User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 46

  1. #21
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The definition of a fundamentalist is not one who merely neglects to question some things, but one who holds to an ethical principle that some things are never to be questioned. A lot of people exist who do not have such a principle. In fact, most do not. For instance, conventional teenagers may not make an effort to question many things, but they surely don't have maxims that prohibit them from doing so. The same can be said with regard to the conventional office workers who do not belong to any religious or a political group, they may go through their lives not having questioned anything, yet it is doubtful that they will establish a moral principle that they should not question anything.

    In short, we have a confusion here between somebody who merely neglects to question some things and someones who has a moral principle decreeing that some things should not be questioned. The first kind of a person is not a fundamentalist, yet the second kind is.
    I don't hear people say "You can question things," in a flat, emotionless tone. They hold that belief with pride and conviction, and they hope others will join in. In many cases they even directly tell people to do this. So these people believe, for moral reasons, that you should not question the act of questioning. Based on what you've said, that would be a form of fundamentalism.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  2. #22
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    My argument was that religion conduces to acts of violence because it convinces people that their beliefs are unquestionable true for one. Secondly, many religions teach their followers that they have a duty to impose their views on others. Thirdly, religion discourages critical thought and open-minded inquiry, for this reason it conduces to people becoming hostile to those who disagree with them.
    It appears our distance stems from how we attribute the creation of violence in human behavior.

    You contend that inalienable beliefs are fundamentally responsible for certain violent acts. I suspect that violence is itself inalienable.

    Strength of critical thought does not negate violence. Look at Ted Kaczysnki.

  3. #23
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I don't hear people say "You can question things," in a flat, emotionless tone. They hold that belief with pride and conviction, and they hope others will join in. In many cases they even directly tell people to do this. So these people believe, for moral reasons, that you should not question the act of questioning. Based on what you've said, that would be a form of fundamentalism.
    No, I don't hold to the principle that you should never question the act of questioning. The fact that somebody may say this in an emotional or a prideful tone does not mean that they don't question the act of questioning.

    Moreover, this is not relevant. The person does not become a fundamentalist unless he has a clearly articulated moral principle (akin to the 10 commandments or a firmly established political law) that he should not question the act of questioning. If he merely feels strongly about not questioning the act of questioning and has a moral hunch that he should not, he is not a fundamentalist.

    What you seem to have in mind is the latter kind of a person. At any rate, we cannot afford to waste time looking into the innermost essence of one's character and judge them by whatever moral hunches or passions may be driving them. We may only judge a person's ethic by the moral principles that they have articulated clearly and directly.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    It appears our distance stems from how we attribute the creation of violence in human behavior.

    You contend that inalienable beliefs are fundamentally responsible for certain violent acts. I suspect that violence is itself inalienable.

    Strength of critical thought does not negate violence. Look at Ted Kaczysnki.
    It does not negate violence completely, yet it is a preventative measure. There will always be people who attack others simply because they enjoy doing so. They are a minority however, most people who commit the ignominous acts in question under the assumption that they are doing the right thing. Almost all of such people are not sociopaths like Mr. Kaczynski. Your typical suicide bomber may easily be an average Muslim boy who was convinced by his religious leaders that after he blows up an Israeli civilian facility, 80 virgins will welcome him into heaven If people of this kind who compose the majority of culprits of direct violence were critical thinkers, they would not have been guided by such radically evil and altogether untenable moral maxims. Consequently, they would not be guilty of such ostensibly sinister offenses. I mean to use the word 'ostensibly' on purpose as their offenses merely appear to be egregious but truly are not. The true evil consists in the moral principles that guide them and their teachers are responsible for such principles, not the suicide bombers themselves. The latter merely thoughtlessly embrace what they are taught, their crime is not mass murder but thoughtlessness which is to be rectified by an education in critical thinking.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #25
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    As far as the roots of violence. I lean more on the side of nurture. Violence is rooted in:
    1. Ambivalent or Insecure Attachment in childhood
    2. Needs deprivation during the most critical years of brain and emotional development
    3. The lack of an empath, or person to turn to during the times of distress resulting from #1 and 2

    I think religion(or secular fundamentalism), then gives the already violent person justification for their behavior, and takes the focus off the true source of their turmoil(the reality that they were not loved and do not love).
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  6. #26
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, I don't hold to the principle that you should never question the act of questioning. The fact that somebody may say this in an emotional or a prideful tone does not mean that they don't question the act of questioning.
    To question the act of questioning would lead to the effect that I outlined in my other post, so I can't really agree with you on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Moreover, this is not relevant. The person does not become a fundamentalist unless he has a clearly articulated moral principle (akin to the 10 commandments or a firmly established political law) that he should not question the act of questioning. If he merely feels strongly about not questioning the act of questioning and has a moral hunch that he should not, he is not a fundamentalist.
    What's the difference between a moral principle and a strong feeling about how one should conduct oneself?

