Forums > Social Discussion > Religion: A mental illness?
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Well, this is another discussion entirely.
Thoughts?
I'm inclined to agree.
Written by: Simian
ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...
Well, this is another discussion entirely.
Thoughts?
I'm inclined to agree.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Quite the contrary. The clergyman sent to investigate Galileo was forced to accept that, indeed, Jupiter had bodies which orbited around it and not the Earth. That is why they arrested him, because they knew he was right. Study up on history youngling.
We're overextending my metaphore here a little. We could just take him to the top of a very high mountain and show him how he can now see further, on take him on a sea voyage in which the three of us would get in all kinds of wacky adventures. Hmm, I smell a SitCom.
It's all starting to merge together. Five pages of bad definitions will do that to anyone. Apologies.
Written by: Sethis
Umm, first point: People often do not believe scientific evidence provided for them. Galileo and the Church etc etc.
Quite the contrary. The clergyman sent to investigate Galileo was forced to accept that, indeed, Jupiter had bodies which orbited around it and not the Earth. That is why they arrested him, because they knew he was right. Study up on history youngling.
Written by: Sethis
Second Point: I'd love to see you try to explain to a tribesman *how* he got up into space. He'd be under the impression that it was magic. Explain all you want about gravity, liquid hydrogen rockets and electricity, but the odds are that he won't have a bloody clue what you're on about. Without some serious education, he won't be able to accept your explanations. The point is, I think that if you took a tribal man up into space he'd either think he was hallucinating, or that you were working some kind of illusion on him.
We're overextending my metaphore here a little. We could just take him to the top of a very high mountain and show him how he can now see further, on take him on a sea voyage in which the three of us would get in all kinds of wacky adventures. Hmm, I smell a SitCom.
Written by: Sethis
And please note that I never entered the debate about "Validity". That was Icer
It's all starting to merge together. Five pages of bad definitions will do that to anyone. Apologies.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
"People often do not believe scientific evidence provided for them. Galileo and the Church etc etc"
This is exactly what i mean about mental illness. Consider for a moment that the word "scientific" is redundant in your sentence. A refusal to use evidence to form your beliefs is a mental illness.
"I'd love to see you try to explain to a tribesman *how* he got up into space. He'd be under the impression that it was magic."
i fail to see the relevance of that comment at all. But i will mention that i don't have a clue how the internal combustion engine works, but that doesn't mean i regard cars as magic.
"People often do not believe scientific evidence provided for them. Galileo and the Church etc etc"
This is exactly what i mean about mental illness. Consider for a moment that the word "scientific" is redundant in your sentence. A refusal to use evidence to form your beliefs is a mental illness.
"I'd love to see you try to explain to a tribesman *how* he got up into space. He'd be under the impression that it was magic."
i fail to see the relevance of that comment at all. But i will mention that i don't have a clue how the internal combustion engine works, but that doesn't mean i regard cars as magic.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
One question... if you took that tribesman up into space and he looked down on a round earth would he comprehend that the earth was a sphere... or just see a circle? and say "see magic man who bring me to sky. the world is a flat disk" would he accept your answer or would it prove him right. you would have to fly him "around" the world surely (sorry to be picky but this thread has had that going for a while...and sorry for stereotype tribesman speak
)
One question... if you took that tribesman up into space and he looked down on a round earth would he comprehend that the earth was a sphere... or just see a circle? and say "see magic man who bring me to sky. the world is a flat disk" would he accept your answer or would it prove him right. you would have to fly him "around" the world surely (sorry to be picky but this thread has had that going for a while...and sorry for stereotype tribesman speak
) A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
lol - mynci, not unless you were in geostationary orbit. otherwise you [and he] would SEE the earth turning beneath you. but i think the question of what completely uneducated people would make of advanced technoloy is a bit of a side-issue.
quote icer: '1)the way people percieve reality is culturally dependant. yes?'
Um, yes, but that doesn't make 'reality' relative to your culture. Donald Davidson's paper on alternative conceptual schemes in his 'inquiries into truth and interpretation' is the canonical text on this issue.
You're also [unhelpfully] using the word 'logic' in a different way to the rest of the English-speaking world. 'Logic' isn't just 'how people think', it's 'the right way to think'. Someone who thinks 'if there's beer in the fridge it'll rain, but there isn't beer in the fridge, so it won't rain' is being illogical. The argument contained in his thoughts is invalid; the truth of the premisses doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion, which is what logic is all about. So whilst I grant you that different people sometimes think differently, I can't for the life of me see what relevance that fact has to this discussion.
lol - mynci, not unless you were in geostationary orbit. otherwise you [and he] would SEE the earth turning beneath you. but i think the question of what completely uneducated people would make of advanced technoloy is a bit of a side-issue.
quote icer: '1)the way people percieve reality is culturally dependant. yes?'
Um, yes, but that doesn't make 'reality' relative to your culture. Donald Davidson's paper on alternative conceptual schemes in his 'inquiries into truth and interpretation' is the canonical text on this issue.
You're also [unhelpfully] using the word 'logic' in a different way to the rest of the English-speaking world. 'Logic' isn't just 'how people think', it's 'the right way to think'. Someone who thinks 'if there's beer in the fridge it'll rain, but there isn't beer in the fridge, so it won't rain' is being illogical. The argument contained in his thoughts is invalid; the truth of the premisses doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion, which is what logic is all about. So whilst I grant you that different people sometimes think differently, I can't for the life of me see what relevance that fact has to this discussion.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
quiet.... I can't see what about 3 pages of this thread has to do with religion: a mental illness.
