewise, the different (religious) systems of beliefs, based on postulates like “The deity <insert name/properties here> exists” are RIGHT as long as they are consistent with themselves (and the postulates that stand at their bases). There is NO WAY to know which one is THE TRUE one, and therefore imposing one over the other is utter nonsense.
That is why IMO Science rightly deserves its place into CGK. That is why, IMO no particular religion “deserves” the label “the true one” in CGK.
Egotheism urges you to learn about religions, (and everything else) and then make your choice. As long as you are consistent with yourself, you are RIGHT (subjective value). And more: any system of beliefs SHOULD EVOLVE in time. But the “oscillations” are somewhat contrary to evolution. If today I believe “A”, then tomorrow I believe “not A” then the next day I believe “A” again and so on, depending on my particular “interest” each day, so I can “justify” anything I please, then I’m not EVOLVING. I’m being inconsistent and that is not A VALID system of beliefs. I have to make a choice, and take responsibility for it. I have the right to change that choice, if it is for the better. Inconsistency is not a “good” trait in any system.
And yes, the different “personal” systems of beliefs HAVE to be confronted with each other. As long as they have in common the CGK it’s perfect. As long as all those living in one particular region have the same RGK it’s perfect. (BTW, one can (i.e. should) know as many specific RGKs as possible). As long as all those living in the same “circle” have the same FGK is perfect. And as long as a PGK doesn’t affect in a negative manner the others, one can include there WHATEVER one likes.
And for those who defend the Platonic truth of the proposition "<insert specific deity name here> exists.", I have one question: Who are you to know better than I?
A.
[edited because of misreading the definition of tautology]
[ May 29, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: That’s ok, but I don’t think THAT actually has a correspondent in our reality.
Why not? All we can be sure of in this world, in this "reality", is the absolute. Everything else is just a guess that we form based on the absolute.
By the way, I find it a bit amusing that you and I seem to reach all the same conclusions despite our differing ways to get there.
As for including science in CGK, I see your point here. I was defining science a little too narrowly.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Why not? All we can be sure of in this world, in this "reality", is the absolute. Everything else is just a guess that we form based on the absolute.
I acknowledge the “existence” of the absolute (truth). It is “there”. But Egotheism is concerned with “here”. It is a (starting point of a) “system of beliefs” to be “implemented” into the real world. Our world.
You call “just guesses” what I call “knowledge and choices (taken together!!)”. Egotheism says that one should have as much knowledge as possible on a subject, before choosing the (personal) “truth” (i.e. subjective truth). As long as we cannot decide the Absolute Truth Value of any (practical) thing, why bother? I mean, the fact that “A” and “not A” cannot be simultaneously true (in “any” personal paradigm) is something we both agree (and I hope most of the world does). But you do realise that even our “logic” has its limitations. One word: Gödel.
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: By the way, I find it a bit amusing that you and I seem to reach all the same conclusions despite our differing ways to get there.
I’m very curious as what your way to reach these conclusions is. What premises are you using, what are “the steps” that you are taking? I think it would be interesting to lay it out “on paper” (or why not, e-mail).
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Where I talk about “strong/educated enough” you talk about “have a moral responsibility to help you to a certain degree”. Isn’t it the same thing?
No, you are suggesting that there is a point where someone is strong/educated enough to need NO help in coming to religious beliefs. But there is no such point. We ALWAYS have a degree of responsibility for attempting to prevent the people around us from holding dangerous beliefs, whether they are religious or not, no matter how old or educated they are, because everyone is capable of making big mistakes.
Other than that one more radical claim, egoism is just what everybody already does when it comes to beliefs. But why make a special exception for religious beliefs? Holding the wrong religious beliefs are potentially the MOST dangerous beliefs to be mistaken about, because they could presumably have effects on your eternal soul. Hence, if anything, those are the beliefs that we should be most concerned about making sure other people get right. Who cares if you have the wrong beliefs about whether the world is flat - that won't hurt you. But if you don't believe in God, that could (according to many) hurt you in an infinite way. Hence I have a greater responsibility to make sure you do believe in God, if I thought believing otherwise is so dangerous.
quote:And for those who defend the Platonic truth of the proposition "<insert specific deity name here> exists.", I have one question: Who are you to know better than I?
Well, who are you to know better than I in regards to science, logic, math, or any other topic?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: No, you are suggesting that there is a point where someone is strong/educated enough to need NO help in coming to religious beliefs. But there is no such point. We ALWAYS have a degree of responsibility for attempting to prevent the people around us from holding dangerous beliefs, whether they are religious or not, no matter how old or educated they are, because everyone is capable of making big mistakes.
Tresopax, please explain to me how can you defend this position, knowing that whatever you do, the teacher (any teacher) is ALSO A HUMAN being! How can you guarantee that there is a “perfect” (human!!) teacher? And if you say that “a teacher inspired by the holy spirit” (or something along those lines) is what I’m looking for, than the imperfection of that “inspired” human still enters the equation. What if the “teacher” got it all wrong? What if the teacher got almost everything right, but for a “minor” part? Why should I take that chance (believing a wrong teacher) rather that taking the chance to be wrong myself? In the end the RESPONSIBILITY is MINE!
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Holding the wrong religious beliefs are potentially the MOST dangerous beliefs to be mistaken about, because they could presumably have effects on your eternal soul.
I’d make that a CGK warning, no problem! Exactly as it is for any other potential “poison”.
But:
quote:Hence, if anything, those are the beliefs that we should be most concerned about making sure other people get right.
This is BIASED thinking, and that's precisely why Egotheism cannot accept it. The “making sure that other people get right” is not ok with egotheism. Egotheism says: "Just make sure that each person has a chance to get it right”.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Well, who are you to know better than I in regards to science, logic, math, or any other topic?
Well, that’s just it. I’m not saying that I know better (in any field). You say that you are (about your particular religion). And if the religious level is the most important, then that would be precisely the level I’d be most concerned to GET IT RIGHT myself!
Science doesn’t indoctrinate people. Just like in the Geometry System example, you are not forced to “believe” anything. You are supposed to get THE KNOWLEDGE (by education). You are presented with the facts and you use them whatever you please (for you). When you relate with other people, you have to agree on common things. Such as CGK, RGK and FGK. But as long as PGK goes, it is completely, utterly and rightly YOURS.
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, please explain to me how can you defend this position, knowing that whatever you do, the teacher (any teacher) is ALSO A HUMAN being! How can you guarantee that there is a “perfect” (human!!) teacher? And if you say that “a teacher inspired by the holy spirit” (or something along those lines) is what I’m looking for, than the imperfection of that “inspired” human still enters the equation. What if the “teacher” got it all wrong? What if the teacher got almost everything right, but for a “minor” part? Why should I take that chance (believing a wrong teacher) rather that taking the chance to be wrong myself? In the end the RESPONSIBILITY is MINE!
There are no perfect human teachers. If the teacher gets it wrong, then he or she gets it wrong. So what? That doesn't mean he has no responsibility to try to teach what he thinks is right. This is true for all subjects, including science and logic, because there are no fields of knowledge in which there exists perfect teachers. Ultimately, the responsibility to decide whether or not to accept the teachings of the teacher is yours, as you said. But that doesn't mean the teacher has any less of a responsibility to teach it to you. Not all people are going to accept spiritual help - most will probably reject it, no matter how right you may be. That doesn't mean you have no duty to try.
You aren't hurting anyone by trying, even if you are imperfect. You could hurt them if they are wrong and they believe you, but you have to work on the assumption that your own beliefs are more likely true than false, and that they are better off with your help than without it. After all, if they do know more than you, they probably won't believe what you tell them anyway.
quote:The “making sure that other people get right” is not ok with egotheism. Egotheism says: "Just make sure that each person has a chance to get it right”.
This is why I've said Egotheism is immoral. It is shirking your moral responsibility if you let other people get it wrong, when you could have said something to help them. It is like looking the other way as someone gets mugged on the street. It is not enough to walk away thinking there is a "chance" they won't get hurt. You have a certain duty, when a high degree of danger is present (such as when an immortal soul is on the line), to do what you can to try to make sure they don't get hurt, to the extent that you can.
Egotheism, as you are defining it, could sentence someone to infinite suffering for eternity on the grounds that it is more important to not "indoctrinate" people than it is to help them spiritually.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tresopax, have you read this?
quote:“There are many (different!) religions in the world. Each and every one of the individuals might (or not) subscribe to one (or more) religions. And any particular religious view I might have, it’s mine, and I can share it with the others, but I’m not going to impose it onto them.”
Do you agree with it?
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That depends on what "impose" means.
I wouldn't kill or imprison people for believing something I don't believe, but I don't think there's many people in this country who would support something like that. However, knocking on doors, lecturing, teaching, and reaching out to nonbelievers are things that would be my duty if I thought their soul was in serious danger otherwise, and if I thought those things would help.
As a note, I'm not personally inclined to think religion is a thing that can be shared very easily, so I don't think those methods often work well. I don't normally try to bring it up in conversation and I certainly don't go door to door, because I don't think people are shown anything through that. However, there are plenty of religious individuals who disagree, and for them it is morally right for them to try to spread their religious views using methods within reason.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
“Imposing” is somewhere between “forcing” and “indoctrinating”.
Forcing means pressing, and can get to menacing with “bad consequences” for the “student”. Such extreme consequences are imprisoning or killing, and there was the “Holy” Inquisition… [just acknowledging history]. Indoctrinating means presenting to the “student” only one side “of the story”, refusing to hear (or withholding) other “testimonies”, especially those that conflict with the particular “view” presented. Totalitarian political systems (in today countries!) are good examples for that.
On the other side, I wouldn’t call presenting, informing, forwarding, sharing, teaching, lecturing, educating equivalents to “imposing”. Not by far. I wouldn’t even call “knocking on doors and reaching out to nonbelievers” equivalent to “imposing”. That’s just “aggressive sharing” and it is not necessarily “bad” (I mean good could come of it). It’s like saying: “Hey, nice toy you have. That is actually a grenade! Did you know that if you pull the ring out it will explode and produce serious damage on a radius of such and such?”
But, when the knocks on the door keep coming back after listening (or not) once to the “lesson” and after saying several times that I’m not interested in that kind of “lesson”, then I’d call that “a method outside reason”. Judging someone as being less worthy because of what that someone believes/knows, is not helping either. Ignorance is neither a “sin” or a "virtue". Teach, but don't make value judgements about the student. Making someone feel ashamed because that someone doesn’t know something (yet), or even for asking particular questions, is not helping in the least.
The question here is: what is the “strong/educated enough” limit? One has to “impose” to (i.e. force upon) a 3 year old a lot of “vital teachings”, because the lack of experience and perspective is obvious. But that changes over time.
One example comes to my mind: “the mother tongue”. Usually a child is taught the language (or more than just one at once!) of the region where that child grows up. Is it “indoctrination”? I wouldn’t say that. Knowing a language is vital for further communication. Yet knowing ONLY ONE language is limiting your possibility to communicate to people from other “regions”. Nobody is telling you: “Il faut apprendre seulement le français. C’est la langue parfaite. Ceux qui n’en parlent pas valent rien et donc de toute façon, ça vaut pas la peine de communiquer avec eux*.” – that would be “indoctrination”. You can learn at any time other languages, for your own benefit. Leaving OPEN the options is essential. That would be a first lesson of EGOTHEISM. Do you see where this is going? (try the analogy religion/language )
So, do you still consider egotheism “immoral” and the materialization of “utter selfishness”? If so, please point out exactly what part of its definition makes it so. Thank you.
A.
*(French for) "Learn only French. It is the perfect language. Those that do not speak it are worthless so there is no need/advantage in communicating with them anyways."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I’m very curious as what your way to reach these conclusions is. What premises are you using, what are “the steps” that you are taking? I think it would be interesting to lay it out “on paper” (or why not, e-mail).
Give me some time Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:On the other side, I wouldn’t call presenting, informing, forwarding, sharing, teaching, lecturing, educating equivalents to “imposing”. Not by far. I wouldn’t even call “knocking on doors and reaching out to nonbelievers” equivalent to “imposing”. That’s just “aggressive sharing” and it is not necessarily “bad” (I mean good could come of it). It’s like saying: “Hey, nice toy you have. That is actually a grenade! Did you know that if you pull the ring out it will explode and produce serious damage on a radius of such and such?”
I agree that informing, teaching, knocking on doors, etc., is not really imposing your religion on someone else. Yet in your original post, you suggest that the goal of Egotheism is "not at all 'convincing' the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is 'teh best/truest/worthiest'." Doesn't this imply that informing, teaching, knocking on doors, etc., is precisely the sort of thing an Egotheist could not do? It is because the Egotheist (according to your original definition) cannot actively teach others that his or her own particular religion is best that Egotheism would be immoral.
Now it sounds like you are making Egotheism into something else - something that almost everyone, at least in this country, already adheres to. You have included almost the entire realm of human beliefs in the CGK, RGK, etc., which Egotheistic principles don't apply to. And then in regards to the few religious questions that Egotheism does apply to, you are suggesting that the only thing that separates an Egotheist from a non-Egotheist is that an Egotheist wouldn't force those beliefs on someone else (meaning only adults who are strong/educated enough to not need to be forced). This eliminates all the moral problems I see with it, but it also waters Egotheism down into something that I don't think means anything more than respecting the freedom of religion - something that most of us already do.
Then my question is why do we need a new term like "Egotheism"? That sounds like a new alternative religion in itself, like it should be something different than what almost everyone already has been doing. Why not just say we are believers in the freedom of religion?
quote:The question here is: what is the “strong/educated enough” limit? One has to “impose” to (i.e. force upon) a 3 year old a lot of “vital teachings”, because the lack of experience and perspective is obvious. But that changes over time.
I would say nobody is EVER strong/educated enough to understand religious issues more than in an uncertain, child-like way. We human beings have too little information, we reason too fallibly, and the questions religion poses are too big for us to master religion in the way adults master language.
Although, really, one could extent that to almost all fields of knowledge. There are few things we understand completely and with certainty. In most cases, even adults muddle around on the faith that their personal beliefs will work best. We can't prove science, economics, history, or even most common sense, yet we act upon them anyway with a degree of faith. I think it would be foolish of us to reject help from others, for this reason, and immoral to refuse help on the grounds that adults shouldn't need help. We do need help in formulating the right beliefs, so we can thrive in an uncertain world. There is little harm in being helped or in being taught something, unless you choose to accept teachings blindly.
[ May 31, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yet in your original post, you suggest that the goal of Egotheism is "not at all 'convincing' the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is 'teh best/truest/worthiest'." Doesn't this imply that informing, teaching, knocking on doors, etc., is precisely the sort of thing an Egotheist could not do? It is because the Egotheist (according to your original definition) cannot actively teach others that his or her own particular religion is best that Egotheism would be immoral.
You are concerned with “what I might imply in the original post”, and dismiss all the rest of the thread, to come to your inflexible conclusion. Up to now I’ve tried to explain what I was trying to say in my original post, to “make it clear”. If whatever I say, you’ll go back to what “was implied in the original post” then maybe you cannot help me with this “problem”.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I would say nobody is EVER strong/educated enough to understand religious issues more than in an uncertain, child-like way. We human beings have too little information, we reason too fallibly, and the questions religion poses are too big for us to master religion in the way adults master language.
Again, if nobody is EVER strong/educated enough to understand religious issues more than in an uncertain, child-like way, then how can you ever pretend to be able to REALLY HELP me?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Although, really, one could extent that to almost all fields of knowledge. There are few things we understand completely and with certainty. In most cases, even adults muddle around on the faith that their personal beliefs will work best. We can't prove science, economics, history, or even most common sense, yet we act upon them anyway with a degree of faith. I think it would be foolish of us to reject help from others, for this reason, and immoral to refuse help on the grounds that adults shouldn't need help. We do need help in formulating the right beliefs, so we can thrive in an uncertain world. There is little harm in being helped or in being taught something, unless you choose to accept teachings blindly.
One more time: EGOTHEISM is 100% agreeing to that.
But let’s get back to the issue here:
Do you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to “actively” teach religion without indoctrinating the students? I think it is possible. That’s the assumption that I make, without it, there cannot be EGOTHEISM.
From the first posts in this thread, I’ve advocated over and over again teaching the (known) HISTORY of religion (and any other subject – see the geometry example). Present what it is known, put up all the warnings about “poisons”, but give the right to the student to decide what’s ultimately good/true (these are after all subjective values). And even more: urge the student to look further, to stretch the “limits of knowledge”, not to “just blindly take it all in”.
As for the immoral part (as related to religion), here’s how I see it: There are at least two different persons in this world, believing in two different deities, thinking that not helping the “non believer” see “the truth about religion” is utterly selfish from their part. The same way you have the right to believe that, there (surely) is another who differs. Therefore, each of them is absolutely convinced that they are RIGHT. So what am I to do then? If one is right, the other is wrong (as a Platonic truth here). How can I decide which one of them I should believe? Whichever I “accept”, the other will keep coming back trying to help me see “the truth” (which is different from their point of view). And even more, how can I be sure that they are not BOTH WRONG? Maybe not agreeing with any of them is the CLOSEST I can get to the (absolute) TRUTH. Do you see my dilemma? Why won’t you let ME take the responsibility for MY choice?
That’s why I think Egotheism is not only valid, but necessary. In the matters where different beliefs are “justified”, don’t force one over the other. Science never does that (i.e. imposing). Science presents the known “facts” (theories – together with their alternatives, laws, evidence etc) and leaves the question open. Religion (usually) indoctrinates people while disregarding all other religions.
So, I’ll reiterate what I’ve said in the first post: Egotheism is "not at all 'convincing' the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is 'teh best/truest/worthiest' FOR EVERYONE AT ONCE." And that is because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to prove it. You can still say : “This is my system of beliefs, and I think it is 'teh best' (because of that and that).” It is your right. But I also have the right to learn about THE OTHERS systems of beliefs, see what they have to say about “everything” and ultimately make my “bet”, taking into account all the warnings about all the “known poisons”.
And when you suggest that actually “egotheism” is something that almost everyone, at least in this country, already adheres to, well I’d like to say that I’m defending an epistemological idea that I don’t SEE IMPLEMENTED widely/truly enough (in the WORLD). Egotheism is not equivalent to “freedom of religious views”. Egotheism is “bigger”. It applies to everything at once.
So the point of this thread is first to see on “which grounds” we can agree on the validity of EGOTHEISM, and then to “build” together a way to practically implement it in the real world.
Are you (all) with me (on this quest) or not? Bring forth your ideas, your propositions, your theories, your criticism. I have already formulated a few questions. Do you have some answers?
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Again, if nobody is EVER strong/educated enough to understand religious issues more than in an uncertain, child-like way, then how can you ever pretend to be able to REALLY HELP me?
Because you don't have to fully understand something in order to help someone else understand it better. A pastor of a church, for instance, may not understand God's plan completely but may nevertheless be capable of helping other people understand it better.
quote:Do you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to “actively” teach religion without indoctrinating the students?
I'm not sure how to distinguish the two in an objective way. One person says they are "teaching" while another person says they are "indoctrinating". How should we distinguish between the two in a way that we can all agree upon?
quote:You can still say : “This is my system of beliefs, and I think it is 'teh best' (because of that and that).” It is your right. But I also have the right to learn about THE OTHERS systems of beliefs, see what they have to say about “everything” and ultimately make my “bet”, taking into account all the warnings about all the “known poisons”.
And when you suggest that actually “egotheism” is something that almost everyone, at least in this country, already adheres to, well I’d like to say that I’m defending an epistemological idea that I don’t SEE IMPLEMENTED widely/truly enough (in the WORLD). Egotheism is not equivalent to “freedom of religious views”. Egotheism is “bigger”. It applies to everything at once.
So the point of this thread is first to see on “which grounds” we can agree on the validity of EGOTHEISM, and then to “build” together a way to practically implement it in the real world.
Are you (all) with me (on this quest) or not?
I agree with these final statements, which is why I wanted to separate them from some of the implications you made in earlier posts. I think there is one absolute truth and I think it is important that I (and others) advocate it. But I also think it is important to let others advocate their opinions too. I believe that the most worthy beliefs will eventually rise to the top.
However, I think people are already trying to implement this idea in a practical way. I think most churches already hold this view in America. The trouble is that it is difficult to present your beliefs about the truth in a way that some other people won't consider to be indoctrination, when looked at from an outsider's perspective.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tresopax, I want to note here that I really appreciate your contribution to this thread. You stick around even if it seems that we are not actually speaking the same “language”. It gets to be frustrating at times, but I think it’s the only way we can learn to communicate better. So thanks.
[back to dissecting your posts … ]
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Again, if nobody is EVER strong/educated enough to understand religious issues more than in an uncertain, child-like way, then how can you ever pretend to be able to REALLY HELP me?
Because you don't have to fully understand something in order to help someone else understand it better. A pastor of a church, for instance, may not understand God's plan completely but may nevertheless be capable of helping other people understand it better.
I can perfectly well accept that a “pastor of a church” understands “God’s plan” better than myself, but the problem is not THAT. The problem is that there are (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “pastor of a church”, talking about (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “God’s plans”. And we both know that they (the "teachers") are NOT PERFECT. Talk about ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think there is one absolute truth and I think it is important that I (and others) advocate it.
I can perfectly well accept that there is ONLY ONE (real/Platonic/Absolute) TRUTH. But I cannot “advocate” it, meaning I cannot “teach” it. I can present everything I know (i.e. all the alternatives on each subject), but that knowledge doesn’t contain the ABSOLUTE PROOF of everything. I’m at most a “scientist” or a “philosopher” (as a way of thinking). I’m just an egotheist …
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'm not sure how to distinguish the two in an objective way. One person says they are "teaching" while another person says they are "indoctrinating". How should we distinguish between the two in a way that we can all agree upon?
Just out of curiosity, I looked up the net for some definitions:
quote:Verb · teach, learn, instruct (impart skills or knowledge to) "I taught them French"; "He instructed me in building a boat" · teach (accustom gradually to some action or attitude) "The child is taught to obey her parents" Verb · indoctrinate (teach doctrines to; teach uncritically) "The Moonies indoctrinate their disciples" [source http://wordnet.princeton.edu]
Can we agree on the distinction between the two ?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: However, I think people are already trying to implement this idea in a practical way. I think most churches already hold this view in America. The trouble is that it is difficult to present your beliefs about the truth in a way that some other people won't consider to be indoctrination, when looked at from an outsider's perspective.
A person (and implicitly a church) that doesn’t agree with EGOTHEISM cannot truly implement it. I reiterate the POINT of Egotheism: It’s not about WHAT to believe/learn/choose, it’s about HOW to get to YOUR beliefs/knowledge/choices.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Reading back, I found some unanswered points:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Consider a cult. Would an egotheist let his friends join bizarre cults that might ruin their lives?
Technically speaking, any religious cult is a cult. Talking from a purely scientific perspective, holding “the creation of woman from the rib of man”, “the parting of Red Sea”, “the Virgin Birth” etc as actual (historical) truths is a bit bizarre (disclaimer: PGK!). As an egotheist, I think that the fact that you decided not to be an egotheist might ruin your life. Yet, I can only talk to you about it, present the knowledge that I have, present some sources for further reference and … no (absolute) proof. Would you take into consideration my “warning”?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:The “making sure that other people get right” is not ok with egotheism. Egotheism says: "Just make sure that each person has a chance to get it right”.
This is why I've said Egotheism is immoral. It is shirking your moral responsibility if you let other people get it wrong, when you could have said something to help them. It is like looking the other way as someone gets mugged on the street. It is not enough to walk away thinking there is a "chance" they won't get hurt. You have a certain duty, when a high degree of danger is present (such as when an immortal soul is on the line), to do what you can to try to make sure they don't get hurt, to the extent that you can.
Egotheism, as you are defining it, could sentence someone to infinite suffering for eternity on the grounds that it is more important to not "indoctrinate" people than it is to help them spiritually.
Getting mugged on the street (or wherever) is a “moral no-no” in most of the world. I don’t see it as a valid parallel to the situation where “an immortal soul is on the line”. Your particular religion judges what it means to have a soul, what it means to have an immortal soul, and what is damnation for an immortal soul. Each “established” religion sees those things differently. As far as that doesn’t qualify for CGK, your analogy is irrelevant.
As for the “give them just a chance” issue, I’ve never said to be passive. I said that all you can give is a chance, they have to choose their own “salvation”. You say what you have to say, you help them with your knowledge, but that's it. Maybe you're wrong, after all.
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I can perfectly well accept that a “pastor of a church” understands “God’s plan” better than myself, but the problem is not THAT. The problem is that there are (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “pastor of a church”, talking about (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “God’s plans”. And we both know that they (the "teachers") are NOT PERFECT.
But why does that mean they can't help you? The fact that we know at least one of the pastors is wrong about something does not imply that BOTH of them can't help me at all.
quote:Can we agree on the distinction between the two ?
That distinction does not give any practical way to separate "teaching" from "indoctrination". If I say I'm teaching religion and you say I'm indoctrinating people in it, and then you say I'm being uncritical but then I say I'm being very critical in my teaching, how can we distinguish between the two?
quote:Getting mugged on the street (or wherever) is a “moral no-no” in most of the world. I don’t see it as a valid parallel to the situation where “an immortal soul is on the line”. Your particular religion judges what it means to have a soul, what it means to have an immortal soul, and what is damnation for an immortal soul. Each “established” religion sees those things differently. As far as that doesn’t qualify for CGK, your analogy is irrelevant.
So what? So what if one thing is consider bad by most of the world and the other thing is only considered bad by a fraction of the world? If I consider it harmful, why is it okay for me to overlook that harm coming to you, just because the whole world doesn't agree with me? That is where the immoral aspect of egoism keeps coming in.
Even if I am the ONLY person who realizes you are in serious danger, it is still my moral responsibility to help you avoid that serious threat. It'd be immoral to let someone die, when you knew they were going to die and could have done something to stop it, just because the whole world wouldn't agree with you on that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It'd be immoral to let someone die, when you knew they were going to die and could have done something to stop it, just because the whole world wouldn't agree with you on that.
Is free will inherently immoral, then?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No. You are acting morally whenever you choose to do the right thing.
I think the trouble is you may be equating free will with indeterminism. Free will doesn't mean your actions aren't determined by anything. Free will just means you choose to do what you do, whether your choice is determined/predictable or not. Or, to put it another way, free will does not mean you could have done otherwise; it means you could have done otherwise if you wanted to.
Morality determines what you should do in a situation, and a perfectly moral person (if there could ever be such a person) would have his behavior determined predictably by whatever is morally right. But because he'd be choosing to do it, he would still have free will.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I can perfectly well accept that a “pastor of a church” understands “God’s plan” better than myself, but the problem is not THAT. The problem is that there are (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “pastor of a church”, talking about (at least) TWO DIFFERENT “God’s plans”. And we both know that they (the "teachers") are NOT PERFECT.
But why does that mean they can't help you? The fact that we know at least one of the pastors is wrong about something does not imply that BOTH of them can't help me at all.
Yes, they both can help me, but none of them can give me the “perfect” reason for a phrase like “this is the ONLY TRUE teaching and you’ll suffer eternal damnation if you believe otherwise”. That is why egotheism says that they both are “right”, inside their own (moral) system of beliefs, FOR THEM. But that cannot be imposed onto others. And by the way, one more question for you: What argument can you give in "defence" (i.e. support) of your particular deity, that a believer of some other religion cannot give?
quote: That distinction does not give any practical way to separate "teaching" from "indoctrination". If I say I'm teaching religion and you say I'm indoctrinating people in it, and then you say I'm being uncritical but then I say I'm being very critical in my teaching, how can we distinguish between the two?
I really don’t think it to be THAT hard to see the difference. Here is an example:
(religious) Teacher #1 says:
quote: This is the doctrine, and it is the true teaching because <insert deity name here> said so. If you don’t follow it you will suffer “eternal damnation”, and it is MY responsibility to avoid that, if you seem not to be able to make the right decision yourself.
(religious) Teacher #2 says:
quote: This is the doctrine I follow, and I’m not going to teach you otherwise. Yet you still have the right to learn about other doctrines, that I don’t endorse, and you are free to choose which one you follow. I gave you the warning about “eternal damnation” according to this doctrine, and it is your responsibility to make your choice.
Which one of the two (religious) teachers you prefer? Which one of them is teaching, and which one is indoctrinating? And if you think I’m exaggerating, then I propose this: when not sure if a person/teacher/church is egotheistic, ask them which of the two teachers above they think is “best”. If you are surrounded by #2 kind of teachers, I’m happy for you. But I’m surrounded by #1 kind.
quote: So what if one thing is consider bad by most of the world and the other thing is only considered bad by a fraction of the world? If I consider it harmful, why is it okay for me to overlook that harm coming to you, just because the whole world doesn't agree with me? That is where the immoral aspect of egoism keeps coming in.
The recent discussion came back to “free will”. So if one person decides to get harmed (e.g. wants to commit suicide) what is “moral”? Let that person decide for herself/himself, or make the contrary decision for them? You have all the moral obligation to warn/teach, but you have also the moral obligation to respect one’s FREE WILL. So, there is a big difference between disregarding the rules A:“don’t kill” and B:“don’t kill yourself”. In the first case, you are affecting another person, and taking away THEIR free will (i.e. their desire to keep living), but in the second case, it is YOUR free will and by definition is yours to waste if you want (after choosing to ignore all the warnings).
quote:Even if I am the ONLY person who realizes you are in serious danger, it is still my moral responsibility to help you avoid that serious threat. It'd be immoral to let someone die, when you knew they were going to die and could have done something to stop it, just because the whole world wouldn't agree with you on that.
Again, egotheism is not against sharing and warning. So what you say here is perfectly acceptable. But what if that person CHOSED (and they clearly express it) to die (see the point above)? The same goes for “eternal damnation” as seen in any particular religion.
A.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That distinction does not give any practical way to separate "teaching" from "indoctrination". If I say I'm teaching religion and you say I'm indoctrinating people in it, and then you say I'm being uncritical but then I say I'm being very critical in my teaching, how can we distinguish between the two?
Here's a way: you teach someone when you instill a new belief in him, and he believes it for the right reasons (ie, on the basis of good evidence or arguments). Indoctrination happens when you instill beliefs in others for the wrong reasons.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yes, they both can help me, but none of them can give me the “perfect” reason for a phrase like “this is the ONLY TRUE teaching and you’ll suffer eternal damnation if you believe otherwise”. That is why egotheism says that they both are “right”, inside their own (moral) system of beliefs, FOR THEM.
This does not follow. Not having a "perfect" reason for your belief does not imply your belief is not the One Truth for all people. It just means you can't prove it perfectly - which is not really important, unless you are an ultra-skeptic who cannot accept anything without a perfectly infallible proof of it.
You don't need a perfect reason in order to believe you are right and justified in trying to help others see the truth of your belief. You just need a good enough reason - a reason better than any other reason you can think of.
In fact, I think there are no perfect reasons - for anything!
quote:What argument can you give in "defence" (i.e. support) of your particular deity, that a believer of some other religion cannot give?
Well, for one thing, the Bible says my deity exists. That's not true for any other deity.
But, really, it doesn't matter what arguments other religions could give for their beliefs. What matters is whether or not you judge those arguments to be correct or mistaken. Every religion may argue that their religion best fits the evidence we see in the world, but because I judge that this is only true for my religion, I must act accordingly. I must rely on MY judgement, not THEIRS.
It would be immoral to reject what I judge to be right just because some other people could make similar arguments for opposite things. That is the essence of morality - personal judgement. To base your decisions on what to do based on what other people believe is right, and not on what you believe is right, is to pass off your moral responsibilities. If you believe totalitarianism is wrong, you cannot accept it just because it seems like everyone else in your country does. And if you believe it is dangerous to believe a certain thing, you can't let that belief go unopposed just because a bunch of people disagree with you.
quote:Which one of the two (religious) teachers you prefer? Which one of them is teaching, and which one is indoctrinating?
I don't think there is much difference between these two teachers. #2 seems to believe the things that #1 says, but #2 just doesn't explicitly state it. And while #1 doesn't explicitly state that we have a right to learn or accept other viewpoints, that right exists in all students whether the teacher admits it or not. Is "indoctrination" just determined by whether the teacher explicitly admits you have a right to disagree or not? Is a teacher not indoctrinating you if he or she doesn't admit to being responsibile for making sure you accept the right beliefs?