    I guess what I'm wondering is what exactly you object to in religion. I'm not religious myself, but it has nothing to do with fundamentalism. I simply don't go for religion, and that seems to be the case with you. For some reason, though, you try to blame characteristics of religion that I would argue are either shared by, or have their equivalents in less godly people.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #27
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    To question the act of questioning would lead to the effect that I outlined in my other post, so I can't really agree with you on that.

    What's the difference between a moral principle and a strong feeling about how one should conduct oneself?.
    If you question the act of questioning, you don't have to arrive at fundamentalism. You may be skeptical about the need to have some things as either questionable or non-questionable. As a result, you will not have a one coherent principle that states that there is something in your view that you shouldn't question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I guess what I'm wondering is what exactly you object to in religion. I'm not religious myself, but it has nothing to do with fundamentalism. I simply don't go for religion, and that seems to be the case with you. For some reason, though, you try to blame characteristics of religion that I would argue are either shared by, or have their equivalents in less godly people.
    The difference is that a Feeling cannot be coherently expressed, only a firm principle can be done. Only what is coherently expressible (principles) is analyzable. Whatever is inexpressible (a strong feeling for instance) has no place in a discussion where ethical views are evaluated or categorized into groups. Why? Because by definition we are unable to talk about what is inexpressible that is why all ethical views must consist of clearly articulated principles.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #28
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    If you question the act of questioning, you don't have to arrive at fundamentalism. You may be skeptical about the need to have some things as either questionable or non-questionable. As a result, you will not have a one coherent principle that states that there is something in your view that you shouldn't question.
    The kind of skepticism you describe is effectively the same thing as to question everything but the act of questioning itself. In either form of questioning, you exercise skepticism toward things external to that skepticism itself. This is the way it must always be, for a question can't question itself. By its very nature, a question directs itself toward something external, and this makes the question itself fundamentalistic. You can question a question, of course, but your new act of questioning is just as fundamentalistic as the old one was.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    The difference is that a Feeling cannot be coherently expressed, only a firm principle can be done. Only what is coherently expressible (principles) is analyzable. Whatever is inexpressible (a strong feeling for instance) has no place in a discussion where ethical views are evaluated or categorized into groups. Why? Because by definition we are unable to talk about what is inexpressible that is why all ethical views must consist of clearly articulated principles.
    I would say that "Question everything" is a pretty clear principle, whatever the feelings behind it.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  9. #29
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    The kind of skepticism you describe is effectively the same thing as to question everything but the act of questioning itself. In either form of questioning, you exercise skepticism toward things external to that skepticism itself. This is the way it must always be, for a question can't question itself. By its very nature, a question directs itself toward something external, and this makes the question itself fundamentalistic. You can question a question, of course, but your new act of questioning is just as fundamentalistic as the old one was. .
    I do not see the fundamentalism that you have in mind. The act of questioning everything is not supported by the immutability clause. The principle of questioning everything, in the skepticism you have underlined can be questioned simply because the principle in question does not contain a component that prohibits one to question it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    The I would say that "Question everything" is a pretty clear principle, whatever the feelings behind it.
    The principle of questioning everything is not the same as never not questioning the principle of questioning everything. The former principle is not fundamentalistic because it can be questioned, yet the latter is fundamentalistic because it cannot be questioned.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #30
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Eh, I don't think we're getting anywhere here. At this point I'd just be repeating myself. The last thing I'll say (most likely) is that your philosophy seems empty to me because I have no reason to favor "open-mindedness" over closed-mindedness. The only time someone wants another person to open their mind is when that other person happens to disagree with them on some point. It's just a clever way to get people to think like you. So, if I combine that with what I've already said in other posts, to me your whole argument can be summed up as "Stop believing in religion, because I dislike it, and start believing in logic and open-mindedness." But what if someone wants to practice "fundamentalism?" Maybe they're perfectly willing to embrace the consequences, just as you are the consequences of open-mindedness.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

Similar Threads

  1. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  2. Role of Religion in Personal Development
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 05:11 PM
  3. Problems of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 11:12 PM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM
  5. Problem of Problematicality
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO