Western taboo, skepticism and religion.

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I can't understand what you believe just from what you've written. You would need to add an explanation and if your explanation is concise, you might be able to avoid having to explain those labels you've used.

For example, I avoid having the problem of explaining the labels atheist, agnostic, and so on, this way:

I believe that if a Creator exists, and I do allow the possibility, the founders of the world's most popular Western religions knew no more about it than I do.

Is this any help?

Yes, I do it the same way.
But if someone don't understand how I can do it differently, then that is in part because we do words differently at a base existential level. I.e. we make sense of the world differently.
So I accept that someone can understand the world differently in some senses without that I actually understand that someone as they do individually.
That is your principle in the everyday version. I believe I am no better or worse than any other human in any sense of knowledge. I try to understand the world as not just being there for me.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hold on there, I didn't say that I believed that. I certainly don't.

No, but some humans do. As hardcore strong skepticism is dealing with all of those negatives and involve making sense of them.
Sorry if I went off on you. You seem nice.

 

[Secret Chief]

Sorry if I went off on you.

no prob. I'd respond more to your posts, but I often get brain ache reading them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

no prob. I'd respond more to your posts, but I often get brain ache reading them.

Sometimes I am confused. I will admit that.
But other times you might be experiencing the following effect: If your brain are forced to grapple with the unfamiliar and you don't down right reject it, you can feel brain ache. That is natural.

In a sense it is connected to learning as per Piaget. as per learning as accommodation. Now I am not talking about you as such. But learning something new, where you have to revise the old as "wrong" and change how you understand is not always easy. There is also if the concepts are new, they require a lot of energy to process as mentioned above.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[darkskies]

In my opinion logic, reason and evidence don't have to be grouped together. Evidence is separate. One can indeed live their life using reason and logic. Not saying I do, but it seems possible.
It's reasonable to accept facts that have minimal to no effect on yourself or on society, without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my opinion logic, reason and evidence don't have to be grouped together. Evidence is separate. One can indeed live their life using reason and logic. Not saying I do, but it seems possible.
It's reasonable to accept facts that have minimal to no effect on yourself or on society, without evidence.

You can't do morality or good or bad using only reason and logic. If you really can do that you are the first human in recorded history, who have been able to do it. Now I doubt for several reasons that you can do it and I won't accept that you just say you can do it. So if you can do it using logic and reason, describe and explain, how you do it.

 

[darkskies]

You can't do morality or good or bad using only reason and logic. If you really can do that you are the first human in recorded history, who have been able to do it. Now I doubt for several reasons that you can do it and I won't accept that you just say you can do it. So if you can do it using logic and reason, describe and explain, how you do it.

If we define moral behaviour as that which promotes the overall well-being of humanity (either on a local or global scale) while minimising unnecessary harm (in the immediate future) then you can use logic and reason to group behaviour into moral and immoral.

I recognise the vagueness of terms like "well-being" and "harm" in my example.
But the idea is that you can have a goal (a logical conclusion) and build a moral structure (logical premises) around that. Moral acts would be those that lean more towards reaching the goal.

And now I recognise that coming up with the goal itself might have no logic involved. You might be right here lol. I'm still optimistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If we define moral behaviour as that which promotes the overall well-being of humanity (either on a local or global scale) while minimising unnecessary harm (in the immediate future) then you can use logic and reason to group behaviour into moral and immoral.

I recognise the vagueness of terms like "well-being" and "harm" in my example.
But the idea is that you can have a goal (a logical conclusion) and build a moral structure (logical premises) around that. Moral acts would be those that lean more towards reaching the goal.

And now I recognise that coming up with the goal itself might have no logic involved. You might be right here lol. I'm still optimistic.

Yeah, I have been doing meta-ethics for over 20 years now and you can use reason, logic and evidence to achieve a goal, but you can't use them to find a goal. A goal is in the end related to feelings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here is 3 versions of religion:
Google: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
religion | Definition, Types, List of Religions, Symbols, Examples, & Facts
What is Religion?