I don't think this is the difference. I think the difference, if there is one, is in HOW they teach you, not in the attitude they take towards theit teaching. One might influence the other, but not necessarily.
I can say that the one professor I had in college that came closest to indoctrinating students was one who firmly believed it was up to us to make our own decision on what to accept. However, he presented all the evidence slanted in one direction. He thought he was extremely impartial, but was not. And that's the problem here: almost everyone thinks they are teaching fairly, even when they aren't.
I can also tell you this - almost all teachers I have had, in almost every subject, fit into #1. I know my math teachers all thought it was their job to make sure I did math the One Correct Way - their way - and I know they thought I'd suffer greatly if I never learned how. I'm not sure I'd have liked them to believe otherwise. A teacher who doesn't consider it their job to make sure I get it right is a teacher who cares more about some ideal of objectivity than they do about me. I'd hate to have a math teacher who didn't consider it their job to make sure I knew that 1+1=2 was true and 1+1=3 is false.
quote:Here's a way: you teach someone when you instill a new belief in him, and he believes it for the right reasons (ie, on the basis of good evidence or arguments). Indoctrination happens when you instill beliefs in others for the wrong reasons.
Well, yes, but what reasons are right and what reasons are wrong? What arguments are good and what arguments are bad? I suspect most teachers think their reasoning is good, even if it isn't in my opinion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's hard to say. But my definition does at least rule out raising young children "into a faith." Kids below a certain age can't fully grasp the issues involved in choosing a religion, so convincing them to believe will necessarily involve some degree of indoctrination.
If you can't yet understand the reasons to believe something, you can't freely believe it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This does not follow. Not having a "perfect" reason for your belief does not imply your belief is not the One Truth for all people. It just means you can't prove it perfectly - which is not really important, unless you are an ultra-skeptic who cannot accept anything without a perfectly infallible proof of it.
You don't need a perfect reason in order to believe you are right and justified in trying to help others see the truth of your belief. You just need a good enough reason - a reason better than any other reason you can think of.
In fact, I think there are no perfect reasons - for anything!
[…]
But, really, it doesn't matter what arguments other religions could give for their beliefs. What matters is whether or not you judge those arguments to be correct or mistaken. Every religion may argue that their religion best fits the evidence we see in the world, but because I judge that this is only true for my religion, I must act accordingly. I must rely on MY judgement, not THEIRS.
It would be immoral to reject what I judge to be right just because some other people could make similar arguments for opposite things. That is the essence of morality - personal judgement. To base your decisions on what to do based on what other people believe is right, and not on what you believe is right, is to pass off your moral responsibilities. If you believe totalitarianism is wrong, you cannot accept it just because it seems like everyone else in your country does. And if you believe it is dangerous to believe a certain thing, you can't let that belief go unopposed just because a bunch of people disagree with you.
Be careful, you’re getting to defend my part of the controversy Egotheism does exactly what you say: acknowledges that there is NO perfect proof for anything, so indoctrinating people based on “imperfect” proofs is not acceptable. The choice is ultimately at the individual’s level. Present your proof, but do not say that you’re “better” than those who have “equal proof”. I’m talking here explicitly about religious beliefs. As there is no Scientific Method to support religious claims about the existence of any deity (and their characteristics), there is no reason to minimise one deity as compared to another. And I’m not talking about giving “equal weight” to “God” and to “IPU”. That’s for each and every one to decide for themselves. I’m talking, for example, about “eternal damnation” as seen by Christians and “eternal damnation” as seen by Muslims. I take all warnings that you have to give, but imposing me such a belief is egotheistically unacceptable.
Please remember that egotheism defends your right to believe what you will, and does not accept THE IMPOSING of that belief onto OTHERS.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:What argument can you give in "defence" (i.e. support) of your particular deity, that a believer of some other religion cannot give?
Well, for one thing, the Bible says my deity exists. That's not true for any other deity.
I’m sorry, but that is a circular argument: The “Bible” was dictated (or al least inspired) by “God”, so it proves that “God” exists (by repeatedly affirming so). NOT ACCEPTABLE for my level of rationality. Show me a proof that God did actually inspire the writing of the Bible, and that would make me rethink my “scepticism”. BTW, what do you think that the “Qu’ran” says about “Allah”? This is exactly what I‘m talking about when I’m asking for an “exclusive” argument. As you see, yours in definitely NOT like that.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think there is much difference between these two teachers. #2 seems to believe the things that #1 says, but #2 just doesn't explicitly state it. And while #1 doesn't explicitly state that we have a right to learn or accept other viewpoints, that right exists in all students whether the teacher admits it or not. Is "indoctrination" just determined by whether the teacher explicitly admits you have a right to disagree or not? Is a teacher not indoctrinating you if he or she doesn't admit to being responsibile for making sure you accept the right beliefs?
If you see no “big” difference between the two teachers, here’s one that is important: #1 would gladly start a (religious) war to “save the unbelievers”. #2 would not do that.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: […]I don't think this is the difference. I think the difference, if there is one, is in HOW they teach you, not in the attitude they take towards theit teaching. One might influence the other, but not necessarily.
Now this is just semantics. The attitude they take towards their teaching is the most important thing that “controls” their WAY of teaching. If a teacher was indoctrinated to believe that what he or she “knows” (i.e. received trough indoctrination) is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE TRUTH then they will surely indoctrinate their students too. But if a teacher realises that all he or she knows is “subject to doubt” (as we both appear to agree) then they will not indoctrinate their students. So even if you don’t see the difference between the teacher #1 and #2, I assure you that egotheism is trying to mark that difference.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I can say that the one professor I had in college that came closest to indoctrinating students was one who firmly believed it was up to us to make our own decision on what to accept. However, he presented all the evidence slanted in one direction. He thought he was extremely impartial, but was not. And that's the problem here: almost everyone thinks they are teaching fairly, even when they aren't.
You hit the jackpot! "indoctrinating students” = “presented all the evidence slanted in one direction.” Don’t you see that (usually) religion is exactly like that ?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I can also tell you this - almost all teachers I have had, in almost every subject, fit into #1. I know my math teachers all thought it was their job to make sure I did math the One Correct Way - their way - and I know they thought I'd suffer greatly if I never learned how. I'm not sure I'd have liked them to believe otherwise. A teacher who doesn't consider it their job to make sure I get it right is a teacher who cares more about some ideal of objectivity than they do about me. I'd hate to have a math teacher who didn't consider it their job to make sure I knew that 1+1=2 was true and 1+1=3 is false.
Tresopax, if you’re going to give a Science example, please choose a valid one. Try the one about Euclidean Geometry (see a few posts above). No real teacher would “teach” you that THE ONLY REAL/TRUE geometry is the Euclidean one. A teacher will show you the “range” where that applies, and also tell you about Elliptic and Hyperbolic Geometries. And all other ones. As for the “1+1=2” … I’d rather not indoctrinate people with that. In binary arithmetic 1+1=10. What you are suggesting as an alternative (“1+1=3”) is contrary to all the rules of arithmetic, as long as you suggest it is using the “common notation”. So in “our obvious (i.e. decimal, with Arabic notation for the digits)” arithmetic system, that is ABSOLUTELY false.
But maybe there is a formal system where: -“1” stands for “mother or father” -“3” stands for “a child” - “+” stands for “together” - “=” stands for “have”. In this formal system “1+1=3” means “Two parents together have a child” and it may be true or false, depending on each particular family.
With no further clarification, “vilifying” 1+1=3 is utter nonsense. As it is its indoctrination
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:That distinction does not give any practical way to separate "teaching" from "indoctrination". If I say I'm teaching religion and you say I'm indoctrinating people in it, and then you say I'm being uncritical but then I say I'm being very critical in my teaching, how can we distinguish between the two?
Here's a way: you teach someone when you instill a new belief in him, and he believes it for the right reasons (ie, on the basis of good evidence or arguments). Indoctrination happens when you instill beliefs in others for the wrong reasons.
Destineer, I think that using “right reasons” and “wrong reasons” (with no concrete examples) is just going to “complicate” the solution, knowing that we still don’t have a way to agree upon “absolute right” and “absolute wrong”. (This is somewhat Tresopax’s point too, I suppose).
I’ve already proposed an example for “right reason”, egotheistically speaking: After seeing all available “proof”, your choice is “right” for you. If you choose to see only part of the proof, thinking that what you know is enough and therefore ignore all new data that is being offered, or you are presented by your “loving” teacher with a subset of data/proofs/evidence, then egotheistically speaking you are WRONG (whatever the belief itself is). Meaning that you are epistemologically wrong, even if you happen to “stumble upon” the “absolute truth”.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Maybe this thread is a bit too long, so here's "Egotheism in a nutshell":
For knowledge look outside yourself, for truth look inside.
What do you think?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Bump?
Anyone interested in reviving this discussion?
A.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I can't believe I missed this.
Perhaps. I'll have to give it another read through first.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Or you could just wait another 18 months until the thread-starter revives it again. Y'know, just to see if anyone else wants to add anything to it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
So that would be a no for you then? I suppose you're right - the thread did die for a reason.
I just know that my understanding of the ideas discussed in this thread have changed significantly over the past 18 months, and so it would be interesting to explore it again from my current perspective.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Actually, the thread "died" because the members then present felt that nothing more needed to be said. Yet the ideea remains, and I'm still here and interested in the subject.
How else could new and potential interested members could find this thread?
If nobody else is interested, it will die again, and I won't revive it before at least another 18 moths pass.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:For knowledge look outside yourself, for truth look inside.
I probably would have agreed with this until about a month ago.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Why is that? Could you share with us the thing that changed your mind? Unless it's too personal, of course.
I wonder why would anyone go and search the truth outside oneself...
A.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: How else could new and potential interested members could find this thread?
Search function?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That doesn't seem likely. I very much doubt that many newcomers search so assiduously.
I don't see a problem with bumping a thread you put a lot of effort into to see if it catches people's fancy. Surely, we've had other people do the same on other threads, many of which they hadn't put as much into as A has this one.
Is the problem people have really that he bumped this thread? It seems to me like something else is going on here.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I'm still here and interested in the subject.
How else could new and potential interested members could find this thread?
If you have something new to add, let's hear it. If not, then this is just ego-masturbation as far as I'm concerned.
And they could find the thread the same way you did. Like rivka said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JT, Your posts here seem to be much more ego-masturbation than A's. I honestly don't get why there's this problem with a single thread bump.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lots of Hatrackers disappear (or lurk) for long periods of time. But A's history seems to indicate that while he wants others to participate in his thread, he doesn't do much participation in other threads.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can understand why that would bother people. I'm not sure I see if from the history that you posted - it looked to me like A hasn't been active for a while, but when he was, he seemed to participate in other people's threads just fine.
But, if that's the problem, could people at least say that that is the problem they have? Bumping threads is a well accepted practice here.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
rivka, I really don't see your point. I was mostly gone for the last few months, and yes, I might be a bit "picky" about the topics I post in. Is that a problem?
Plus, please tell me how many new members would look for the term "egotheism". Or, what search does bring up this thread?
MrSquicky, thanks for your support, I really didn't think that bumping such a thread is a "faut-pas".
El JT de Spang, have I wronged you with something? If so, please say so and I'll present my apology.
Again, if there is a problem with my reviving this thread here, I'll "repair" the whole thing by deleting the thread entirely. Nothing lasts for ever, you know.
A.
PS: Participation in "my" threads was and is voluntary, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Why is that? Could you share with us the thing that changed your mind? Unless it's too personal, of course.
I wonder why would anyone go and search the truth outside oneself...
A.
I had exhausted the truth within myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is the problem people have really that he bumped this thread? It seems to me like something else is going on here.
It was pretty clear that the problem was more than just mere thread bumping. It was with the specific form of thread bumping: "Y'know, just to see if anyone else wants to add anything to it."
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
pooka, thanks for being here. I'd like to discuss furhter about this with you, but maybe for the moment the best thing would be to hold all "constructive" talk, and wait for the answer concerning the "revival" problem.
I wouldn't like to delete new and valuable things with this thread.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Dagonee, really? I’ve said:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Bump?
Anyone interested in reviving this discussion?
A.
I wanted (and still want) to revive a discussion, not to just have things “added” to the thread.
You see, I was expecting someone to say, “Yes, go ahead, what’s new?” or something.
Anyway, my (EDIT) poor dominion on the nuances of English language might have brought this upon myself…
A.
PS: still waiting for the "verdict". Thanks. (the verdict will be clearly stated when a few more replies about how wrong I was to bump this thread come)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, really?
Yes, really. It's abundantly clear what JT was complaining about.
Whether his complaint is legitimate or not is a different question entirely (although I don't find your distinction between adding to the thread and reviving discussion to be compelling).
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Thanks Dagonee. One vote was cast. (EDIT: actually, counting rivka and JT, there are 3 votes already)
A.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Way to destroy any sympathy I had for you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, initially I would have agreed with the annoyance, however in his final posts on this thread last year, suminomA distilled a succinct creed for his belief, after which no one had replied. Taking that into account, I would say it wasn't as anti-social as it seems on the face of it.
Then again, I've often been shown to be a poor judge of what constitutes social behavior.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: rivka, I really don't see your point. I was mostly gone for the last few months, and yes, I might be a bit "picky" about the topics I post in. Is that a problem?
I don't think so. But combine that with bumping a fairly old thread -- and without adding anything new yourself -- and I can certainly see why some people might see your participation as less than optimal. *shrug* I don't think anyone would have said "boo" if you had bumped it to add a new thought on the issue.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Plus, please tell me how many new members would look for the term "egotheism". Or, what search does bring up this thread?
Since the search function can be used to search for words within posts of a thread, there are quite a few searches that would pull up this thread. (Examples: "belief(s)," "religious," "religion," etc.)
While I support the right of thread-starters to delete threads, I think your threat to do so is unnecessary histrionics.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: You see, I was expecting someone to say, “Yes, go ahead, what’s new?” or something.
Then why not just put your "what's new" in your bumping post? IMO, that would do much more to stimulate discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A, I gotta tell you, you are much better off having a conversation here about the topic of the thread if you think there is one rather than addressing people complaints prompted by your bumping it. There's no productive way to go for that latter one.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Wow. Way to destroy any sympathy I had for you.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
suminomA was evidently not here during the Pledge not to Delete threads, so he wouldn't be aware of all that. I won't bump it, but if you wish to read it, suminomA, it's very recent in Dagonee's "Threads started by". (I go into such detail specifically to avoid dredging up the whole matter).
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I think I was the first negative comment, suminomA, though it was elsewhere -- and perhaps it was unfair of me. I expressed my frustration in what seemed to be a rather self-centered action on your part (that of returning after a prolonged time of personal inactivity and, rather than see what might be going on here, instead bringing up your own pet topic from the depths of thread history to see if anyone here wanted to talk with you about what you want to talk about). I fully grant that my impression of your action is based on a number of assumptions, any or all of which may be false. I apologize for my part in it.
--Pop
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
rivka, there is a list of questions that still wait for the answers/opinions of others, somewhere on the second page. That's still "new".
And I hoped new members would find this worthy of their attention/interest too.
Ok, I won't delete the thread. You are right. There are still other solutions.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Papa Moose, thanks. I didn't know the "whole" story.
I accept that my bumping the thread was not too "elegant". I do mistakes. I appologize.
Now, if anyone is interested to follow on the topic of the thread, I'd be happy to do so. If not, so be it.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, on the matter of the Zen master, I believe there is such a thing as a person being wrong, though the mind is very flexible in protecting a person from the knowledge that they are wrong.
Maybe.
Actually, this goes back to the heart of the impression that caused me to reject self-analysis (for my part).
There is a theory that used to be very influential on me having to do with meta-discourse, often called "the box" wherein the box is rationalizations that spring up to insulate us from our altruistic impulses. The box allows us to persuade ourselves that withholding aid from others is not only not bad, but actually good.
A common idea (and not an ethically transparent one) is the conundrum of giving to a beggar. "He'll probably spend it on drink/drugs." Or "I'm paying interest on debts, I don't really have money to spare." etc. These things may not be incorrect, but they insulate us from our altruistic impulses nonetheless.
Well, it's very tiring for me to think about.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, on the matter of the Zen master, I believe there is such a thing as a person being wrong, though the mind is very flexible in protecting a person from the knowledge that they are wrong.
Maybe.
Are you referring to the “zennish joke” that I presented earlier in this thread? Well, the way I see it, the point of the joke is not that a Zen master would say to anybody that they are right, whatever they’d say. The joke comes from having three people being right at the same time, even as it seems to be “impossible”. The explanation being that the first two were right on a PGK level, while the third on a CKG level (as we might define those levels).
So no, egotheism doesn’t claim that illogical statements (Logic being hopefully on CGK level) are “true”, but that they might be viewed as such on a personal level, where no-one but the self is the master. I’ve gave my arguments before (the “4 people society example”) why specific religious beliefs would fall on the PGK level.
quote:Actually, this goes back to the heart of the impression that caused me to reject self-analysis (for my part).
There is a theory that used to be very influential on me having to do with meta-discourse, often called "the box" wherein the box is rationalizations that spring up to insulate us from our altruistic impulses. The box allows us to persuade ourselves that withholding aid from others is not only not bad, but actually good.
A common idea (and not an ethically transparent one) is the conundrum of giving to a beggar. "He'll probably spend it on drink/drugs." Or "I'm paying interest on debts, I don't really have money to spare." etc. These things may not be incorrect, but they insulate us from our altruistic impulses nonetheless.
This is a difficult problem, as “helping” is a very delicate matter. How much help is helping and when does it become “bad” as in addictive or pointless or even harmful? All these are to be decided on each of the four levels of “knowledge” but it is quite possible that without having an “objective morality” defined (on CGK level) the matter falls rapidly towards the PGK. So egotheism doesn’t (can’t) actually give a solution, other than education. If one grows up in an egotistical (note: NOT egotheistic!) society, they would probably carry a “box” (as you presented it) with them by default. But while altruism might be “taught” (by positive example), it surely cannot be enforced, because that, in my opinion would produce more “negative response” then positive.
And this brings another point, epistemologically speaking: teaching/learning by live example in matters of comportment/conduct. (It is commonly noticed that children do as children see being done). So can one give “all the examples at once” and leave the “student” follow the one he/she chooses, or do we “have to always be good” so the children be “good” also? (This brings up the definition of “good” …)
I think that learning from positive/negative examples would be possible, yet the difficult point being this: presenting the examples without also making the judgment calls about “good and wrong” as absolutes. This sounds impossible even as I write it now.
But, the idea is this: give examples, as many as you can. (As a teacher) live by the set of rules of your choosing (and judging as “good”) and present the other options as examples from history (which surely contains enough “bad” from anyone’s POV). Now, give all this examples and let the “student” choose which to follow. And if the question arises (from the student): “Why are these examples to be seen as your way of life, and all the others just in history books?” then the answer could be: “Well, I, as an egotheist, have chosen these ones to be “good” and the others not worthy of following. Therefore I can only point to “history” for them. Which do you consider better? Why?” And then, a discussion with arguments and more examples could arise, avoiding “this is so because I say so and that’s it” approach.
Does that make any sense?
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The funny thing about children is how they think they are following you when really they aren't. A child in the early stages of learning to wash hands, tie shoes, measure flour and other mundane activities have no idea why - either first or last cause- these things are done. But they imitate the motions as best they can perceive them.
I only read the inital definitions of the group knowledges, so I'm not really certain... when you speak of PGK, do you mean "truth" as you are defining it?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The funny thing about children is how they think they are following you when really they aren't. A child in the early stages of learning to wash hands, tie shoes, measure flour and other mundane activities have no idea why - either first or last cause- these things are done. But they imitate the motions as best they can perceive them.
Yes, and that is quite hard to avoid. You see, that’s why the “age” one should “become an egotheist”, meaning the point where one could/should make all those choices about “truth” and “value” is such a great concern and a main question in this debate. If I recall correctly, someone said here (but maybe elsewhere) that one can make a choice only when they understand what they are choosing about and why, not while they are in “imitation” mode. And that could be the answer to that question.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I only read the inital definitions of the group knowledges, so I'm not really certain... when you speak of PGK, do you mean "truth" as you are defining it?
PGK stands for “personal ground knowledge”, meaning the things and the way they are perceived at a personal level. While “do not kill” might be a RGK (Regional/Country) level rule, at a personal level anyone can decide otherwise on the matter. But then, that someone should exclude oneself from that particular Region/Country/society, as all actions still have consequences and there is a responsibility to be accounted for. Egotheism can’t make “do not kill” a CGK leve rule (even if I’d like it to be) but it sure does stipulates that if one has the urge to take lives, they have to do it in a society that endorses it. (And that piece of knowledge would be included in CGK )
So, to answer your question, the “truth” on PGK level is obviously decided/defined inside everyone individually, but by no means that implies that any such particular “truth” should be taken as such by everybody else, without any arguments and/or “solid enough proof”.
A.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: El JT de Spang, have I wronged you with something? If so, please say so and I'll present my apology.
Again, if there is a problem with my reviving this thread here, I'll "repair" the whole thing by deleting the thread entirely. Nothing lasts for ever, you know.
A.
You haven't wronged me or offended me, and no apology (public or private) is necessary or accepted. I don't dislike you. I just was irked by the bumpage and posted quickly to express that ire because I'm busy at work. Had I been less busy I'd have been able to post a followup going into more detail. Though rivka and Dag covered everything I would've said.
Plus I didn't have to deal with Hatrack's most annoying self-appointed sheriff! Double whammy!*
*I do not, of course, mean Papa. By the way, I never saw that Pop mentioned this anywhere else, so he's certainly not at all responsible for my post.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
El JT de Spang, ok. I’ve seen your post and I won’t reply to any specifics in it, not because I’m ignoring it, but because I understand that you are not interested in what I have to say, on topic or otherwise.
Have a nice HatRack experience.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Plus I didn't have to deal with Hatrack's most annoying self-appointed sheriff! Double whammy!*
I'm 85% sure you're not referring to me, but that wasn't a very nice thing to say.
Back to the point...
The thing about raising children is they are vacuums of knowledge, and if I am not attempting to transmit to them my values, they will absorb them from somewhere.
As for when someone becomes mentally independent, there is neurological basis for mid-twenties, in that the brain and the prefrontal lobes in particular, continue to grow until that point. Folks say 35 is another age at which people gain more perspective on lives. I heard that on a show about criminal rehabilitation once. It's also the minimum age to run for president.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I understand that you are not interested in what I have to say, on topic or otherwise.
Then you really don't understand. Don't spend any more time thinking about it, though, because it's really not important.
pooka, if there's a poorer judge of nice/not nice in my internet world I'm not sure who it would be.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The thing about raising children is they are vacuums of knowledge, and if I am not attempting to transmit to them my values, they will absorb them from somewhere.
Well put. That’s why egotheism, doesn’t just insist on "an education", but on the most complete education available. It’s only natural that a parent/teacher would like to see their own values passed on to the next generation, but the whole point of egotheism is NOT forcing (only) those views on them. Acknowledging what’s CGK and what’s on the other levels might help educating egotheistically
quote:Originally posted by pooka: As for when someone becomes mentally independent, there is neurological basis for mid-twenties, in that the brain and the prefrontal lobes in particular, continue to grow until that point.
I didn’t know that. Do you have a source for that information/study? It would be interesting to learn more about the “brain” life-cycle
quote: Folks say 35 is another age at which people gain more perspective on lives. I heard that on a show about criminal rehabilitation once. It's also the minimum age to run for president.
Well, every country has some age for those things. Do you agree that such a criteria (same age for everyone in a large group) is kind of “arbitrary” and not at all precise? I propose as an alternative an “aptitude test”, that is, a test to try and find out if one is “ready” (as in responsible enough) to make different types of decisions. If one is allowed to be a car driver only after some specific education and tests, proving their driving abilities, why not apply the same for “presidency candidates”?
- - -
BTW, pooka (but not exclusively), I have a question, as I don’t know if we touched very closely your first reply in the recent activity on the thread: Do you think that someone who learns (from new experience and/or knowledge) that some “truth” that they hold strongly before is “wrong” (in the light of the new “data”), that they should lose their trust in themselves and in their capacity of discernment, and therefore abandon the search of the truth on the PGK level inside?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: [...] a poorer judge of nice/not nice in my internet world [...]
ok, that's enough! If you don't have anything to say on topic, please leave this thread.
Thanks.
A.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
A, you don't actually get to make that decision, even if you ARE the thread starter.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Before jumping to conclusions: Megan, do you take the side of JT?
And, what am I to do, blow the whistle on him? Is that how it works?
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hey, it's okay, so he doesn't like me. I'm better off knowing than going along thinking we're pals.
Of course the various ages at which people are believed to attain... what, maturity... are somewhat arbitrary, but I think they reflect the general observations of people over time. Of course, this is a General Ground Knowledge or... I'm not quite facile with the acronyms.
But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Believe me, I understand the interest. I had lo leave for an extended period my country of origin. That's one of the reasons why I defined those levels, and why I'm interested in all these questions.
A.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Before jumping to conclusions: Megan, do you take the side of JT?
And, what am I to do, blow the whistle on him? Is that how it works?
I don't take anyone's side. Quite frankly, I don't really care about the thread topic much at all. All I'm saying is that you don't have the right to say, "Leave this thread." And, IF JT has done something that violates the ToS, which I'm pretty sure he hasn't, then yeah, you'd blow the whistle. However, since I'm pretty sure he hasn't done anything that violates the ToS, then I think you'd be wrong to do so. If Papa Moose, who has been following this thread, thinks that what JT said was out of line, he'll say so. Otherwise, you can object to what JT said, but you can't order him to leave the thread. That's not your role.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I never said I disliked you, pooka. Just that I think you're an exceptionally poor judge of social cues (something you yourself have admitted more than once).
A, you can order whomever you like to do whatever you want, but I think you'll find you don't have that authority. But if you like looking like an over-sensitive blowhard by all means continue.
(below the text of the post, all the way to the right, is the whistle icon for 'Report Post'. Should you feel the need, I would imagine it would result in Papa telling me to play nice even though I haven't violated the ToS, and I would because I like him and don't want to make any more work for him. I'll leave you guys alone now, anyway, just in case.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Papa Moose, who has been following this thread, thinks that what JT said was out of line, he'll say so.
I wouldn't be so sure. Just because he thinks something is out of line doesn't mean that he'll think that pointing it out is necessarily the best course of action.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Would it be ok if I just ignore JT in this thread, as long he's not on topic?
A.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Eh, true. But if it were out of line enough to deserve a whistle, and he caught it pre-whistle, I think he might step in. I'm not sure. I trust him to make that kind of decision; that's why he's the moderator.
Regardless, however, as JT said, A doesn't have the authority to order people out of the thread. He can object to, disagree with, the language used in the post, and that's about the extent of it.
Edit: Sure, A. Ignoring a post you don't like is always an option.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You are under no obligation to respond to any post you don't want to.
Although it's generally best to at least acknowledge that you won't be responding, which you've done.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I'm interested in the Family Ground Knowledge. There comes a point when one exits one's family of origin.
Believe me, I understand the interest. I had lo leave for an extended period my country of origin. That's one of the reasons why I defined those levels, and why I'm interested in all these questions.
A.
Ah, well that explains why a lot of people are failing to grasp why this topic is worth discussing.
I'm still catching up on what the topic was in the first place, since I didn't see it the first time around.
While I was at lunch I wondered if the level at which one's ground knowledge is significant probably depends on the type of person one is. Some people really need a family to feel fulfilled, and others do not. Some people need to be involved in civic affairs and not have a family that conforms to social norms (like Giuliani or Clinton). Some people just want to be normal on every level all at once and are likely to be neurotic as a result.
I think most methods of sorting people are more or less like cutting a pie. You can put the line anywhere, it is still a pie.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
mr_porteiro_head, Megan, thank you for your participation. I see that you have an honest intention to educate me in matters that I lack a lot of knowledge. I appreciate it.
pooka, take your time to read the rest of the thread, I hope you'll find enough interesting points and questions to continue this discussion.
A.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Since the original point of the bump was to get some new opinions, here's my two cents.
First, I want to check something--a prerequisite to egotheism would be that you have to accept the absence of any absolute truth in the world, right? (since the requirement for truth seems to be the number of people that agree on a given fact/statement/concept)
Assuming this is correct, I have to say that I'm not an egotheist, and that it would also be impossible to be an egotheist and a Christian (since Christians believe in absolute truth) and probably also impossible to be both egotheist and Muslim, Jewish, etc. (I can't say positively because I'm not as familiar with these religions)
Now let's see how I do with your main group of questions.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA:
1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? Yes, I obviously think it is valid. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother to defend it.
2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? It is the age when one can take responsibility for his/hers beliefs/choices. When that person is strong/educated enough.
3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”? CGK, RGK and FGK.
4) Is CGK a valid concept (i.e. does it exist)? Yes, I hope it is. Without that, everything is so much more difficult …
5) What could we include into the CGK? Logic, for starters. Mathematics. Physics. Science in general. History (i.e. all available versions). And as much more as we can.
6) Could we include moral values into CGK? I’d like to see that happen. But they should definitely be part of RGK at least.
7) Should we include any particular religion into CGK? No. There is no reason for it. Moral values do exist outside religion, at least at a RGK level.
What say you?
[edited for clarity] [/QB]
1) I guess technically that would depend on what you mean by "system of beliefs". I would say no, because it is, as was mentioned before, a 'meta-system' a way of governing people's actual belief systems (religious veiws). Or, to put it more harshly, it's a way of diminishing all religious beliefs and moral codes, almost to the point of non-existence.
2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind?
3) See above, but I'd like to point out that since the definition of all your BK's would be almost impossible to pin down, your answer doesn't seem to be of any real use.
I've got to run, but I'll try to get to your other questions later.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Eowyn-sama, I think you’ve just made my day! Seeing some (new) real interest (pooka included) makes me able to pass beyond the shame of my previous mistake, and have some constructive debate here! Thank you for that.
Also, I’m glad you’re challenging my points, that way I have the opportunity to learn more as we debate.
Here we go:
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: First, I want to check something--a prerequisite to egotheism would be that you have to accept the absence of any absolute truth in the world, right? (since the requirement for truth seems to be the number of people that agree on a given fact/statement/concept)
Assuming this is correct, I have to say that I'm not an egotheist, and that it would also be impossible to be an egotheist and a Christian (since Christians believe in absolute truth) and probably also impossible to be both egotheist and Muslim, Jewish, etc. (I can't say positively because I'm not as familiar with these religions)
This was noted before, the fact that egotheism seems to promote “moral relativism”, and I can’t deny that 100%. It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
Yet, the egotheism tries to make the point, that, as we can’t agree on everything, we should look for the common ground and use it to our benefit, while accepting that on some matters there is no such common ground. So those matters should be left for others levels (i.e. Regional/Familial/Personal).
The fact that you as a Christian say clearly that at least you believe in absolute truth, answers the question whether all religions are compatible with egotheism. You are right that egotheism is not compatible with your personal system of beliefs. (That is not meant to be a judgment on the value of your beliefs!)
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 1) I guess technically that would depend on what you mean by "system of beliefs". I would say no, because it is, as was mentioned before, a 'meta-system' a way of governing people's actual belief systems (religious veiws). Or, to put it more harshly, it's a way of diminishing all religious beliefs and moral codes, almost to the point of non-existence.
You see, I was afraid that it might sound like that, and if it does, I understand why there might be some aversion toward this debate. What I fear most is that people would take this as a subversive way to diminish the beliefs of others (whatever the “level” of such beliefs be).
It really isn’t my intention. I can only promise you that. I suppose none of you know me well enough to just take my word for it. Please have patience as I try to explain it.
The main point to take into consideration is that the PGK (personal ground knowledge) level doesn’t stand for the “leftovers” after the “valuable knowledge” was distributed on the other levels. Nothing more farther from what I try to say here.
I think (I choose to believe) that what happens on the PGK level really defines us as “conscious beings”, and therefore supersedes all other levels. That’s what I mean when I say that truth is to be found inside us.
But as this is an epistemological matter, the concern of egotheism is to what “common knowledge” would be, and how can it be taught to everyone, as we are also living among other “conscious beings” and we are not alone in this Universe. (If it were for us to be really alone, the only relevant part would obviously be PGK!)
And we saw that knowledge isn’t all “common ground” (CGK) but that there are (at least!) the four levels, adding RGK, FGK and PGK. So when we’re talking about ways of gathering/sharing knowledge (the intent of egotheism), we should concentrate on that, namely knowledge, and not “the truth” that one can or cannot see in it. (Knowledge outside, Truth inside!)
Well, this is getting rather long, so I’ll stop here for the moment. I will answer the other points you’ve raised, soon.
And I look forward to your next contributions (and feedback)!
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, I believe in absolute truth, but mortals are not able to wrap their heads all the way around it, so something like PGK can very well apply simultaneously with absolute truth.
Card's book Rebekah shows some of my view on this quite well. Both Rebekah and Abraham believe they are being lead by God, but they nonetheless choose different things.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Oh, I believe in absolute truth, but mortals are not able to wrap their heads all the way around it, so something like PGK can very well apply simultaneously with absolute truth.
I think you don't use the "believe in absolute truth" the same way Eowyn-sama used it.
The way I understand those two different meanings, while yours can comfortably be contained in PGK, Eowyn-sama's should be placed at the core of CGK! One has to be cherished by any individual who chooses it, the other is to be chosen by all (hence the incompatibility with egotheism).
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Good day all, here I am at it again
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind?
I suppose you’re talking about the knowledge needed to decide on the matters of “absolute truth”. And I agree that it is very probable that we lack such information as of yet, either because we don’t want to acknowledge it, or because it isn’t really available to our limited senses and intellect. So “enough education” for “absolute truth” falls outside the reaches of egotheism. The debate here is about, what should we do with the knowledge that we (as Humanity) already posses, as a whole. Is it all CGK to be “indoctrinated” to all newborns? I really hope nobody thinks that.
Meanwhile, we have noticed that some knowledge can be easily integrated “rationally”, while some needs a lot of subjectivism and “personal feelings”. Do I say one is more valuable than the other? No. Value judgments are made on the Personal level and an egotheist wouldn’t share more than their opinion as such, not as something that all should agree upon. Yet, in order to share optimally this limited space we call “home” (i.e. Earth), we need to see what can we all agree upon, (and how), and form a category of knowledge that I call CGK. I propose Science to be included there, because as a consequence of the way scientific method was defined and works, virtually anybody can verify its results and decide for themselves if these results should be integrated as such (i.e. reliable) on their PGK.
The question (#2) then comes to this: What should one know before deciding if Science is “good” or “bad”? Well, I suppose that knowing what science is and what science does, plus acknowledging its limits and the kind of questions it could answer, would be a good “prerequisite education”. If, after finding out what science is able to do, one decides that the answers they (inside) are looking for are impossible to be valuably approached by science, and even more, that science as a whole hurts their ability to find those answers (and therefore reject it entirely), then they should be given the choice lo live their lives following a set of rules (on PGK level) that defies anything science says (on CGK level). But I’m really surprised if anyone argues that Science shouldn’t be included into CGK. I am interested however to see their arguments against it.
Which brings me, again, to my arguments against including any religion as “absolute truth” into CGK. Remember, I never said that Religion (as a concept) is to be excluded from CGK. All religions should be available to be known about by any interested person. (I think the complete history of religions would be valuable knowledge to be integrated into CGK) Yet, the truth value about many of their claims isn’t possible to determine in the same reliable and repeatable fashion as science facts can. Even more, different religions make claims that are incompatible with each other, which at a Logical level we cannot accept to be true at the same time. Do you see the distinction?
EDIT: BTW, we still need to build bridges and complex structures for our comfort. What kind of knowledge should we use for it, Science (CGK) or Religion (PGK)?
I’ll respond to the 3rd point in a following post.
A.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
This paragraph makes me wonder if you understand what I mean by the word truth. It has nothing to do with whether we can know it or communicate it. I'm saying that truth (the actual facts of the universe) exists outside of humankind, outside of the human mind and independent of what we think of it.
What I am objecting to is the idea of truth by consensus, truth by voting--the world has always been round, it wasn't flat when most people believed it to be flat.
I've got to run to class and hopefully I'll be back later. While I'm gone I need to think about what Pooka said about truth, I don't think our viewpoints are as different as you claimed.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
This paragraph makes me wonder if you understand what I mean by the word truth. It has nothing to do with whether we can know it or communicate it.
I think you’re right about me not understanding it. You’re the best to know if I really respond to what you wanted to say. Please don’t give up on me too easily. Explain it more when you have time and I hope I’ll learn something valuable, and respond accordingly.
quote: I'm saying that truth (the actual facts of the universe) exists outside of humankind, outside of the human mind and independent of what we think of it.
Wow, how’s that for a “coincidence”? I’ve recently seen a TV show called “What the bleep do we know? (the extended quantum edition)” and there are at least 3 hours of arguments about why quantum physics points to another different “reality” on the matter! (pun intended)
quote:What I am objecting to is the idea of truth by consensus, truth by voting--the world has always been round, it wasn't flat when most people believed it to be flat.
I do agree that regarding the physical Universe, there is truth to be discovered (scientifically), and that the constants of physics (and its laws) are not a matter of popular vote. That’s why they should be the first to be included into the CGK. But my question is this: do you consider all “truth” to be like the laws of physics, including what theology says about any given deity?
It seems to me that while you talk about “absolute truth” you mix together very different levels of “truth” which leads to much confusion (at least to my understanding). The whole point of this debate about egotheism is to acknowledge the various degrees of knowledge, to try to “classify” them on the four levels, but ultimately to leave the matters of “truth” to the personal level.
Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
At a personal level, each individual sets their own “truth” and I’ve seen too many cases where nothing changed that “knowledge”, whatever the proof and/or arguments. If one has chosen to believe in something so strongly that NOTHING can change their minds, then the lesson is simple: there are “truths” that are so personal that nothing in this physical universe, not even the “absolute truth” can change it (for that person!) Do you think it’s a “moral duty” to convince them BY FORCE? I say no, let them hold their cherished “truth” to the end. (But it is not at all the same thing, for the rest of the world, if that “truth” is on PGK level, FGK, RGK or CGK!)
quote: While I'm gone I need to think about what Pooka said about truth, I don't think our viewpoints are as different as you claimed.
I hope you don’t feel that I try to put words in your mouth, or that I’m being condescending. I only claimed a difference and explained it as I understand it, and I’ll wait patiently to see if I was right.
A.
PS: another important question: is “knowledge” and “truth” the same thing for you (royal you)? Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that perhaps what you are calling "levels of truth" would be more accurately called "levels of certainty" or even "levels of shared certainty." Because yes, truth claims made by religions are either true or false in the same way that truth claims about the physical universe are. It is not possible for a particular deity to exist "for me" and not exist "for you." The deity either exists or does not, and if we disagree on that point one of us is wrong. Calling your levels of agreement different levels of truth distorts the word "truth."
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Heh, I'm losing track of what I need to talk about from what previous post :-p I'll try starting with the most recent and working backwards.
I guess the first part is what I mean by truth, and where it applies. I'm not particularly well versed in epistemology, but I'll try to muddle through.
quote: do you consider all “truth” to be like the laws of physics, including what theology says about any given deity?
Yes, I do. I will agree that there is a distinction between the physical and the spiritual (which is why I don't need 'scientific' proof of God's existence to believe in him) but I believe that truth applies to both realms. God exists or he doesn't. The liquid in the bottle will either kill you or it won't. A human being either has a soul, something separate from the physical body, or it doesn't.
quote: Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
So if you're not saying that, you're saying "what one individual believes is right for him, but he should not act on what he believes is right, only on what everyone else says is right" ?
quote: If one has chosen to believe in something so strongly that NOTHING can change their minds, then the lesson is simple: there are “truths” that are so personal that nothing in this physical universe, not even the “absolute truth” can change it (for that person!)
Really? If I strongly, passionately and in the face of all evidence to the contrary believed that the earth was flat, I wouldn't sail off the edge no matter how far I traveled, and eventually I'd end up right back where I started.
If I strongly, passionately believe in God and he doesn't exist, then I'll eventually die and cease to exist completely, regardeless of what I believed in life. (Unless Terry Pratchett is right and the afterlife or lack thereof is whatever we belive it will be :-p )
I guess basically what I'm saying is that if someone strongly believes in something no matter what any one else says, then they are either right or wrong. Just because they believe something is 'truth' doesn't mean that it is (even for them).
quote: Do you think it’s a “moral duty” to convince them BY FORCE? I say no, let them hold their cherished “truth” to the end. (But it is not at all the same thing, for the rest of the world, if that “truth” is on PGK level, FGK, RGK or CGK!)
Of course it's not a moral duty to convince anyone by force. I'm not arguing against tolerance here, just against the idea that the universe molds itself to fit an individual's beliefs. If someone really believes in something and refuses to listen to anything else, then there's not much point in trying to convice them otherwise. But that doesn't mean they're right.
We'll have to wait for Pooka to clarify, but I think what she's saying (and what I agree with) is that although there is an absolute truth, humans are incabable of understanding all of it and therefore must operate on PGK.
I'm sorry this is so long, but I'm determined to address at least one of the older posts!
quote: Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you’re talking about the knowledge needed to decide on the matters of “absolute truth”.
Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think that perhaps what you are calling "levels of truth" would be more accurately called "levels of certainty" or even "levels of shared certainty." […] Calling your levels of agreement different levels of truth distorts the word "truth."
I see, this would explain also my struggle to separate the terms “knowledge” and “truth”. So yes, what is meant is rather "levels of certainty" and not levels of (logical) truth.
Thank you, dkw, for your suggestion.
Now, I pose this open question:
Statement #1: “Science gives the speed of light in vacuum to be equal to X m/s” Statement #2: “The Bible states that the deity endorsed/encouraged/commanded the tribe Y to do Z”
Do you put the level of certainty about the “truth” of those two statements on the same level (given speciffic values of X, Y and Z)? If so, what level? If not, on what different levels they would be?
Please note that now the term “truth” is the “logic/absolute” truth of the content of the statement, so it really wouldn’t need the quotes at all.
A.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I can put my level of certainty about whether or not the Bible says a certain event happened pretty high -- I only have to look it up and see "yep, that's exactly what the Bible says." Now whether what the Bible says happened is what actually happened, that's another question. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't really want a bridge yielded by science, but one grounded in engineering. Though I might be fine with a bridge that is built to withstand more than what could be anticipated, so long as it is not so massive it can't hold up it's own weight.
quote:We'll have to wait for Pooka to clarify, but I think what she's saying (and what I agree with) is that although there is an absolute truth, humans are incabable of understanding all of it and therefore must operate on PGK.
It's not that we fail to know absolute truth and settle for PGK. What we know of absolute truth is authentic. Just no one knows it for everyone. Indeed, it is very rare for anyone to posess truth which applies to anyone other than themselves.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I can put my level of certainty about whether or not the Bible says a certain event happened pretty high -- I only have to look it up and see "yep, that's exactly what the Bible says." Now whether what the Bible says happened is what actually happened, that's another question.
Would you answer to that other question too?
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Eowyn-sama, let me tell you that for someone who declares not to be “particularly well versed in epistemology” you’re doing a great job, as far as I can tell (I myself not being an “expert” on the matter. ) I like especially your last paragraph of your previous post.
But let’s take things step by step.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: God exists or he doesn't. The liquid in the bottle will either kill you or it won't. A human being either has a soul, something separate from the physical body, or it doesn't.
Complete agreement here. (note: this is LOGIC, and I consider it to be CGK material)
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
So if you're not saying that, you're saying "what one individual believes is right for him, but he should not act on what he believes is right, only on what everyone else says is right" ?
Hmm, interesting way of parsing that phrase. I admittedly need to work on my expression skills.
No, I’m not saying that one has to act only on what “everyone says is right” (I wouldn’t have anticipated this to be the alternative!) I’m saying that where there are more individuals living together, (like in Families, Regions and on Earth), there should be some set of rules agreed upon by the individuals in each respective “circle” and most importantly, known to all. Now, what are those rules all about? Well, the way I see it, they “regulate” the privileges and the obligations of the individual vis-à-vis the group. In other terms, define responsibility. “Do this and it will be followed by that. And you need to know it to live in this group.”
(Note: does the speed of light in the vacuum, or a given fact about the deity X enter the list of “rules” as I defined them here? I think not!)
So, what my quite-hard-to-parse phrase wants to say is that whatever one believes (PGK), they should have the knowledge pertinent to their actions, and accept the responsibility of it on ALL LEVELS. Else, leave the group and follow the rules of the group of their choosing/liking.
Now, CGK being the largest group imaginable, the issue of what CGK might be gets a special concern from me.
Having said that, it is very transparent (I hope) where the “proposition” that most of the “secular laws” would be naturally on the RGK level comes from, as very few are common to all the countries in the world.
quote:Really? If I strongly, passionately and in the face of all evidence to the contrary believed that the earth was flat, I wouldn't sail off the edge no matter how far I traveled, and eventually I'd end up right back where I started.
If I strongly, passionately believe in God and he doesn't exist, then I'll eventually die and cease to exist completely, regardeless of what I believed in life. (Unless Terry Pratchett is right and the afterlife or lack thereof is whatever we belive it will be :-p )
I guess basically what I'm saying is that if someone strongly believes in something no matter what any one else says, then they are either right or wrong.
Again, I completely agree. The way one sees the truth (on PGK level) doesn’t affect its certainty (or even value) on the other levels, including the ABSOLUTE (which, I repeat, is beyond the reaches of egotheism!)
But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
quote:Just because they believe something is 'truth' doesn't mean that it is (even for them).
This really is worded a bit too ambiguously for my taste. If we’re talking about the truth about the physical laws of the Universe, it’s one thing, if you’re talking about spiritual truth that is based on faith, it’s another matter entirely.
You see, the debate on whether the personal belief (PGK) influences the real Universe (the absolute level) or not, is really beyond my capabilities, and the TV show I named before deals with that. This is why I don’t claim egotheism to be able to deal with that, as long as it isn’t scientifically proven.
But, on the matters of spirituality, I do believe that any relevant access to the truth is on PGK level alone. There surely is an absolute truth about any given theological statement, but if we all agree that we don’t have any reliable way to (all) find it, why not concentrate on the “relative truth” there instead, and more, leave it be relative?
quote: I'm sorry this is so long, but I'm determined to address at least one of the older posts!
Mark my words: I don’t care how long your posts are; as long as you’re interested in the topic I promise to read it all, and reply to the best of my abilities. Of course, if you’re concerned whether others have the patience and/or interest, that’s not for me to muse about.
quote: Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
Now this is nice! This, to me, is epistemology well put. Let me ponder it and come back with a reply as soon as I’m able.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd put them close to the same level of certainty, since I am not able to verify the speed of light personally. I could probably verify the acceleration of gravity on earth, but that's close to the limit of what I personally have the ability to verify in terms of scientific matters. I've never seen the mass of atoms measured, and I don't know why the protons are able to stick to each other in the nucleus. Some people say they know, and I don't have any need to question them. I'm generally aware that they must, of so many of the wonders of modern life wouldn't work right.
In the same sense, I derive a lot of benefits from operating on some principles from the Bible which I can appreciate and understand, I'm willing to allow that the stuff I don't understand or find inconsistent is understood by someone. To the degree it is inconsistent, there just isn't enough information (or as you seemed to be saying on page one, insufficient education.)
quote:But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
You're asking this? It has always been my position that PGK can be flawed.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'd put them close to the same level of certainty, since I am not able to verify the speed of light personally. I could probably verify the acceleration of gravity on earth, but that's close to the limit of what I personally have the ability to verify in terms of scientific matters. I've never seen the mass of atoms measured, and I don't know why the protons are able to stick to each other in the nucleus. Some people say they know, and I don't have any need to question them. I'm generally aware that they must, of so many of the wonders of modern life wouldn't work right.
In the same sense, I derive a lot of benefits from operating on some principles from the Bible which I can appreciate and understand, I'm willing to allow that the stuff I don't understand or find inconsistent is understood by someone. To the degree it is inconsistent, there just isn't enough information (or as you seemed to be saying on page one, insufficient education.)
Nice argument. I like more and more this discussion by the minute!
So, you’re saying that on scientific matters, there is a certain limit about what you can verify directly and that for the rest, you have to trust the scientists that say they did. I must admit it’s the same for me
But, as we’re on this point, can you give an example of “simple” theological piece of knowledge that you yourself can verify?
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
You're asking this? It has always been my position that PGK can be flawed.
This was in response to the examples given by Eowyn-sama. The point being that not all knowledge is contained in (EDIT) Science (/Edit), and that behavior is not about what one thinks about the form of the Earth, but more about the way to interact with the rest of the group.
BTW, I strongly agree that PGK may be flawed/inconsistent, as there is no external “force” to be always able to set it “right”, nor any “moral duty” to enforce it.
A.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Whoa, I'm apparently still confused as to what we're saying when we mean 'truth'.
It sounds like (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) we agree that the universe is composed of actual facts and runs on actual rules, both in physical and spiritual matters. God exists or he doesn't, we have souls or we don't, the cup is in my hand or it is in your hand, it's possible to go faster than the speed of light or it isn't, etc. One of these is right, the other is wrong. (I only ask for clarification because I think there's a school of thought that doesn't agree with this)
quote: But, on the matters of spirituality, I do believe that any relevant access to the truth is on PGK level alone. There surely is an absolute truth about any given theological statement, but if we all agree that we don’t have any reliable way to (all) find it, why not concentrate on the “relative truth” there instead, and more, leave it be relative?
Okay, I think this is where the difference lies. When I say truth I mean 'a fact that is the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief'. Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
Also, I don't agree that we have no reliable way to find spiritual truths. I think that we have no way to find *all* spiritual truths, just like we have no way to find all scientific truths. We have many religions that provide scriptures, teachings, miracles and personal spiritual experiences, and I think most of them have found quite a bit of truth. It's possible (if not probable) that one of these has come far closer to the truth than any other.
Out of time again ^_^
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
An easy one is God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I don't think anyone since has really understood what went on there. Before then and since, people who sacrifice children are generally considered... unenlightened.
I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
And I believe that when Gandhi said (some folks say this quote does not have a rigorous provenance, so caveat emptor) "Happiness is when one's thoughts, words, and deeds are in harmony," he is saying something along the lines of PGK, FGK and CGK being unified. Maybe.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Whoa, I'm apparently still confused as to what we're saying when we mean 'truth'.
It sounds like (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) we agree that the universe is composed of actual facts and runs on actual rules, both in physical and spiritual matters. God exists or he doesn't, we have souls or we don't, the cup is in my hand or it is in your hand, it's possible to go faster than the speed of light or it isn't, etc. One of these is right, the other is wrong. (I only ask for clarification because I think there's a school of thought that doesn't agree with this)
If you have noticed the remark of dkw above, there is a distinction that I usually fail to put into words every time, even if inside my head it’s obvious: There is the TRUTH and there is the level of certainty of our knowledge about it. Something is either true of false (that is a very certain piece of knowledge -->CGK, logic helps us ) Egotheism has nothing to say about the TRUTH! Now, for any given statement, we try to find out its truth value (i.e. true/false) and we have the Universe around us to observe and help us decide. And this is where egotheism enters the picture. I see some evidence, and you see some evidence (ideally it would be the same available for the both of us) and we reach our conclusions. (There is one way to reach conclusions in scientific matters, some other way in spiritual ones and maybe another one entirely in the matters regarding the aliens that inhabit the UFOs. ) This debate tries to establish what is “commom” to each of the four levels (C/R/F/P).
Therefore, egotheism tries to put some “order”, without emitting judgements of value, into these different ways of “reaching conclusions and our certainty” of given statements. That’s because egotheistically speaking, your conclusion is either “better”, or “worse” than mine, ultimately each believe what we want to believe. But the way to reach that conclusion might be common to us all, common to your country of origin, common to you and 3 more close friends, or particular only to you. Egotheism tries to help us acknowledge where “we stand”, in each “certain conclusion”.
Further more, the point of “Egotheism” isn’t forcing an “epistemological recipe” (e.g. “mine”), on everybody. That would be self-contradictory.
This debate, from its start, tries to establish the criteria to see IF it is a valid way of approaching knowledge, learning and teaching.
Ok, I’m not trying to elude the answer to your question. I’m not promoting the school of thought that states that there isn’t only ONE TRUTH out there. If I trust logic at all, I have to (and do) reject the notion that TRUTH is relative to the observer.
Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
quote:When I say truth I mean 'a fact that is the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief'. Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
Could you give me an example of a spiritual truth that applies to all, regardless of personal belief?
quote:Also, I don't agree that we have no reliable way to find spiritual truths. I think that we have no way to find *all* spiritual truths, just like we have no way to find all scientific truths. We have many religions that provide scriptures, teachings, miracles and personal spiritual experiences, and I think most of them have found quite a bit of truth. It's possible (if not probable) that one of these has come far closer to the truth than any other.
Ok, I agree with that. BTW, which religion is closer to the TRUTH? Either way, do you agree that there is a noticeable difference between the spiritual truths and scientific truths, when it comes to being able to share relevant proofs for them?
quote:Out of time again ^_^
I’ll never be out of patience, so take your time
A.
EDIT: PS: I still need to reply to your last paragraph of a recent post, and on the #3 question of your first post. I try not to lose track
[ December 07, 2007, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
This brings an interesting point The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And I believe that when Gandhi said (some folks say this quote does not have a rigorous provenance, so caveat emptor) "Happiness is when one's thoughts, words, and deeds are in harmony," he is saying something along the lines of PGK, FGK and CGK being unified. Maybe.
If only I understood what Gandhi wanted to say … Yet, again, an interesting point: How do we affect the people around us? Is it by thoughts, by words, by deeds?
Here’s my take on it: My thoughts don’t affect anyone (but me) unless I say something or act according to them.
My words only affect those who take me seriously enough, that is those that allow me to influence them. Example: If I were a deity and said “You have to kill your own child because I say so” there is a big chance to be affecting the world. If I (suminonA) were to tell you “You have to give me one million dollars because I say so” you’ll laugh in my face and it won’t affect anyone in the least.
My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
A.
edit: spelling
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
I'm assuming you're not asking for the truth about whether said deity exists. The statement "My favorite deity exists" is a belief. The person believes it to be true, but this does not affect the actual truth of the statement. It affects the way that person lives their life, so it is important, and I guess what we're getting at is that it is 'true for them'. But that's just semantics, right? Saying that the word 'belief' is equal to 'personal truth', separate from TRUTH.
If so, I'll buy that we each have a PGK, so that certain things are 'true for us' without touching the nature of TRUTH. (I feel kinda silly referring to it that way, but when things get down to semantics you have to be careful :-p )
Having admitted that, though, I still object to the idea that it is impossible to share these truths. Yes, there is something very personal about it, but if personal truths were completely non-transferable then there would be no point to organized religion.
quote: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
I'd agree with you Pooka, with one stipulation: God's PGK is TRUTH in its ultimate form. Think about it--if you were omniscient and omnipotent, your PGK would have to be the truth.
quote: This brings an interesting point [Smile] The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
No to both. ^_^ Think about it. If you were omnipotent and actually knew the deepest truths of the universe, what would be the point of saying 'oh, that's okay, you can believe whatever you want, I'll keep this wonderful knowledge to myself'.
Besides, how would you use egotheism to 'teach' anything? Isn't the whole point keeping your beliefs to yourself and claiming that they cannot be shared?
And for the second question, no again. God has given us the Bible, the Church, and many other methods of finding Him. He does not tell us to believe in whatever we wish, he demands that we do our best to find the truth. Again, since he is omniscient and knows the full truth, he can do nothing less than demand that we know it too. He may be understanding when we fall short of the goal, but he still wants perfection from us.
(Sorry if that sounds overly preachy, but sometimes I'm too lazy to add 'I believe' to everything I say about my religion :-p )
quote: My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
This may be the crux of the debate. If your personal beliefs bring you great joy, how can you not share them with others? That is the real drive behind the desire to 'bother' others--you want them to have the same joy you do. That's not always possible, but the joy is so great that it is often worth trying.
The way I see it, there are 2 main reasons for not forcing other people to your religion/viewpoint/beliefs. (whether we're talking physical force or strong compulsion) First of all, strong evangelism and proselytizing can be a turnoff in the wrong circumstances. (I'm sure everyone has plenty of examples of how this can happen) Not to mention that conversions by force are neither sincere nor beneficial.
And secondly, there's always a chance that the person you're trying to force may have insights that could help you in your own search for truth. If you don't have an open mind, you'll never be able to learn.
But neither of these reasons mean that you shouldn't offer your beliefs and 'personal' truths to someone at all.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I think we are definitely making steps toward understanding each other
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
I'm assuming you're not asking for the truth about whether said deity exists. The statement "My favorite deity exists" is a belief. The person believes it to be true, but this does not affect the actual truth of the statement. It affects the way that person lives their life, so it is important, and I guess what we're getting at is that it is 'true for them'. But that's just semantics, right? Saying that the word 'belief' is equal to 'personal truth', separate from TRUTH.
Spot on! (except that I was asking about the TRUTH whether said deity exists, precisely to make you see why its absolute value of truth is NON transferable).
quote:If so, I'll buy that we each have a PGK, so that certain things are 'true for us' without touching the nature of TRUTH. (I feel kinda silly referring to it that way, but when things get down to semantics you have to be careful :-p )
See, THIS is virtually the exact idea that I’m trying to explain in the 4 pages of this thread so far! (Still, Egotheism is more than that).
quote:Having admitted that, though, I still object to the idea that it is impossible to share these truths. Yes, there is something very personal about it, but if personal truths were completely non-transferable then there would be no point to organized religion.
You know what? I’d object to it too, but first you should show me where you have found the claim that Egotheism prevents us to share PGK! Remember that the concern of Egotheism is epistemology, hence the “big deal” about TEACHING!
Another “nut-shell” formula: Sharing is good, indoctrination is bad. The next step being understanding the “semantics” behind that.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
I'd agree with you Pooka, with one stipulation: God's PGK is TRUTH in its ultimate form. Think about it--if you were omniscient and omnipotent, your PGK would have to be the truth.
Quite a valid point Yet, (and maybe this is a theological question that I shouldn’t ask here), what do you think an omniscient (I never said “… and omnipotent”) deity would want us to do, knowledge-wise: Accept it all as true because the deity said so, or leaving us decide for ourselves if the “proofs” available are enough to convince us? Somehow I thought that the “infamous” free will was just that. And for that reason alone, I’d like to meet an egotheistic deity. (this also responds in part to the following quote: )
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: This brings an interesting point [Smile] The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
No to both. ^_^ Think about it. If you were omnipotent and actually knew the deepest truths of the universe, what would be the point of saying 'oh, that's okay, you can believe whatever you want, I'll keep this wonderful knowledge to myself'.
Besides, how would you use egotheism to 'teach' anything? Isn't the whole point keeping your beliefs to yourself and claiming that they cannot be shared?
And for the second question, no again. God has given us the Bible, the Church, and many other methods of finding Him. He does not tell us to believe in whatever we wish, he demands that we do our best to find the truth. Again, since he is omniscient and knows the full truth, he can do nothing less than demand that we know it too. He may be understanding when we fall short of the goal, but he still wants perfection from us.
I’ll say it again: Egotheism isn’t about “keeping the knowledge” to yourself. It’s about NOT indoctrinating free will endowed people with it!
quote:
quote: My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
This may be the crux of the debate. If your personal beliefs bring you great joy, how can you not share them with others? That is the real drive behind the desire to 'bother' others--you want them to have the same joy you do. That's not always possible, but the joy is so great that it is often worth trying.
I hope that by now, you see that I agree with that.
quote:The way I see it, there are 2 main reasons for not forcing other people to your religion/viewpoint/beliefs. (whether we're talking physical force or strong compulsion) First of all, strong evangelism and proselytizing can be a turnoff in the wrong circumstances. (I'm sure everyone has plenty of examples of how this can happen) Not to mention that conversions by force are neither sincere nor beneficial.
And secondly, there's always a chance that the person you're trying to force may have insights that could help you in your own search for truth. If you don't have an open mind, you'll never be able to learn.
But neither of these reasons mean that you shouldn't offer your beliefs and 'personal' truths to someone at all.
For the first reason I asked about the “egotheistic” nature of an omniscient deity. For the second reason I’m saying over and over that while you’re not in possession of the TRUTH, you shouldn’t teach your belief as the only one worthy of knowing!
Beware: This is a fine distinction! It’s one thing to share your belief and say it’s “the best” (acknowledging that other POV exist) and quite another to share your belief and say it’s “the only one” ! In the first case, the student could choose to copy your belief or not, while the second doesn’t offer that option. That’s why I call the first “teaching” and the second “indoctrination”.
As a practical example, for me, a good teacher would never say: Evolutionism is the only way to explain the species and their state today, and leave it at that. My favorite (egotheistic) teacher would say something along the lines: Evolutionism is the best way to explain it (reflecting his PGK), these are the reasons why (the “proofs” available in CGK) and there are other scenarios, ID to name one, which uses these proofs (also part of CGK), plus some other scenarios to find in the “other references” section of the “text-book”, which you might be interested to investigate for yourselves . (I hope there would be at least some students that would here it all with interest )
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I finally got to respond to your other points that I "skipped" so far:
quote:3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”? (my answer) CGK, RGK and FGK.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 3) See above, but I'd like to point out that since the definition of all your BK's would be almost impossible to pin down, your answer doesn't seem to be of any real use.
Yep, that’s why I’d like to be able to define (with the help of anyone interested in this debate) the “limits” of CGK, RGK, FGK first. My answer states simply the “flavours” of knowledge that we “need” to teach to the young minds. So, if we ever agree that Egotheism is valid, then we can concentrate on defining them as precisely as we can with added motivation
So yes, my answer seems void, but only in as much as those categories are still empty, either because they really don’t contain anything, or we can’t agree on what they should contain.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
I must say that the first time I read this argument, I said to myself: “See, a few more arguments like that and you’ll have to admit that Egotheism is an epistemological impossibility!” Luckily, I read it over and over, I thought about what you’re saying, and I realised that the options are still not all exhausted.
I’ll dissect it to small shreds:
(a)
quote: […] or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
True, if you aren’t able to know when you have enough information (as in knowledge), you shouldn’t become an Egotheist. I think, nevertheless, that each and every one of us has that ability, more or less developed. I’ll never ask a mentally retarded person to decide everything for themselves (and even less for others). I think there are reliable tests to see if a person really is disabled intellectually, so this criteria isn’t excessively arbitrary. But anyone that can demonstrate that they are capable of critical analysis and reasoning, should be allowed to do just that, and become egotheists if they want to
(b)
quote:you have to […] be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less)
That is a basic description of an egotheist, but please don’t jump to the conclusion that “egotheism” = “common sense”. Common sense allows for people to indoctrinate one another, egotheism wouldn’t!
(c)
quote: you have to be an egotheist from the beginning
(this, as an alternative to (a) ) This IS impossible. No one is born an Egotheist (it can’t be a “default state”). No one becomes an egotheist without KNOWING it, that is, without making a conscious choice about that. Why is that important? Simply because not being aware of it, you won’t understand the difference between your epistemology and that of others. And that’s why egotheism is a “meta-system of beliefs” (my definition in the first post of this thread had to be improved as I advanced in understanding and expression capabilities) and specifically talks about epistemology and not TRUTH.
Therefore, the “way out” of the impossibility is by reconsidering the "absoluteness" of (a) and what it says about "enough information".
Let me give a very poor but well known to me example: myself. I was born without being aware of any complex concept, and I consider Egotheism to be such a concept. I am now a self-declared egotheist.
So, somewhere along the lines, I had to be able to become an egotheist, even if from its definition (and this debate thus far) it isn’t very clear (to the others) how.
Maybe a little more background information about my past would help:
I was educated in my family and the educational system of my country of origin for the best part of my early life. Needles to say, everything was more or les “coherent” (not including the religion part) to me, so I never asked myself if what I know might be “wrong” on most of the subjects. The historical conditions made it so that the country was “isolated” (for a large range of definitions of the word), from the rest of the “civilised World”. I knew what I knew and I never suspected there was anything else, elsewhere. Yet things changed and I had the opportunity to leave my country of origin to follow my education among “strangers”. First I was a little scared, but my ignorance took care of insulating me from anticipating the really “scary” things that awaited me there. Needles to say, I “survived” and not only I am glad that I made that step of leaving “everything I new” behind, but I came to the conclusion (from experience) that such an experience is for the most part beneficial to me (and I extrapolate that to anybody).
The conclusion being that, I could only question my “beliefs” when I came to know that there are others, different than mines. It may sound tautological, but I think it is essential for us to acknowledge that it is a valid way of learning.
