Thread: Different philosophies, different strokes, different folks

Ok, maybe you're right, I don't know. But I heard both. I here people all the time say "Nobody can ever know!" or "Anyone who tells you that they know is a liar because nobody can know!" They weren't denying that there is a higher power or a god or not just saying that nobody could know. But maybe you're right. I'm sure that there are people who believe that someday someone will know. And maybe an atheist is someone who believes that we already know that there is no higher power or a god. But is this splitting hairs?
Anyway, what do you think about the whole thing? About how the debate is not so black and white and there are many shades of beleif, assumptions, viewpoints, valid points to all points of view?

It is not true that philosophical arguments boil down to the atheism / theism debate. I have philosophical debates with many atheists, for a start.

For example, how does arguing about the inherent randomness of quantum events, or discussing Searle's Chinese Room argument, have anything to do with theism?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is not true that philosophical arguments boil down to the atheism / theism debate. I have philosophical debates with many atheists, for a start.

For example, how does arguing about the inherent randomness of quantum events, or discussing Searle's Chinese Room argument, have anything to do with theism?

I mean on these forums it seems to. And between people who are not educated on philosophy (like me, I have no idea of Searle's Chinese room).

I am pointing out that people mistake their viewpoint for reality and then argue about it calling each other names and stuff.

Maybe worldview or paradigms are better words.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Ok, maybe you're right, I don't know. But I heard both. I here people all the time say "Nobody can ever know!" or "Anyone who tells you that they know is a liar because nobody can know!" They weren't denying that there is a higher power or a god or not just saying that nobody could know. But maybe you're right. I'm sure that there are people who believe that someday someone will know. And maybe an atheist is someone who believes that we already know that there is no higher power or a god. But is this splitting hairs?
Anyway, what do you think about the whole thing? About how the debate is not so black and white and there are many shades of beleif, assumptions, viewpoints, valid points to all points of view?

There are different aspects to everything, many shades of belief and assumption and many many many viewpoints, but I disagree that everyone necessarily has points. There are some seriously convoluted ways of thinking out there... but then again, whether or not that's true can be debated as well!

Originally Posted by Licity

There are different aspects to everything, many shades of belief and assumption and many many many viewpoints, but I disagree that everyone necessarily has points. There are some seriously convoluted ways of thinking out there... but then again, whether or not that's true can be debated as well!

I agree, I find some CRAZY worldviews out there! It must make sense to them, but it is crazy as far as I'm concerned. Like Republicans. Or...Original Sin. Or an Angry God.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I agree, I find some CRAZY worldviews out there! It must make sense to them, but it is crazy as far as I'm concerned. Like Republicans. Or...Original Sin. Or an Angry God.

But, WHO AM I to judge? Although I find Nature beautiful I have a hard time finding the beauty in a tick, or a cockroach. But that is an issue of my own narrow mind or heart.

I may believe my viewpoint to be right, and true, or at least More Right and More True than, say, a Baptist's or a Republican's or a Satanist's, but I damn well try to find some common reference and try to understand. Yes, according to me, some people are crazy and deluded, but then again, they can say the same about me.

Even though this is an older thread, I'm glad I read it.

It is most unfortunate seeing the way a lot of people argue with each other. How insulting they are to one another, and above all how nothing gets accomplished.

To me, engaging in a discussion about something I feel strongly about is an opportunity to re-evaluate my own understanding of things, and my own bias. To make an effort to see things from another angle I've missed or underestimated.

But a lot of times I see both sides walking away with the same conclusion: "well that person is just too closed-minded to see things from any other perspective but his own. so that's why i'm right." It's so ironic.

If you're unwilling for even a moment to step outside your own worldview, even just for the purposes of communication, why would you expect the other person to? And if your only reason for discussion is to convince yourself and others that you're right...why bother engaging another individual?

I agree with what you said about intuition and facts being two completely different paradigms on which people construct their worldview. What boggles my mind is that some people feel like they can only learn from someone who's set of assumptions is the same as their own. Really? To me, that is the very definition of closed-minded.

If I were only willing to learn from people who think as I do...that's not learning at all. That's blocking out any voice of dissent.

It's possible--even easy, at times--to learn from someone who's worldview has origins that oppose your own. That's where the real insight happens, in my humble opinion.

You just have to stop acting as though you're both operating on the same sets of values and criteria. If you're not, accept it. Don't argue only with the latent claim that your worldview is "more correct", accept that theirs is different and work from there.

Only when you accept and understand those differences can you be open to real communication on any level. Then you can learn and grow.

Even though this thread could've brought me down, I'm pretty sure it brought me up. So thank you for it.


EDIT: I was just watching something that seems relevant:
Colbert: "I think this has been a great decade for civility...and anyone who disagrees with me can gargle my mansack"
Brokaw: "We will not be able to get through this country's profound challenges, in the short-term or the long-term, if everything ends up in some kind of food fight."