User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 35

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default How I think we ought to live our lives

    This is the question most commonly asked by religions. The most obvious answer we see is that you simply do what you're told. 'Monkey see, monkey do!'

    This is the true compelling motto of religious thought and action.

    In the book that I have just published, the Poverty of Conventionalism, Book Store Search Results

    Religion is defined as a worldview propounding a metaphysical perspective, an inquiry into ethics, an inquiry into the afterlife (eschatology), yet also necessarily accept at least some of the axioms as incontrovertible.

    Obviously such an attitude is very alluring to the mindset of any reasonable person searching for meaning in his life as we all need to have a coherent worldview, all want to have a sound system of ethics and all of us want to know about the questions of the afterlife. Religion offers all three of those. Yet what vitiates religion at the very core is that whatever views shall be propounded on those matters are to be accepted on authority. It does not matter if they are good or true, and in fact I may be compelled to call them good or true, not because in my own judgment they are so, but because religion exhorts me to believe that whatever is religious is good or true by definition. Or in other words, as Boxer from Animal Farm says, killing pigs is bad, but now if Napoleon has said this, it is a whole another thing. Or, I personally feel that murder and rape are an evil, yet if Stalin, the Pope, Zeus, Yahweh, or whoever my god is say that rape is virtuous I shall humbly acquiesce!


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This at the very essence is what it means to have faith. I shall guard this proposition with my whole being, lest I incur the wrath of my gods! I really do not know what the heck it means, but the well-being of the entire universe is contingent upon the scrupulous adherence to this! The more scrupulous, the better. And out of my undying love for my neighbor, I shall stop at nothing to have all think as I do, it is my own personal happiness that compels me to do so!

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certainly, any reasonable person shall deem for all this to be stark non-sense, yet no propagandist of religion shall admit to this being the case. Only through genuine reflection can one possibly free himself from the tyranny of conventionalism, or the compunction to accept whatever non-sense has been inculcated upon us as immortal wisdom. Only genuine philosophical inquiry could shed light on such matters, and only the love of truth can lead man to acquisition of meaning in life.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This book analyzes the idea of Theism to the end of showing how such an idea relates to man's pursuit of meaning in life, and the development of civilization by and large. As must be clear by this point, the conclusion appears to be far from favorable to the belief in the personal god, yet because I wish to inculcate no dogma, I shall not impose any particular philosophy on the reader. It is my only purpose to show that philosophy has the potential to lead man to meaning in life. If that point is not to be proven, for the very least it can show that following this path can lead one to avoid the many difficulties the conventional religious individual is afflicted with. This point is to be taken solely by virtue of equation of philosophy with independently minded pursuit of truth, which religion is diametrically opposed to by virtue of the fourth definitive aspect. Namely the problem of sacrificing his whole inner being in favor of a rigid regime of thought and action that he neither understands nor values.

    Arguments have been propounded, both on epistemic and ethical grounds in favor of the desirability of philosophy as guide to meaning in life and undesirability of religious authority. Ultimately, the just reader cannot fail to notice that the salient advantage of a philosophical worldview over a religious is that whilst both are able to fulfill the first 3 criteria, the philosophical view renders the fourth possible, so is not the case for the religious. In other words, philosophy does not lock one into a particular worldview which he shall have no hope of escaping, yet leaves him with the freedom of embracing what he truly deems sound. A religious view, no matter how sound in the light of objective truth or in light of ethical judgments, can make no pretense regarding providing man with meaning in life as in pure essence it exhorts him to prostitute his values in favor of the vainglory of the orthodox teaching. Or but shove his values and thoughts aside to pantomime the teachings he is expected to know 'with all thy heart and all thy soul'. In condensed form, religion cannot give man meaning in life because it does not allow for him to do his own thinking, thus whatever accomplishments he may reach due to religious influence shall doubtlessly be worthless because he pantomimes. Only what a man has reached on his own endeavor could he truly claim as integral to his identity and lifestyle, thefore only independent thought could claim to hold potential to endow man with meaning in life that religions vainly promise.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Book Store Search Results

    Poverty of Conventionalism, available through the publishing company for 15.95, shall be available through retail services for a significantly higher price within 45 days.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Authored by yours truly,

    Co-author:Lind.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/members/lind.html

    ------------------------------------------------

    Philosophical questions this book is concerned include, limitation of human knowledge, essence of divinity, possibility of religious prophecy and the ethical notion of what it means to have meaning in life.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 06-09-2008 at 08:47 PM.
    "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/

  2. #2
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default



    Let me be the first to congratulate you.

    Awesome
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  3. #3
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Congrats, BW.

  4. #4
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I agree with much of the above about how most religious persons operate...

    Do you really think that no axioms are incontrovertible?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    I agree with much of the above about how most religious persons operate...

    Do you really think that no axioms are incontrovertible?
    My point was, we should always question whatever axioms we establish, religion insists that we do not do so. Some axioms of course seem so basic and common-sensical that it seems almost absurd to question them, yet for the sake of intellectual honesty, we should keep that option open. Whatever we establish as the truth must be based on our reasoning and not authority. The comment on the incontrovertible axioms was not the point in itself but means to the end of showing that primacy of authority over the individual's reasoning is the salient trait of religiosity. When authority takes over one's thought, he cannot claim credit for any of his accomplishments. This is the problem of Conventionalism itself.

    So to answer your question yes, I do believe that no axioms are incontrovertible, as the only reason for this to be otherwise is if they are vouched for by authority, this is unacceptable as evinced above.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 06-08-2008 at 07:20 PM.
    "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/

  6. #6
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I share your belief concerning conventionalism, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that no axiom is incontrovertible. Even so, I don't think we disagree here. You say that truth must be based on reasoning and not on authority; I take you to mean that reason just is the ultimate authority--and it is.

    To question reason is to assume reason; in this sense, the laws of reason are incontrovertible.

    Yes?

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post

    To question reason is to assume reason; in this sense, the laws of reason are incontrovertible.

    Yes?
    Yes, we agree here. Though such incontrovertibility is quite different from that laws of religious morality claim. As here we could discover, by virtue of our own reasoning why reason is incontrovertible. (As you have just done so) No thought is stifled in this case. Yet such an inquiry is strictly prohibited in the case of religious incontrovertibility.
    "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. #8
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    To question reason is to assume reason; in this sense, the laws of reason are incontrovertible.
    To assume reason is not to commit oneself to the authority of reason, and so to question reason does not imply that reason is beyond criticism or refutation. The critical technique commonly called reductio ad absurdum proceeds by assuming a proposition and then deriving its negation. However, few would claim that this renders such a proposition incontrovertible.

    Reason is hypothetical.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #9
    Senior Member nottaprettygal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    If the book is anything like your posts then. . .

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Especially composed ( by the co-author of the book for member 'nottaprettygirl':

    There is nothing more elevating to a human being than being able to find retreat in his inner citadel, a place where he can seclude himself/herself from all the noise of the world, from all the pestiferous dogmatists, from the unctuous politicians, from those who purport to represent our best interests, from those who are delusional and think of themselves as being “hand-picked by God”, from any external stimuli that attempts to constantly steal our attention from what is most sacred: developing our inner world. It is here, that an individual can find peace; it is here where the individual can find the ambience that placates his anxieties.

    How many of us have been asked to adopt “imitation” as a paradigm for our way of life? Yet personally, I must confess: I’ve grown allergic to imitation! I refute the individual who treats me like a child and wants to persuade me to think that I am still not able to walk by myself. Indeed as the Turkish proverb goes “if you know the path, you need not join the caravan”. Yet how can you know the true way when you’re constantly obstructed, (at times subtly seduced) by the ‘honey-lips” of the “chosen ones” who use their words as a veil that prevent you from thinking on your own two feet? I would ask ‘isn’t each individual entitled to use that which has been bestowed upon each one of us-namely reason?’
    Sadly not many have the courage to stand alone and face the Universe, that is why they seek refuge under the umbrella of religion/convention. If you are not one of those, here is the book you have been waiting for: POVERTY OF CONVENTIONALISM.
    AUTHOR: ALEKSEY BASHTAVENKO
    Co-author: MARIUS MANCITO BUY http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore...m=marius+manci
    [

Similar Threads

  1. How Far is Too Far to Think Ahead?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 02:05 PM
  2. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 11:05 PM
  3. [NT] Deciding how to live
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 12:22 AM

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