Do I have the impression that I know everything there is to know in this World ? Not by far, that’s why, by my definition, egotheism doesn’t have as a prerequisite “omniscience”. It just needs “various options” (the more the better), presented in a way that leaves the choices open, especially on matters that are not commonly agreed by all (hence the definition of the levels of the “Ground of Knowledge”.)
And no, I don’t mean present all possible (and fabled) theories as “equally” valuable/true. No, present the theories plus the “proofs” claimed by each of them, and then let the student decide which convinces them best.
A student that chooses to disagree that 2+2=4 inside the arithmetic system of any base superior to 5 should be questioned in terms of intellectual capabilities. (The premises and the rules of inferences being quite non equivocal.)
But a student that doesn’t choose to believe in a specific “theological fact”, because he/she knows there are several other such “facts” that are in flagrant contradiction whit the first, shouldn’t be “burned at the stake” for it.
There, I await for your shredding of my arguments. Don't be shy, I am here to learn more than I already know. (Invitation open to all)
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is there a difference between PGK that something does exist vs. PGK that something doesn't exist?
I think there just comes a point when one lets go of continually asking about the truth an begins to employ it, experiment on it, and otherwise act on it. This is true both of spiritual principles such as Charity and the scientific method. To see something one has believed produce the anticipated result is one definition of joy. In Science one begins with theory and finds evidences of that or performs experiments to test that. It is likewise satisfying to gather data on existing phenomena and discover principles that explain it. (While I don't think I have discovered much, scientific education is a process of assisting people to perceive these principles in a guided atomosphere.) I once attended a lecture on whether a student being guided through an experiment illustrating the Krebs cycle experiences, mentally, anything different from the original discoverer. I believe they must have been arguing that it was the same.
I didn't answer your question earlier about which principles of Christianity persuade me to accept the whole. I'd say the teachings on Charity, the parable of the sheep and the goats, the parable of the true vine, coming to see how these all describe the same thing in different ways is something that I've been experiencing somewhat recently (in the last two years). Before that I was working a lot in concepts of the two great laws of love. (I'm hesitant to share this because, you know, it spotlights how often I am flawed in these things, and that's exactly the point of Christianity, these things are alien to my nature.)
One major turning point for me probably could be expressed in the adage "To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life eternal." That ended a 8 year span of doubt and depression for me, though I guess I first began to come out of it the night (3 years prior) when I realized I could not shoulder the burden of my anger any longer, and cried out to God and found Him. But during those three years, it was the bemused endurance of contradictions, believing God had given me a stone for my bread and a serpent for my meat. So it was not joy, but the endurance of pain.
Going back before that, to what caused me to doubt God, was some events I recounted in my First Landmark post. Basically, my first child died, and then I was psychotic, and a couple of years later my nephew died. I also lost a lot of my faith in science around those times, for truly I had faith in science. I really don't think I believed people died in America anymore.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
pooka, for the most part of your previous post, I’d like to say that I’m sorry that you had to endure such tragedies in your (recent) past. I know of many, many cases where people either lost their faith, or found it, when confronted with significant tragedies in their life. And most of the time, their choice (in either direction) was beneficial for them, and for that reason I’ll never claim that having the religion as an option is useless or even “bad”.
Maybe a discussion by PM would be more helpful on any specifics of it.
About your question:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Is there a difference between PGK that something does exist vs. PGK that something doesn't exist?
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite understand what you mean. It was said here several times that our PGK couldn’t influence TRUTH, and I agree with it. Can you give some examples or more explanations?
Thanks.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It is constantly being pointed out that it is harder to prove something does not exist than to prove that it does (thinking mostly of arguments for or against the existence of God, but also the theory of evolution).
I finally looked up what Epistemology is. I would suggest that egotheism is a description of "third culture".
If you are familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization, it is a similar idea. The human mind (which I am using in a non-discrete sense at the moment) has certain requirements for language, and in the presence of limited input, the mind fills in the gaps, creating a creole.
If one were to accept the notion that the mind has similar parameters for a cultural or belief system, and a person is either given insufficient input or forced to change, it could in theory force a similar filling in of gaps.
But it's a very fringey idea, hardly a theory, even.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It is constantly being pointed out that it is harder to prove something does not exist than to prove that it does (thinking mostly of arguments for or against the existence of God, but also the theory of evolution).
Well, there is an essential thing to keep in mind: PGK cannot prove anything, positive or negative, for anyone else than the person holding it above all else.
I mean, if I have a vision of the IPU, I might be very strongly convinced that she exists, but it wouldn’t be sufficient to prove anything to anyone. And if I believe with all the strength that there is no connection between time and space, then it could be my “proof” of that “non-existence”, but that would require me to ignore the scientific arguments (CGK) that “prove” that connection to actually exist.
This is why I say over and over, “truth” is inside, whatever one holds dear on PGK, it can literally blind that person in the face of any kind of proof (on any other level: F/R/C). If one is not using CGK to form their PGK, it’s their choice, but that does not (cannot!) justify imposing that PGK on others (that might have considered the CGK and come to different conclusions).
quote:I finally looked up what Epistemology is. I would suggest that egotheism is a description of "third culture".
From what I know about it, “third culture” was the “forecast” made about the evolution of “intellectualism” in our society, when the division was between “two cultures”: the “true intellectuals” (the literary savvy) and the scientists (who were not seen as “true intellectuals”). So a “third culture” would arise, where the first two were to be on the same level. Yet something else happened: the scientists, instead of writing their work in such a manner as to be “accepted” by the “true intellectuals”, they preferred to “popularise science” and communicate all their “weird” discoveries directly to the public. That would be, by some definition, the Third Culture.
If that definition is the one you use, I would say that the Third Culture could be a by product of Egotheism. I mean, in order to “implement” Egotheism on a large scale (an option that is not necessarily immediate), all knowledge (not only Science, but Religion and all the rest) should be readily available for any interested individual. Yet the mere “availability” won’t induce Egotheism, because many could reject it as a valid epistemology. Also, Third Culture can be brought into reality by many other causes.
This does, however, bring up a point that I won’t try to ignore: It is possible that what I call Egotheism, exists “out there” with some other name. I don’t have exhaustive knowledge on epistemology, and even less on everything related. So I’m open to the possibility that one of these days, someone would say: "Hey, this thing that you think so original is actually <insert the other name>". At that point, I’ll go study it and come back here with my conclusion.
Now that I’m thinking, it did “kind of happened” with “common sense”, “moral relativism”, “hedonism” and now “third culture”. Even if connections might exist, as far as I know there is no equivalence between Egotheism and either of those.
[edited spelling]
quote:If you are familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization, it is a similar idea. The human mind (which I am using in a non-discrete sense at the moment) has certain requirements for language, and in the presence of limited input, the mind fills in the gaps, creating a creole.
If one were to accept the notion that the mind has similar parameters for a cultural or belief system, and a person is either given insufficient input or forced to change, it could in theory force a similar filling in of gaps.
But it's a very fringey idea, hardly a theory, even.
I’m not familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization. It would be interesting to find more about it. From your description here, I could say however that one of the “purposes” of Egotheism (on the teaching side) is minimising those gaps as soon as possible, so each individual could be “ready” to become egotheist (on the student side), if so chooses.
A.
[ December 13, 2007, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Haiti and the Dominican Republic probably feature the most established Creoles. Haiti uses a Creole based on French, and the DR uses a Spanish Creole. The Creole generally arises from a Pidgin and the assumption is that slaves from a variety of places learned some basic, functional words in the "source" language, and as they raised their children, did their best to teach that to their children. But the basic, functional vocubulary was lacking in pronouns, prepositions and that sort of thing. At least, that's my sketch of it.
I guess my question for you is over the use of the term "ego". Part of my most recent philosophical conundrum involved a reexamination of Freudian analysis and the effects of growing up within that mental framework (which was intended to illuminate the intracacies of the adult mind). It might also be likened to the Creole issues, and also your issues concerning what is an appropriate age for someone to begin to make their own decisions of what to believe.
I think I was 11 or so the first time someone taled about the id, ego and superego. They spoke of it dismissively, but it still took root in my mind.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Somehow I missed a bunch of your post there. By "Third Culture" I meant a hypothetical universal culture experienced by people who are caught between two cultures.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
orlox, thanks for the links. I hope that those that hate Wikipedia won't boycot this thread now
pooka, I'll prepare an answer for the "ego" question
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought my read of Third Culture was on wiki too. I'll have too look back... I just now remember why I originally stumbled onto it. It was describing the experience of hearing children of deaf parents. Third Culture Kids Hmm.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
BTW, Jonah Lehrer has an interesting take on the Third Culture (variously described as a reform of the Third Culture or perhaps a Fourth Culture) in his new book Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
He has the cover story in Seed Magazine this month (so it isn't available on the web yet) "THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE...IS ART?"
[ December 13, 2007, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: orlox ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Google may not have a definition for egotheism but the OED does.
Egotheism: The (mystical) identification of oneself with the Deity.
Which makes sense. Monotheism -- a belief in one god. Polytheism -- a belief in many gods. Atheism -- a belief in no god. Egotheism -- a belief that you are God.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Google may not have a definition for egotheism but the OED does.
Egotheism: The (mystical) identification of oneself with the Deity.
Which makes sense. Monotheism -- a belief in one god. Polytheism -- a belief in many gods. Atheism -- a belief in no god. Egotheism -- a belief that you are God.
Ok, for the record: I don’t believe I'm a deity of any form when I say here that “I'm an egotheist”. It’s just me misusing the word. I use it here only with the definition I proposed and improved in this thread.
I just hope that people would not get too confused now. I’ll make an edit of the OP soon.
Either way, I have to find a new term for this …
Thanks, The Rabbit!
A.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
I think you are putting way too much faith in that documentary. The theory that our consciousness creates reality is weaker than string theory. At least there are theoretical ways that we could test string theory in the future.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There's always Idtheism. But I have no reason for thinking you would find that appropriate.
Also, I'm uncertain why you appended "ego" to "-theism". Wouldn't metacognition or something along those lines be closer? That's what I was calling it back when I was interested in such things. Not that I'm certain we're talking about the same stuff.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
I think you are putting way too much faith in that documentary. The theory that our consciousness creates reality is weaker than string theory. At least there are theoretical ways that we could test string theory in the future.
Don’t worry, “fate” has nothing to do with my mentioning it. I am excited because I see other people concerned by the possibility and/or need to find another way of understanding the Universe (I share that concern). I believe virtually nothing about that at the moment, this is why the second landmark is open for discussions in that department
Also, as far as I know, they haven’t found YET a practical way to test String Theory, and that’s because it involves energy levels still un-approachable by the current Particle Accelerators. Building bigger and better is the way
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There's always Idtheism. But I have no reason for thinking you would find that appropriate.
Also, I'm uncertain why you appended "ego" to "-theism". Wouldn't metacognition or something along those lines be closer? That's what I was calling it back when I was interested in such things. Not that I'm certain we're talking about the same stuff.
pooka, your suggestions are welcome. I use this occasion to launch an open invitation to all, to come up with a “suitable” term for this thing debated in this thread. “Egotheism” is already used elsewhere and I don’t want to high-jack the term.
I used “ego” as a prefix, because it has A LOT to do with the self. (Whatever we do, PGK is an essential part of one’s system of beliefs). So I favour the names that contain it
Of course, I realize that in order to find a suitable name, one has to understand the main characteristics of what we try to “baptise”. Therefore I’ll try to give, as succinctly as possible, these characteristics of …<insert new name> - It is epistemological in nature. It concerns the way we learn and teach the available knowledge. - It states that our certainty on the truth value of the available knowledge is not uniform. (hence the concern for defining the Ground Knowledge levels, P/F/R/C) - It states that all knowledge should be available to all, including the “level of Ground Knowledge” each piece of information is supposed to be on. - It also states that after seeing all available knowledge (read: the more the better), the SELF has to make a choice about what to believe (and include in PGK), and thus reach the conclusions about “truth” - It also states that no knowledge is absolute, even if Absolute TRUTH does exist somewhere. Thus, Absolute TRUTH is not transmissible - It also takes into consideration that “perfect” communication is not possible, so even “simple” messages might be difficult to transfer from one individual to another. The more complex the message, the less “reliable” is the “transfer of knowledge”. - It rejects all forms of "indoctrination", where indoctrination is the act of presenting “only one side of the story”. - It doesn’t reject any piece of knowledge, and encourages sharing (how else could we increase availability?) - It doesn’t minimize individual responsibility, rather does the opposite. The larger the social group considered, the more “rules” are to be taken into consideration (more levels).
Well, I’ll leave it to that for now, though I’m sure “all is not said” yet.
From this point forward, I’m encouraging all of you to propose names for this, and I’d like to find, with your help, a suitable one. Comments and “disputes” about these propositions are also encouraged. Don’t forget that using a term that is already used elsewhere is a
Until now we have these candidates:
From pooka: “idtheism” or “metacognition” From myself: “egosophism”
A.
[edited for clarity]
[ December 14, 2007, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: BTW, Jonah Lehrer has an interesting take on the Third Culture (variously described as a reform of the Third Culture or perhaps a Fourth Culture) in his new book Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
He has the cover story in Seed Magazine this month (so it isn't available on the web yet) "THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE...IS ART?"
Jonah Lehrer is seriously considering ART as a way of understanding things that science is still "behind" in uncovering. (Brain in particular). Not bad at all. (I also think that maybe this would be more suited for the "other" thread ... )
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess my question for you is over the use of the term "ego". Part of my most recent philosophical conundrum involved a reexamination of Freudian analysis and the effects of growing up within that mental framework (which was intended to illuminate the intracacies of the adult mind). It might also be likened to the Creole issues, and also your issues concerning what is an appropriate age for someone to begin to make their own decisions of what to believe.
I think I was 11 or so the first time someone taled about the id, ego and superego. They spoke of it dismissively, but it still took root in my mind.
I see “ego” very basically. The self that one is aware of, that is what I call “ego”. So the things that we “feel as true” inside us, they are literally “true for the ego”.
This begs the question : what is "self-awareness"?
A few friends of mine suggested that “self-awareness” is beginning only “late” in life, somewhere at about two years after birth, and manifested when a child realises the image in the mirror is "themselves". I don’t quite agree, I kind of feel that even an unborn child has some kind of “self-awareness”. Can we “measure that” directly? Most probably not.
But still, the “self-awareness” that what “Egotheism*” needs, is more that “pure self”. It’s the self-awareness of being able to make informed decisions about beliefs/knowledge/actions. (Thus, an unborn child can’t be an “egotheist*”).
Warning: fine nuance: it's not the same being able to make an informed decision, and KNOWING that you have that ability!
I call an informed decision something like “I choose this, based on that knowledge, I have this reason(s) to choose it, and I take responsibility for it”. In this view, changing such a choice is possible if we accept to hear more arguments (admitting that there might be something new that we were ignorant of) and re-evaluating our reasons for that choice. It is not only useful for learning, but I dare say a pre-requisite for quality learning.
A.
* Note: as long as we don’t have a name for this, I’ll keep using the terms Egotheism/egotheist as they are defined in this thread, and append the mark <*> to them to acknowledge the “misuse”. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are already several schools of modern philosophy that fit your description. Perhaps you could decide which one of those best fits?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Ok, so I should read ALL the available material and then come back, or could you orient me toward those that seem to "fit my description" ?
Thanks,
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jon Hecht finished the great works of Western philosophy over a long weekend. I wouldn't've thought so, but apparently it's not that hard.
-----------
Specifically, I think you're an existentialist (and therefore also a rationalist) with a strong interest in phenomenology. It sounds like you'd like to be an analytic philosopher, so I'd recommend that you read Russell just for enjoyment, but I don't think you'll wind up wholeheartedly jumping on that train. (You may find Wittgenstein interesting, if only in coming up with ways to refute him.) I'd also recommend de Saussure, since semiotics are at the heart of this -- but given that, you may find skipping ahead to the symbolic materialists (like Hofstadter, who's currently got his own thread here) gets you there faster.
If I had to give your philosophy a name, I'd call it positivist existentialism; if I understand what you've said correctly, you believe that morality and experience are personal and consensual, but are also on the fence about whether these consensual experiences inform physical reality in some way. This puts you square alongside Spinoza and Lange.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
TomDavidson, thank you very much for your reply. It will surely give me lost of ideas to explore, and books to read. I appreciate it a whole lot!