Unless we were discussing the perceptual view of an individual with a mental illness...(I only ask because i was at the start of the thread missed a bit and came back in at the "validity" and "point of veiw" debacle)
seems we've wandered into a philosophical? area I'll admit I'm not the brightest and haven't learnt much about all this stuff but I do like to be contrary in a nice way because i'm inquisitive by nature.
Written by: quiet
I can't for the life of me see what relevance that fact has to this discussion.
quiet.... I can't see what about 3 pages of this thread has to do with religion: a mental illness.
Unless we were discussing the perceptual view of an individual with a mental illness...(I only ask because i was at the start of the thread missed a bit and came back in at the "validity" and "point of veiw" debacle)
seems we've wandered into a philosophical? area I'll admit I'm not the brightest and haven't learnt much about all this stuff but I do like to be contrary in a nice way because i'm inquisitive by nature.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
mynci - that's easy. if you think that logic and truth are entirely subjective, then people can believe or think pretty much whatever they like, without being mentally ill. but if you think that some points of view are invalid, illogical, unreasonable, etc., then it might seem more plausible to think of religion as a mental illness
Incidentally, I don't for a minute think that religion is mental illness. i do think they may be related - lots of religious rituals are similar to those displayed by OCD sufferers, and people who hear voices may originally have been taken to have been hearing angels, the voice of God, voices of the dead, etc. your average shaman is probably a bit less stable than the rest of us.
mynci - that's easy. if you think that logic and truth are entirely subjective, then people can believe or think pretty much whatever they like, without being mentally ill. but if you think that some points of view are invalid, illogical, unreasonable, etc., then it might seem more plausible to think of religion as a mental illness
Incidentally, I don't for a minute think that religion is mental illness. i do think they may be related - lots of religious rituals are similar to those displayed by OCD sufferers, and people who hear voices may originally have been taken to have been hearing angels, the voice of God, voices of the dead, etc. your average shaman is probably a bit less stable than the rest of us.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Did shamans not induce their own craziness??? with pure tobacco and halucinogens?
Did shamans not induce their own craziness??? with pure tobacco and halucinogens?
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
lots of anthropologists have argued that lots of them were a bit crazy to begin with. those that heard voices were taken away and fed drugs. some of those who didn't hear voices induced them with drugs anyway. i'm not equating shamanism with craziness, i'm just supposing tha there is some connection.
lots of anthropologists have argued that lots of them were a bit crazy to begin with. those that heard voices were taken away and fed drugs. some of those who didn't hear voices induced them with drugs anyway. i'm not equating shamanism with craziness, i'm just supposing tha there is some connection.
ture na sig
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
i didnt say reality is culturally dependant, but the way people PERCIEVE reality (atleast thats what i meant to say, i forget, its what i meant to say in any case). this affects their ability to make 'sound' arguements (as described in that logic link earlier).
that site also said you can have consistent and reasonable thinking to get wrong conclusions.
you can start with false beliefs but correctly reason it out, you will mostly get a false conclusion, but you still correctly reasoned it out.
the conclusions (what they PERCEIVE as TRUE) people arrive at (through correct reasoning) are dependent on culture because the initial premises used at the beginning are culturally dependent.
i forget how all this started but i think it stated when i said some thing like truth is relative, maybe to save all the headaches i should have said that 'what people percieve as true is realtive'.
does that make more people happy?
i didnt say reality is culturally dependant, but the way people PERCIEVE reality (atleast thats what i meant to say, i forget, its what i meant to say in any case). this affects their ability to make 'sound' arguements (as described in that logic link earlier).
that site also said you can have consistent and reasonable thinking to get wrong conclusions.
you can start with false beliefs but correctly reason it out, you will mostly get a false conclusion, but you still correctly reasoned it out.
the conclusions (what they PERCEIVE as TRUE) people arrive at (through correct reasoning) are dependent on culture because the initial premises used at the beginning are culturally dependent.
i forget how all this started but i think it stated when i said some thing like truth is relative, maybe to save all the headaches i should have said that 'what people percieve as true is realtive'.
does that make more people happy?
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Again, your basing everything you say on the assumption that there is an objective, external rational external world and nothing beyond it.
I once sat on a mountaintop where 2+2 didn't equal 4. It was in my dreamworld, where i could make reality what i wanted and i chose for numbers to not exist.
How you can be so sure that your simplistic, logical outlook is the highest form of consciousness, is beyond me. Personally i find this to be very limiting; a self-imposed illusion. What about the state of awareness of, for example, a tree? or a shaman? You know nothing about how it feels to be one of these, so how can you judge it?
If everyone on the entire planet, believed that beer will cause rain the next day, it's possible it might happen. Mind effects matter in funny ways. There's no way for you to disprove that, because you can only see the reality that your subconscious believes in.
Most new-age books require a basic understanding of relative truth. You might say its all bullshit. Well, buddy, only in your reality.
Written by: quiet
lots of anthropologists have argued that lots of them were a bit crazy to begin with. those that heard voices were taken away and fed drugs. some of those who didn't hear voices induced them with drugs anyway. i'm not equating shamanism with craziness, i'm just supposing tha there is some connection.
Again, your basing everything you say on the assumption that there is an objective, external rational external world and nothing beyond it.
I once sat on a mountaintop where 2+2 didn't equal 4. It was in my dreamworld, where i could make reality what i wanted and i chose for numbers to not exist.
How you can be so sure that your simplistic, logical outlook is the highest form of consciousness, is beyond me. Personally i find this to be very limiting; a self-imposed illusion. What about the state of awareness of, for example, a tree? or a shaman? You know nothing about how it feels to be one of these, so how can you judge it?
If everyone on the entire planet, believed that beer will cause rain the next day, it's possible it might happen. Mind effects matter in funny ways. There's no way for you to disprove that, because you can only see the reality that your subconscious believes in.
Most new-age books require a basic understanding of relative truth. You might say its all bullshit. Well, buddy, only in your reality.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
icer: if what you meant to say is 'what people believe depends on their upbringing', then that's [at least partly] true - but so what? it's just trivial.
psyrush - quote:
'I once sat on a mountaintop where 2+2 didn't equal 4'
No, you didn't: you merely dreamt that you did.
Trees don't have states of awareness: to have a state of awareness, you need to be conscious, and to be conscious, you need to have a brain. The dependence of mind on body is well-documented.
quote: 'If everyone on the entire planet, believed that beer will cause rain the next day, it's possible it might happen'.
What, it's possible that beer might cause rain? No, it isn't. I'll argue by reductio: if you think that mass belief can make those beliefs come true, then you must think that if everyone believed that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, that might make it true that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. But this conclusion is absurd: hence mass belief cannot make those beliefs come true.
For the record, I wasn't making ANY JUDGEMENTS WHATSOEVER about what it was like to be a tree - or indeed a shaman. I was just noting that symptoms of one particular mental illness (to wit, auditory hallucinations in the case of schizophrenia) might, in the appropriate setting, be interpreted as 'hearing the gods', and might well conduce to to sort of stuff that shamen characteristically do. That was all.
A 'basic understanding of relative truth', you say? I *do* have a 'basic understanding of relative truth' - covered, as it happens, by four years of studying analytic philosophy - and in my experience it's the new-age books which completely misunderstand the concept.
Regardless, would you be kind enough to tell me WHY you think truth is relative, in your sense of the phrase?
icer: if what you meant to say is 'what people believe depends on their upbringing', then that's [at least partly] true - but so what? it's just trivial.
psyrush - quote:
'I once sat on a mountaintop where 2+2 didn't equal 4'
No, you didn't: you merely dreamt that you did.
Trees don't have states of awareness: to have a state of awareness, you need to be conscious, and to be conscious, you need to have a brain. The dependence of mind on body is well-documented.
quote: 'If everyone on the entire planet, believed that beer will cause rain the next day, it's possible it might happen'.
What, it's possible that beer might cause rain? No, it isn't. I'll argue by reductio: if you think that mass belief can make those beliefs come true, then you must think that if everyone believed that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, that might make it true that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. But this conclusion is absurd: hence mass belief cannot make those beliefs come true.
For the record, I wasn't making ANY JUDGEMENTS WHATSOEVER about what it was like to be a tree - or indeed a shaman. I was just noting that symptoms of one particular mental illness (to wit, auditory hallucinations in the case of schizophrenia) might, in the appropriate setting, be interpreted as 'hearing the gods', and might well conduce to to sort of stuff that shamen characteristically do. That was all.
A 'basic understanding of relative truth', you say? I *do* have a 'basic understanding of relative truth' - covered, as it happens, by four years of studying analytic philosophy - and in my experience it's the new-age books which completely misunderstand the concept.
Regardless, would you be kind enough to tell me WHY you think truth is relative, in your sense of the phrase?
ture na sig
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Once again we have people stating that an external, objective reality is an illusion. However their day to day actions fail to valididate their stated belief. We all breath in an out and eat and drink (some people claim not to, but they really are just crazy. When people keep an eye on them they quickly starve). We also avoid danger as it comes. In essence all of us believe in the objective reality whether we claim to or not because those of us who didn't were swiftly removed from it by natural selection. You can argue the philosophy all you want, but it is inescapable that your unconcious mind already agrees with me.
Incidently, I find the assumption being made by certain people that our hypothetical tribesman would be incapable of understanding much of anything to be very 'arrogant and presumptious'.
Once again we have people stating that an external, objective reality is an illusion. However their day to day actions fail to valididate their stated belief. We all breath in an out and eat and drink (some people claim not to, but they really are just crazy. When people keep an eye on them they quickly starve). We also avoid danger as it comes. In essence all of us believe in the objective reality whether we claim to or not because those of us who didn't were swiftly removed from it by natural selection. You can argue the philosophy all you want, but it is inescapable that your unconcious mind already agrees with me.
Incidently, I find the assumption being made by certain people that our hypothetical tribesman would be incapable of understanding much of anything to be very 'arrogant and presumptious'.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I didn't say that he wouldn't be able to understand *anything* I said that he might be a bit confused, having been uprooted from a Stone/Bronze/Iron age existence and shoved into a space shuttle. Especially if Religion was still the dominant force in his society.
And I think we've exhausted the "Is reality real" debate, can we move on plz?
I didn't say that he wouldn't be able to understand *anything* I said that he might be a bit confused, having been uprooted from a Stone/Bronze/Iron age existence and shoved into a space shuttle. Especially if Religion was still the dominant force in his society.
And I think we've exhausted the "Is reality real" debate, can we move on plz?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'I didn't say that he wouldn't be able to understand *anything* I said that he might be a bit confused'
again - so what? this is obviously and trivially true.
'I didn't say that he wouldn't be able to understand *anything* I said that he might be a bit confused'
again - so what? this is obviously and trivially true.
ture na sig
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
So are we agreed then? Reality is real. A consensus...what? My world is breaking down. After eight pages of blissful arguement it's coming to an end? I suppose all good things must end...
So are we agreed then? Reality is real. A consensus...what? My world is breaking down. After eight pages of blissful arguement it's coming to an end? I suppose all good things must end...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
No we're not agreed, I simply can't be bothered when the debate has no answers. You can't prove that reality is real. We can't prove that it isn't. We're all entitled to our opinions so why don't we all just shut up?
Quiet, you seem to be fond of saying things are trivial. They're not. If you got teleported to the rings of Saturn, then I imagine you'd be pretty dammed confused. It's important, because or reactions to situations depend on our culture. I tribal culture would not prepare someone for space flight.
You said that our cultural upbringing is trivial. Wrong. Our culture defines our morality. If you're brought up to think that stabbing someone who insults your honour is the right thing to do then obviously you're going to have problems with someone who doesn't think that way.
No we're not agreed, I simply can't be bothered when the debate has no answers. You can't prove that reality is real. We can't prove that it isn't. We're all entitled to our opinions so why don't we all just shut up?
Quiet, you seem to be fond of saying things are trivial. They're not. If you got teleported to the rings of Saturn, then I imagine you'd be pretty dammed confused. It's important, because or reactions to situations depend on our culture. I tribal culture would not prepare someone for space flight.
You said that our cultural upbringing is trivial. Wrong. Our culture defines our morality. If you're brought up to think that stabbing someone who insults your honour is the right thing to do then obviously you're going to have problems with someone who doesn't think that way.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I assure you, my morality is rather different from cultural 'norms'.
I wonder...are you taking a course in anthropology? You're opinions are quite similar to those they parrot teach students nowadays. I ask cos I know you'll be back. I rather like chatting to you. Whether you are real or not.
I assure you, my morality is rather different from cultural 'norms'.
I wonder...are you taking a course in anthropology? You're opinions are quite similar to those they parrot teach students nowadays. I ask cos I know you'll be back. I rather like chatting to you. Whether you are real or not.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Haha good point. I try to remain as open minded as possible and that means not believing 100% in my own theories. If i did i'd either go mad, be meditating on a mountaintop somewhere, or cease to exist altogether. For safety's sake it's best to assume in everyday life that there's an external world, even if there isn't.
To me, dreams are just as significant and meaningful as reality.
No. A brain is required to process, analyse and rationalise reality. Trees don't do these things, but that doesn't mean they're not conscious. I'll use carbon as a metaphor for awareness. Graphite is a relatively complex structure. It contains carbon atoms in a lattice-type array. Carbon dioxide also contains carbon, with a different structure (and not as complex), but the fact is that the same basic element is still there.
Power over space doesn't necessarily mean power over time. I'm not saying there is no absolute truth, just that the truth is irrational. Anyways, your statement assumes the principle of causality.
This is a bit far-fetched, but if quantum physicists can believe in alternate futures, maybe alternate pasts are possible? Do you think god can change time?
Out of interest, what are the most commonly held beliefs of people after studying four years of analytic philosophy. And, what was the point of studying for four years if you've got exactly the same perspective as you most likely had when you started?
Written by: jeff(fake)
Once again we have people stating that an external, objective reality is an illusion. However their day to day actions fail to valididate their stated belief. We all breath in an out and eat and drink (some people claim not to, but they really are just crazy. When people keep an eye on them they quickly starve). We also avoid danger as it comes. In essence all of us believe in the objective reality whether we claim to or not because those of us who didn't were swiftly removed from it by natural selection. You can argue the philosophy all you want, but it is inescapable that your unconcious mind already agrees with me.
Haha good point. I try to remain as open minded as possible and that means not believing 100% in my own theories. If i did i'd either go mad, be meditating on a mountaintop somewhere, or cease to exist altogether. For safety's sake it's best to assume in everyday life that there's an external world, even if there isn't.
Written by: quiet
No, you didn't: you merely dreamt that you did.
To me, dreams are just as significant and meaningful as reality.
Written by: quiet
Trees don't have states of awareness: to have a state of awareness, you need to be conscious, and to be conscious, you need to have a brain. The dependence of mind on body is well-documented.
No. A brain is required to process, analyse and rationalise reality. Trees don't do these things, but that doesn't mean they're not conscious. I'll use carbon as a metaphor for awareness. Graphite is a relatively complex structure. It contains carbon atoms in a lattice-type array. Carbon dioxide also contains carbon, with a different structure (and not as complex), but the fact is that the same basic element is still there.
Written by: quiet
What, it's possible that beer might cause rain? No, it isn't. I'll argue by reductio: if you think that mass belief can make those beliefs come true, then you must think that if everyone believed that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, that might make it true that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. But this conclusion is absurd: hence mass belief cannot make those beliefs come true.
Power over space doesn't necessarily mean power over time. I'm not saying there is no absolute truth, just that the truth is irrational. Anyways, your statement assumes the principle of causality.
This is a bit far-fetched, but if quantum physicists can believe in alternate futures, maybe alternate pasts are possible? Do you think god can change time?
Written by: quiet
A 'basic understanding of relative truth', you say? I *do* have a 'basic understanding of relative truth' - covered, as it happens, by four years of studying analytic philosophy - and in my experience it's the new-age books which completely misunderstand the concept.
Out of interest, what are the most commonly held beliefs of people after studying four years of analytic philosophy. And, what was the point of studying for four years if you've got exactly the same perspective as you most likely had when you started?
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm about to start a degree in Sociology, so almost but not quite
And I resent the implication that I am only repeating what I have been "Parrot-taught" at school. I like to think that I have some vestige of independent thought...
Of course I'm not real, I'm a figment of your imagination... and everyone elses on this forum. (You're all delusional )
And the thing about society today is that there is a certain lack of norms. Compared to almost any other point in history, our society is the most varied and diverse so far. Of course there are still rough standards, but with the proliferation of communication, and multi-cultural societies, it is impossible for people to be brought up in an isolated environment. At the very least, your morality is based on laws. Unless you happen to belong to a subculture where it is considered normal to break the laws. In which case your norms will obviously be different to the rest of society.
I'm about to start a degree in Sociology, so almost but not quite
And I resent the implication that I am only repeating what I have been "Parrot-taught" at school. I like to think that I have some vestige of independent thought...
Of course I'm not real, I'm a figment of your imagination... and everyone elses on this forum. (You're all delusional
)And the thing about society today is that there is a certain lack of norms. Compared to almost any other point in history, our society is the most varied and diverse so far. Of course there are still rough standards, but with the proliferation of communication, and multi-cultural societies, it is impossible for people to be brought up in an isolated environment. At the very least, your morality is based on laws. Unless you happen to belong to a subculture where it is considered normal to break the laws. In which case your norms will obviously be different to the rest of society.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
having my honours in Anth, i think i can say (atleast for my uni) that we werent taught something and told this is the way it is. instead we were taught, this person said this, but this person said this. we discussed things at length and made up our own minds about things. often disagreeing with eachother. much the same way everyone disagrees on here.
im a scientist first and foremost and this arguing is still somehting that gets to me. i like to have answers with stats to back it up. but this is hardly ever the case when dealing with different cultures b/c so much of the data isnt quantitative. Soooo much of what we have to deal with in other cultures is relative. something that has one quality in one culture has another different quality in another culture (this is used to question cross-cultural comparisions). Anthropologists gave up a long time ago to find universals b/c no sooner was one 'found' than one culture somewhere was shown not to fit the principle.
the physical reality is real, im not argueing that, thats why 2+2 will always equal 4. but take say, a relative reality, like 'women are inferior to men', this belief may lead women not to be educated, given encouragment etc etc, this leads to the actual reality that men are 'smarter' (more educated) and work better (due to better training) than women, and as such, 'women will be inferior to men'. now you can argue that this situation was artificially created by the cultural beliefs, but thats kinda my point. their 'culturally created "reality" is created by the culture'.
hence it is relative. the differecne in thoughts on this discussion, may be generated in the different types of reality, the quantitative and qualitative, i think one is absolute the other relative, respectively.
as an after thought, who is going to 'win' this discussion? if someone could even be said to win. i dont think anyone is going to compromise their own beliefs, especially if they have had an 'education' and consider themselves an athourity on this subject (whether that be true or not). i think sethis was right in saying we need to move on from the 'is reality real' debate. it has no answer we all agree on. can we atleast agree that we wont agree?....or is that a contradiction. can we all live the fact that not everyone thinks they are right. i know i can.
having my honours in Anth, i think i can say (atleast for my uni) that we werent taught something and told this is the way it is. instead we were taught, this person said this, but this person said this. we discussed things at length and made up our own minds about things. often disagreeing with eachother. much the same way everyone disagrees on here.
im a scientist first and foremost and this arguing is still somehting that gets to me. i like to have answers with stats to back it up. but this is hardly ever the case when dealing with different cultures b/c so much of the data isnt quantitative. Soooo much of what we have to deal with in other cultures is relative. something that has one quality in one culture has another different quality in another culture (this is used to question cross-cultural comparisions). Anthropologists gave up a long time ago to find universals b/c no sooner was one 'found' than one culture somewhere was shown not to fit the principle.
the physical reality is real, im not argueing that, thats why 2+2 will always equal 4. but take say, a relative reality, like 'women are inferior to men', this belief may lead women not to be educated, given encouragment etc etc, this leads to the actual reality that men are 'smarter' (more educated) and work better (due to better training) than women, and as such, 'women will be inferior to men'. now you can argue that this situation was artificially created by the cultural beliefs, but thats kinda my point. their 'culturally created "reality" is created by the culture'.
hence it is relative. the differecne in thoughts on this discussion, may be generated in the different types of reality, the quantitative and qualitative, i think one is absolute the other relative, respectively.
as an after thought, who is going to 'win' this discussion? if someone could even be said to win. i dont think anyone is going to compromise their own beliefs, especially if they have had an 'education' and consider themselves an athourity on this subject (whether that be true or not). i think sethis was right in saying we need to move on from the 'is reality real' debate. it has no answer we all agree on. can we atleast agree that we wont agree?....or is that a contradiction. can we all live the fact that not everyone thinks they are right. i know i can.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
oh, lord:
quote [sethis]: 'You can't prove that reality is real. We can't prove that it isn't. We're all entitled to our opinions so why don't we all just shut up?'
Sethis, I don't have to prove that 'reality is real'. Reality is, BY DEFINITION, real. And I still think that the claim that neanderthals would be confused by space flight is pretty uninteresting, but I'm happy to agree to differ with you on this one.
quote [psyrush]: 'To me, dreams are just as significant and meaningful as reality.
Maybe - but that doesn't make them real. Although if your claim is really true, you've got some serious issues.
I'm not going to address the mind-brain identity stuff; it's very basic, and I'm sure I've gone over it ad nauseam in another thread. Suffice to say, no scientist or philosopher that I know (and I know lots of them) thinks that trees could possibly be conscious. But I'll leave you to do the reading on this one.
However:
quote [psyrush]:
'Out of interest, what are the most commonly held beliefs of people after studying four years of analytic philosophy. And, what was the point of studying for four years if you've got exactly the same perspective as you most likely had when you started?'
Answer to the first question - I don't know. Someone has probably done a survey on it; but I don't really see the relevance. I assume you're thinking of arguing that if analytic philosophers tend towards the same kinds of beliefs, then they hold those beliefs because they've been indoctrinated, and the beliefs are unfounded / worthless / not to be trusted, or something. I'm not accusing you of thinking this, I just suspected that that was how the argument was going. Well, there are plenty of differences of opinion out there, as even the most cursory glance at current publications would reveal.
Answer to the second - you're wrong on both counts. Firstly, why do you assume that I have the same beliefs now as when I started? Over the past four years, I've gone from believing that ethics was *of course* entirely subjective, relative, and not grounded in objective reality, to believing that moral claims can be objectively true, and grounded in the human capacity for reason. I've gone from thinking that the mental can - *of course* - be reduced to the physical, to thinking that psychology is pretty much an autonomous subject. I've also come to the conclusion that there is no hard and fast distinction between 'facts' and 'values'. And a whole host of other stuff - so yes, the way I see the world has changed significantly.
You'd also be wrong to think that there would be something bad were my beliefs to have remained the same. There's nothing intrinsically valuable about changing your mind on an issue. What if those beliefs were right to begin with? (I'm not claiming that mine were; but it is at least possible).
One last false statement from the posts above:
quote [sethis]: 'At the very least, your morality is based on laws.'
Nope, wrong again: there's a great tradition called 'virtue ethics', which explicitly rejects law-based morality, and can be traced back all the way to Aristotle. Read Anscombe's 'Modern Moral Philosophy' if you don't believe me.
oh, lord:
quote [sethis]: 'You can't prove that reality is real. We can't prove that it isn't. We're all entitled to our opinions so why don't we all just shut up?'
Sethis, I don't have to prove that 'reality is real'. Reality is, BY DEFINITION, real. And I still think that the claim that neanderthals would be confused by space flight is pretty uninteresting, but I'm happy to agree to differ with you on this one.
quote [psyrush]: 'To me, dreams are just as significant and meaningful as reality.
Maybe - but that doesn't make them real. Although if your claim is really true, you've got some serious issues.
I'm not going to address the mind-brain identity stuff; it's very basic, and I'm sure I've gone over it ad nauseam in another thread. Suffice to say, no scientist or philosopher that I know (and I know lots of them) thinks that trees could possibly be conscious. But I'll leave you to do the reading on this one.
However:
quote [psyrush]:
'Out of interest, what are the most commonly held beliefs of people after studying four years of analytic philosophy. And, what was the point of studying for four years if you've got exactly the same perspective as you most likely had when you started?'
Answer to the first question - I don't know. Someone has probably done a survey on it; but I don't really see the relevance. I assume you're thinking of arguing that if analytic philosophers tend towards the same kinds of beliefs, then they hold those beliefs because they've been indoctrinated, and the beliefs are unfounded / worthless / not to be trusted, or something. I'm not accusing you of thinking this, I just suspected that that was how the argument was going. Well, there are plenty of differences of opinion out there, as even the most cursory glance at current publications would reveal.
Answer to the second - you're wrong on both counts. Firstly, why do you assume that I have the same beliefs now as when I started? Over the past four years, I've gone from believing that ethics was *of course* entirely subjective, relative, and not grounded in objective reality, to believing that moral claims can be objectively true, and grounded in the human capacity for reason. I've gone from thinking that the mental can - *of course* - be reduced to the physical, to thinking that psychology is pretty much an autonomous subject. I've also come to the conclusion that there is no hard and fast distinction between 'facts' and 'values'. And a whole host of other stuff - so yes, the way I see the world has changed significantly.
You'd also be wrong to think that there would be something bad were my beliefs to have remained the same. There's nothing intrinsically valuable about changing your mind on an issue. What if those beliefs were right to begin with? (I'm not claiming that mine were; but it is at least possible).
One last false statement from the posts above:
quote [sethis]: 'At the very least, your morality is based on laws.'