(From the ones you named, I had some contact with Spinosa, Russell and Hofstadter.)
Until I educate myself a little more along these lines, the main questions on this thread remain open:
Is this Egotheism* a valid way of approaching knowledge? If not, what deficiencies can be noticed? How do you propose to “fix” them? If yes, can it be “implemented” in the Real world? Should it? How?
You see, I’ll never exhaust my questions …
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"Ego" means "I" (if you want to go back to the Latin and not get hung up on Freud). I'm not sure what the word was for self. I'm aware of the use of "se" as a prefix. But I'm really hungry right now and my long term recall is shot.
I guess I wanted to say that meta-cognition revolved around basic ideas of respecting the integrity of other selves, which I think you are talking about, and "authenticity." Aut- is a prefix meaning self. But, you know, "autism" is kind of taken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the egotheistical answer to all those questions would be:
1) If you, the thinker, consider it a valid way of approaching knowledge according to its own standards, then it is valid. 2) If not, you the thinker need to decide what's wrong with it. 3) If yes, there is no need to implement it in the real world because, where the Real World works, this has already been implemented.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There was a bit in there specifically about internal vs. external knowledge.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the egotheistical answer to all those questions would be:
1) If you, the thinker, consider it a valid way of approaching knowledge according to its own standards, then it is valid. 2) If not, you the thinker need to decide what's wrong with it. 3) If yes, there is no need to implement it in the real world because, where the Real World works, this has already been implemented.
Wow, I have to agree with you, an all three points! (Plus, I have to admit it's a bit "bizarre" to see someone else apply Egotheism* to my own questions. )
One remark though. I formulated badly the third question. When I said “Real world” I was referring to “The world al large”, or even closer, “On a large scale”. That is, not only for the thinker alone, but for the others around. Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards) ?
---
pooka, thanks for the link. I will take a good look at its contents.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards) ?
I don't believe so, no.
In Warner's model which involves "The Box" of self-deception, it was not possible to release someone from the box by telling them that they were in the box. Telling them they were in the box set up a new layer of accusation and justification.
P.S. Everyone believes their model is not a form of indoctrination, but of liberation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards)?
If we're still positing egotheism as an exclusive epistemology, then it's important to understand that it already has. In other words, any time someone correctly claims to know something, they know it because they examined it through an egotheistic lens. This means everyone who claims to know something for a non-egotheistic reason is doing just that: claiming to know something.
The question really is, then, "is it possible to cause people to stop claiming to know things they don't really know without unethically coercing them (by the definition of ethical behavior developed through egotheism?)" I think the answer is probably "no."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, that's true. If "egotheism" correctly describes how people operate, then they are already operating that way.
But I think it would cause a lot of havoc if everyone had to declaim everything they don't really know.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, that's true. If "egotheism" correctly describes how people operate, then they are already operating that way.
This is virtually a tautology. (this is a joke related to another thread)
When I started to wonder about Egotheism* it was because I saw around me, IRL, too many instances where this wasn’t the case. And I brought it up on this forum because I saw it has enough “complexity” (read variety) to bring many points of view together. From such a debate we can see the eventual “validity” of this idea and its “universality”.
I think that even watching inside the confines of this thread, the majority doesn’t really accept such an epistemology. Why is that? Well, another interesting question… Maybe part of the answer is in the following quotes:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The question really is, then, "is it possible to cause people to stop claiming to know things they don't really know without unethically coercing them (by the definition of ethical behavior developed through egotheism?)" I think the answer is probably "no."
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I think it would cause a lot of havoc if everyone had to declaim everything they don't really know.
We touched finally the most delicate questions about Egotheism*. It is such a “paradox”: having an epistemology that “fights” for the right of free choice, to the point of not being able to “win” itself. At least, I tried to “defend” it, and that’s the point of this thread.
That said, I don’t consider this debate over, by far. There are always new inputs to be taken into consideration. At least I, as an egotheist*, believe so.
The next line of questioning:
Why is non-egotheistic* epistemology so widely spread?
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Because it works.
You can't have everyone discover all the principles of mathematics from dirt. Indoctrination has to be used to get people up to speed on everything that is generally known in time for them to possibly do anything productive with it while they are still young. That is, at least, the mythology that drives the sorts of people who want doctorates in math.
But you move across the academic spectrum into history and things get a bit murkier, and the idea of indoctrinating someone sounds horrible, but is it any less the case?
One view of education, exemplified by the Arabic darasa, also means to blot out or obliterate, which is what "indoctrination" brings to mind. But "indoctrinate" comes from the same root as docent means more to lead, guide, and bring along.
But I think it depends on the person. Some people are very practically oriented and don't really care how things work as long as they do work.
And who is to decided what disciplines are good to indoctrinate and which are not, or as you keep bringing up, at what age someone could choose to be indoctrinated?
I have a seven year old and he says he wants to make video games when he grows up, and so we are always explaining to him how the things he studies in school will be needed in that area. We have another child who wants to be an astronaut. But what if we had a child who wanted to be an actress or a rock star?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Because it works.
Well … yes. I can’t say it doesn’t. But do you really like the way it works?
Trying to express my feelings about it, I came up with an outrageous analogy:
It’s like training a dog (named A, short for Abigail) to walk on two legs. And doing that by amputating two of A’s four. So yes, if A wants to walk, A has no other option but use the remaining two. Complete success for the trainer! What use is learning something, if by that, one remains “crippled” for the rest of their life?
Maybe A would eventually learn to walk on two legs, even while having four. Maybe A would walk on two different legs than those that the trainer had in mind! Or maybe A couldn’t do it, whatever the effort A puts in it. What then? Is a failure of the trainer, or is it A’s fault? (All this, without even bringing into discussion the “utility” of walking on only two legs…)
quote:You can't have everyone discover all the principles of mathematics from dirt. Indoctrination has to be used to get people up to speed on everything that is generally known in time for them to possibly do anything productive with it while they are still young. That is, at least, the mythology that drives the sorts of people who want doctorates in math.
But you move across the academic spectrum into history and things get a bit murkier, and the idea of indoctrinating someone sounds horrible, but is it any less the case?
I agree that one can’t learn everything at once, nor do I believe that each student has to rediscover the proverbial wheel, but that’s not what “not indoctrinate” stands for. Teaching should be more like, presenting the index of the available knowledge to the student, and giving an introduction to each relevant point. Given the declared interest of the student, the teacher would recommend some point before others (priorities are good ) and give references for any additional and relevant information. I kind of have the impression that in science this goes pretty much like that. (I might be wrong). The question is, why is it “easier” to do otherwise in other fields? Somehow, theology comes first to mind. Why is it so important to walk on the two legs of Christianity? Why not Buddhism? Why not other? And who gives the right to the trainer to choose for A? (Ups, I fell into the analogy again. )
quote:One view of education, exemplified by the Arabic darasa, also means to blot out or obliterate, which is what "indoctrination" brings to mind. But "indoctrinate" comes from the same root as docent means more to lead, guide, and bring along.
Just to be clear, when I use “indoctrination” I mean presenting intentionally only part of the available knowledge. A teacher that was indoctrinated, might teach their students with all the good faith they can master, thinking that they are presenting ALL the information (it being the only available). That is “innocent” indoctrination. But it can’t last for long, because having an open mind will inevitably lead to becoming aware of “more”.
quote:But I think it depends on the person. Some people are very practically oriented and don't really care how things work as long as they do work.
And who is to decided what disciplines are good to indoctrinate and which are not, or as you keep bringing up, at what age someone could choose to be indoctrinated?
I’d say let’s be fair, and NOT indoctrinate anything! As for the age, there is no external “force” to decide that. It can only be found out inside!
quote:I have a seven year old and he says he wants to make video games when he grows up, and so we are always explaining to him how the things he studies in school will be needed in that area. We have another child who wants to be an astronaut. But what if we had a child who wanted to be an actress or a rock star?
Well, what education do you think the actors and rock stars have? That’s what should be explained to anyone interested in becoming one.
You see, the point isn't forcing children to become egotheists* as soon as possible. First and foremost, it’s for the teachers to use Egotheism* as a way of teaching. As we’ve seen before, it’s not the job of the egotheist* teacher to decide for the student. Maybe the student would choose freely what kind of education they want: an “open” one, where all knowledge is available, or a “closed” one where they will learn one single side of the knowledge, the way teacher decided was best?
The question is, which one would you like to be the “default” for your child?
A.
PS:
BTW, here are the proposals for the <new name>:
From pooka: - “idtheism” ( I’m not even sure how to pronounce it … ) - “metacognition” ( a bit too general, as in not-specific enough ) From myself: - “egosophism” ( unification of “ego”-self and “sopho”-wisdom ) - NEW: “egologism” ( self + logos ) From TomDavidson: - “positivist existentialism” (this might prove to be the “technical” term for it )
Any new candidates?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Idtheism was mostly tongue in cheek.
Metacognition is more of an ethical framework for people dealing with other people. It has to do with what you're talking about, but is not really the same thing.
I just think there is a whole lot of baggage that goes with "ego", mainly thanks to Freud, and you're better off with "Aut" if you want to preserve the self-focus. We have words like Authentic, autonomous and author.
I think "sophism" is a vastly better label than "theism" as far as accuracy goes, since your ideas don't necessarily involve God.
I'll have to look into positivist existentialism to see if I agree that it describes your baby. It may be compatible with it without accurately describing it.
As to chopping legs off dogs, I don't know. I had a dream the other night that someone cut the ears off my sister's dog. It was very upsetting (my sister doesn't really have a dog, but my brother did).
When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Idtheism was mostly tongue in cheek.
Metacognition is more of an ethical framework for people dealing with other people. It has to do with what you're talking about, but is not really the same thing.
Ok.
quote: I just think there is a whole lot of baggage that goes with "ego", mainly thanks to Freud, and you're better off with "Aut" if you want to preserve the self-focus. We have words like Authentic, autonomous and author.
I think "sophism" is a vastly better label than "theism" as far as accuracy goes, since your ideas don't necessarily involve God.
I don’t have any problem with „ego”, whatever Freud might have said. I see your point about „aut” though, and therefore propose as a new candidate: „autosophism”
Also, I was thinking about: „egotruism”. And that’s because the essence of Egothesm* is that as long as you trust your PGK, it is essentially „true” (i.e. very, very certain) for yourself.
quote:I'll have to look into positivist existentialism to see if I agree that it describes your baby. It may be compatible with it without accurately describing it.
Yep, me too. I’m working on it.
quote:When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
No we don’t. I’ve seen many people learning more than one „mother tongue” (see inter-cultural families), and others being able to learn more when they grew up. Impossible it is not.
Do I think that a child should learn ALL languages at once? (This would seem to be the direct application of Egotheism* on the matter.) No. Learning two or three would be enough. Also, learning one that is very widely used, might open up the chances to get in contact (sooner) with the knowledge mainly available in that „translation”. It’s like studying Computer Science in France. Sooner or later you have to know English as most of the courses/documentation is in English.
Language opens the way to Communication.
A.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
I'm not sure where this comes from but it isn't true. The ability children have at birth to acquire any language is normally retained until puberty at which time those circuits in the brain begin to harden. The data all suggests that a childs ability to learn language is cut off by the maturation process and not by acquiring a language.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The ability children have at birth to acquire any language is normally retained until puberty at which time those circuits in the brain begin to harden. The data all suggests that a childs ability to learn language is cut off by the maturation process and not by acquiring a language.
Hey, this does have an interesting implication: If the child’s brain is more receptive at an early age, then it means that we should teach them the largest array of basic knowledge that we can, fast, so they could use this solid base for decision making in the future, when “absorption” is limited by the maturation process.
Of course, this makes sense only if all the areas of the brain (not only those that control/contain speech) behave in this way.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Ok, I make it “official”, the term/concept I was trying to define in this thread, will be called from now on Egotruism. (I really hope this term wasn’t used elsewhere ) The choice is based on the fact that at the core, Egotruism (fromer Egotheism*) states that the final choice about the “truth” value (that is, the level of certainty about that value) is made at the personal level (hence the “truism”: if the self takes it as certain, then it is certain for the self.)
Any comment on that is welcomed, obviously.
Either way, I think there are many points that could still be touched here, but the prospect of talking to myself on this thread is not what I’m hoping for.
Therefore, if you (all) don’t have any specific points to comment, I invite you to give your conclusion about this epistemological matter (seen as a whole in this thread).
If you had to choose between Egotruism and non-Egotruism, what would your choice be?
I realize that most of the time a “partly egotruistic” view could be your “answer”, but if you think that only part of it is “acceptable” then you are clearly “not buying” the whole, which is really the grain of the question.
So, what’s your conclusion?
A.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Google doesn’t offer any definition of the word “egotheism”. Good. I’ll use it with the next definition:
Egotheism = a system of (moral) beliefs based on the principle that each individual has the right to form his/hers own system of beliefs, that is not necessarily transmissible to others.
By this definition, one “becomes” an egotheist when (and only when) one is able to formulate this system by oneself, based on*: education, tradition, dreams, myths, secular laws, “known” religions and whatnot. A true egotheist is preoccupied to understand the world/Universe around, its meaningfulness, the right/wrong balance etc. The goal is self-betterment/perfection, and not at all “convincing” the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is “teh best/truest/worthiest”.
Of course, there are a lot of “problems” to be solved: 1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? 2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? 3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”?
What say you?
A.
*note: randomly ordered list
[edited: thread title] [edited (dec. 2007): on the 4th page, it was commented that this term is already in use with a different definition. So, in this thread, the term doesn't have the "official" definition, but the one proposed above.] [edit: on the 5th page, the term was changed to "egotruism" ]
I don't have an answer for you, but that may be the point. If only there were a way to transmit it to others...*Sigh*. The film "Adaptation" might help shed some light on the subject.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
String, nice point.
But you see, the whole purpose of this thread (and there are more than 4 full pages for it) was to expand and explain this "un-transmissible" thing. Therefore, I hope that someone who reads it as a whole, can reach a conclusion about it.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think your definition -- "if the self asserts that X is true, X is true for the self" -- is now a tautology.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Truism is a word in english that means a saying. Like the things Polonius tells his son in Hamlet, I think those are truisms.
Point taken, Rabbit, it's been my entirely anecdotal experience than many bilingual children acquire language faster than monolingual children, and that is the theory behind babysign, that letting a child work with language enhances their ability to acquire it, rather than displacing their capacity.
However, there is a degree to which culture and social attitude dwells in language (I'm trying to avoid a strong Sapir-Whorf stance assigning causality one way or the other.) I'm using language in this instance as the most recognizable figurehead underwhich cultural and social baggage is transmitted to children along with all the critical information they obtain from living with their parents.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think your definition -- "if the self asserts that X is true, X is true for the self" -- is now a tautology.
Ok, even the phrase I used is a tautology, rather than a truism. For me the two terms are virtually the same in this context, but I admit that they are not technically the same thing. I was trying to explain my preference for the new name, which was based on the fact that we did touch on this tautology before as a “core result” of Egotheism*.
As you can see though, I avoided the word "true" in my last version of the tautology/truism, especially because the point about the Absolute Truth was risen several times now, and I am not talking about making it relative to the self. I choose to believe (for now) that if there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (and I think that it does), then it isn’t influenced by individual belief. As dkw noted, I’m not talking about TRUTH but about "certainty of truth value".
I’d like to note, nevertheless, that Egotruism itself is NOT just a tautology/truism. Any sufficiently complex “theory/concept” can produce tautologies. Just like Evolutionism has: “natural selection works by favouring the reproduction of the individuals that are fitter to breed”. But that is not the whole story, just like the tautology that prompted the new name is not the whole story of Egotruism.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hey, who ghost bumped?
Oh, that was weird. The thread was bumped, but I swear your post wasn't there.
I just get a very different idea in my head from "truism" as from "-theism" be it poly, heno, or a.
That is to say, for me a truism is bunch of words, and not any kind of system.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
pooka, Egotruism is just a name (I hope it is a NEW one ). Can you separate its meaning from the meaning of "ego" and "truism" ?
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Probably not. But certainly whatever works for you.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
. To believe everyone's beliefs or choices could be right (even "on a personal level" as you put it) is not only a bit naive, it defies logic.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)