Nope, wrong again: there's a great tradition called 'virtue ethics', which explicitly rejects law-based morality, and can be traced back all the way to Aristotle. Read Anscombe's 'Modern Moral Philosophy' if you don't believe me.
ture na sig
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
i not sure if i should take the fact that you didnt respond to anything i said as a compliment or an insult or neither.
i dont disagree with anything you have said, which may be because alot of what you have said you have stated as personal thoughts, which is really good.
i would caution you to not always refer to philosophy works tho, i have fallen into this trap with Anth or Zoo or Eco; i dont think a single discipline, no matter how broad it is holds all the answers. i spose thats why i have spread myself between 3 (or 2.5 really).
i like the way you say that your beliefs wernt necesserily true, when you began your degree. if they possibly wrong then, could they be wrong now? i know my views could wrong, i am, after all only human. could you be wrong now?
i not sure if i should take the fact that you didnt respond to anything i said as a compliment or an insult or neither.
i dont disagree with anything you have said, which may be because alot of what you have said you have stated as personal thoughts, which is really good.
i would caution you to not always refer to philosophy works tho, i have fallen into this trap with Anth or Zoo or Eco; i dont think a single discipline, no matter how broad it is holds all the answers. i spose thats why i have spread myself between 3 (or 2.5 really).
i like the way you say that your beliefs wernt necesserily true, when you began your degree. if they possibly wrong then, could they be wrong now? i know my views could wrong, i am, after all only human. could you be wrong now?
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
icer: i didn't respond to anything you said in *that* post [12/09/05 11:47 AM] because, at the time i wrote my post, yours hadn't appeared on the board. i didn't respond to it because i didn't see it - so you shouldn't take it as meaning anything.
i've only one response to that post, and that is this: i think you're confusing the issue by using the term 'reality' in an inappropriate way.
quote: ' but take say, a relative reality, like 'women are inferior to men'
- in my books, that's not a 'relative reality', but rather a belief. what you're saying amounts to this: different cultures hold different beliefs, and sometimes these beliefs make stuff happen - indeed, some are self-fulfilling. now i agree with this absolutely: but it simply shows that what happens is influenced by what people think, and what people think is influenced by their environment.
yes, i'm always open to the possibility that my beliefs are wrong. if i wasn't open to the possibility, i wouldn't bother thinking about them any more. the fact that i suspect my beliefs may be mistaken is what motivates me to continue to study philosophy.
quote: 'i would caution you to not always refer to philosophy works tho'.
hang on a second: i'm not saying that philosophy holds all the answers, i'm simply giving references for the claims that i make. lots of people on these boards make claims (like 'aspirin causes cancer', or something) and fail to provide references. i'm backing up my claims (most recently, that there are non-law-based conceptions of morality available) by citing an authority on the subject.
icer: i didn't respond to anything you said in *that* post [12/09/05 11:47 AM] because, at the time i wrote my post, yours hadn't appeared on the board. i didn't respond to it because i didn't see it - so you shouldn't take it as meaning anything.
i've only one response to that post, and that is this: i think you're confusing the issue by using the term 'reality' in an inappropriate way.
quote: ' but take say, a relative reality, like 'women are inferior to men'
- in my books, that's not a 'relative reality', but rather a belief. what you're saying amounts to this: different cultures hold different beliefs, and sometimes these beliefs make stuff happen - indeed, some are self-fulfilling. now i agree with this absolutely: but it simply shows that what happens is influenced by what people think, and what people think is influenced by their environment.
yes, i'm always open to the possibility that my beliefs are wrong. if i wasn't open to the possibility, i wouldn't bother thinking about them any more. the fact that i suspect my beliefs may be mistaken is what motivates me to continue to study philosophy.
quote: 'i would caution you to not always refer to philosophy works tho'.
hang on a second: i'm not saying that philosophy holds all the answers, i'm simply giving references for the claims that i make. lots of people on these boards make claims (like 'aspirin causes cancer', or something) and fail to provide references. i'm backing up my claims (most recently, that there are non-law-based conceptions of morality available) by citing an authority on the subject.
ture na sig
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
7 pages and no-one's taken up on this yet.... c'mon, someone? Its the actual topic at this point more so than the mental illness bit!
anyway, its been interesting- I just read 112 posts.... guys I cannot possibly comment intelligably on that mess right now, its worse than an undergrad philosophy class.
But I'd love to see someone poke at the social ailment bit....
and in a few hours or days i'll be back!
Written by: Doc Lightning
I agree that it's not a mental illness, I have to say. At least, not by definition. Although then again, one has to wonder how large a belief has to be before it's no longer a "delusion" and then how large before it's no longer a "cult."
A more pointed question, perhaps, is whether religion is a social ailment.
7 pages and no-one's taken up on this yet.... c'mon, someone? Its the actual topic at this point more so than the mental illness bit!
anyway, its been interesting- I just read 112 posts.... guys I cannot possibly comment intelligably on that mess right now, its worse than an undergrad philosophy class.
But I'd love to see someone poke at the social ailment bit....
and in a few hours or days i'll be back!
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
simple answer: whether beliefs are delusions /madness is NOT a matter of how many people hold those beliefs. proof: mass delusion [or mass insanity] is a possibility.
simple answer: whether beliefs are delusions /madness is NOT a matter of how many people hold those beliefs. proof: mass delusion [or mass insanity] is a possibility.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Prove that your concept of reality is real, please.
Can't? That's my point. NOW can we stop arguing about this?
I do believe you, but it's still only one school of ethics and philosophical thinking. There are many others. Like Icer said, you can't reduce it all down to one or another. I'm sure there was an on-topic post somewhere in this thread... someone check page 1 
I wouldn't say that it is a mental illness, because it has no medical roots. however I would say that large amounts or religious people have problems (E.g. Addictive personalities, Lack of Self Worth, Indoctrination, Obsession, Depression) that get exacerbated by Religion (Particularly monotheistic ones for some reason).
Let the debate rage on!
Written by: quiet
Sethis, I don't have to prove that 'reality is real'. Reality is, BY DEFINITION, real.
Prove that your concept of reality is real, please.
Can't? That's my point. NOW can we stop arguing about this?
Written by: quiet
Nope, wrong again: there's a great tradition called 'virtue ethics', which explicitly rejects law-based morality, and can be traced back all the way to Aristotle. Read Anscombe's 'Modern Moral Philosophy' if you don't believe me.
I do believe you, but it's still only one school of ethics and philosophical thinking. There are many others. Like Icer said, you can't reduce it all down to one or another. I'm sure there was an on-topic post somewhere in this thread... someone check page 1
I wouldn't say that it is a mental illness, because it has no medical roots. however I would say that large amounts or religious people have problems (E.g. Addictive personalities, Lack of Self Worth, Indoctrination, Obsession, Depression) that get exacerbated by Religion (Particularly monotheistic ones for some reason).
Let the debate rage on!
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
I'm going to stay in my little corner for the moment, and attack the social ailment question as no-one else is.
I say, "yes." But social ailment is very poorly defined. Generally, tho, I think social ailments are things like drinking, gambling, etc? Problems which individuals have which groups capitalize on. In other words, imo, anything which requires "nanny state" laws to stop.
So, on that premise, if religion is in fact a social ailment, should we (assuming we should have laws limiting things like drinking and gambling at all, which i disagree with, but thats another thread) be regulating it?
Or should we at least have a more effective manner of treating it?
I mean, alcohol and gambling can be enjoyed in a non-harmful manner, as can religion, but we've also seen them engaged in in a harmful manner as well....
I'm going to stay in my little corner for the moment, and attack the social ailment question as no-one else is.
I say, "yes." But social ailment is very poorly defined. Generally, tho, I think social ailments are things like drinking, gambling, etc? Problems which individuals have which groups capitalize on. In other words, imo, anything which requires "nanny state" laws to stop.
So, on that premise, if religion is in fact a social ailment, should we (assuming we should have laws limiting things like drinking and gambling at all, which i disagree with, but thats another thread) be regulating it?
Or should we at least have a more effective manner of treating it?
I mean, alcohol and gambling can be enjoyed in a non-harmful manner, as can religion, but we've also seen them engaged in in a harmful manner as well....
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
It actually seems to me that that was all that was being gotten at? Perhaps someone could key me in as to what was actually being argued about there if i'm wrong?
Written by:
- in my books, that's not a 'relative reality', but rather a belief. what you're saying amounts to this: different cultures hold different beliefs, and sometimes these beliefs make stuff happen - indeed, some are self-fulfilling. now i agree with this absolutely: but it simply shows that what happens is influenced by what people think, and what people think is influenced by their environment.
It actually seems to me that that was all that was being gotten at? Perhaps someone could key me in as to what was actually being argued about there if i'm wrong?
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
SILVER Member
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
just a shadow of my former self...
205 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
for me a belief is part of reality. reality is what is real, what is actual and true. the fact that people believe (in) something is real and true, what they believe may not be true, but you cant say they dont believe it.
so, reality is what is real.
a belief is real, in that it exists. it does not need to be true. a belief is part of reality. a belief is subjective.
so, for me, part of reality is subjective.
and with that i am going to try and quit this cursed thread.
for me a belief is part of reality. reality is what is real, what is actual and true. the fact that people believe (in) something is real and true, what they believe may not be true, but you cant say they dont believe it.
so, reality is what is real.
a belief is real, in that it exists. it does not need to be true. a belief is part of reality. a belief is subjective.
so, for me, part of reality is subjective.
and with that i am going to try and quit this cursed thread.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
i reckon i can.
First, can you define "real" and "reality" please?
what's your big trip about proving things anyway?
Since when has proving something been necessary to work out whether or not it's true? i don't need to prove the existence of gravity, it's just obviously there. The burden is on the person who wants to disprove it, cos they're the ones with the wacky theory.
Icer: a thread is only as cursed as you make it. Just whack in plenty of these: and the discussions can stay a bit lighter. We are here for fun after all..(?)
Written by: Sethis
Prove that your concept of reality is real, please.
Can't? That's my point. NOW can we stop arguing about this?
i reckon i can.
First, can you define "real" and "reality" please?
what's your big trip about proving things anyway?
Since when has proving something been necessary to work out whether or not it's true? i don't need to prove the existence of gravity, it's just obviously there. The burden is on the person who wants to disprove it, cos they're the ones with the wacky theory.
Icer: a thread is only as cursed as you make it. Just whack in plenty of these:
and the discussions can stay a bit lighter. We are here for fun after all..(?) "Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com