1. I have my 'mata' (opinion) about things, 2. I have my 'panth' (way for life, basically live and let live), and 3. I have my 'dharma' (my duties). As you know I am from a group of people who call themselves Hindus, that is really a geographical location - people from around or east of River Indus. Is that what you would term as 'religion'?

It always helps if we use and manage the meaning with as less words as possible.

 

[blü 2]

First off, I use some different understandings of some words and thus I break the taboo of that all words must be the common usage, because of reasons...
Secondly ,I don't claim, that I am authoritative for, how you should understand words, but that won't stop me from using a different understanding of words.

So what is the most common Western taboo, that I should not break?

Roughly in order of importance, don't ─

kill
maim
rape
rob
embezzle from
defame
deceive or
insult​

people.

Also, don't excrete except in accordance with the conventions of your locale. Indeed, observe all local hygiene rules.

(Of course, pragmatic exceptions may arise to do with personal or group safety.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. I have my 'mata' (opinion) about things, 2. I have my 'panth' (way for life, basically live and let live), and 3. I have my 'dharma' (my duties). As you know I am from a group of people who call themselves Hindus, that is really a geographical location - people from around or east of River Indus. Is that what you would term as 'religion'?

It always helps if we use and manage the meaning with as less words as possible.

Yes, that is a religion as it is a value system and a way of life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Roughly in order of importance, don't ─

kill
maim
rape
rob
embezzle from
defame
deceive or
insult​

people.

Also, don't excrete except in accordance with the conventions of your locale. Indeed, observe all local hygiene rules.

(Of course, pragmatic exceptions may arise to do with personal or group safety.)

Yeah, in theory. Not in practice, though.

 

[wellwisher]

First off, I use some different understandings of some words and thus I break the taboo of that all words must be the common usage, because of reasons...
Secondly ,I don't claim, that I am authoritative for, how you should understand words, but that won't stop me from using a different understanding of words.

So what is the most common Western taboo, that I should not break? Well, that there are really life everyday limitations to reason, logic and evidence for all cases of humans and their interaction among themselves and the rest of the world.
Secondly, that religion has only one true, proper and correct definition.

So with another way of doing that I am a skeptic than common Western skepticism and thus by doubting my Western culture, I am as an atheist, still religious and know that I can't do all of my life with only reason, logic and evidence.

That is it. I am a friendly atheist, in that I accept that my religion is not the only way to do it. But if you go responsible and claim you can do it with reason, logic and evidence for all of the everyday life, I am not nice.
I am still working on how to do not nice without being mean and I admit that.

Peace my fellow human. And if we have to fight, I can do that. Not that I want to, but I am a former professional soldier and it is hard to learn old dogs new tricks.

Regards
Mikkel

Let me explain with this with a thought experiment. Picture a huge hall, filled with 6500 people, with one person, each, speaking the world's 6500 known languages. I am at center stage and I place objects on a table and one by one, I ask each member of the audience to tell me what they see.

There will be a very wide variety of noises and sounds for the same thing. Depending on the object I might get up to 6500 different noise and sounds. Language is arbitrary and subjective in terms of describing reality. There is no common cause and affect between the sounds and the objects. Nobody will call the cat, "meow" to create a common cause and affect. Instead they will go out of their way to make a noise cats do not make. Have you ever heard a cat call itself "cat"?

The story of the tower of Babel describes this situation having occurring at one time, where the creative minds of humans, made up their own noises and sounds to where nobody could understand each other. Each became the center of a new subgroup. Language is not fully rational or based on cause and affect, except as subjectively defined by any group. But even in tight knit groups there will be areas of subjective fuzziness as new noises are added for old things.

Let me change the experiment and place different objects on the table. In this experiment I will have each person sketch what they see, without the use of any spoken language. What you will find is our sight depends on a common visual language. We all see the same things, because there is natural cause and affect between the object and how its reflected light is processed by the human brain. This visual language was the original universal language before the subjectivity of spoken language.

This is why science, for example, is not about just depending on the spoken and written language of a paper or report. Rather the philosophy of science requires the duplication of the experiments; seeing is believing since this is universal. The Chinese, Germans, British and American will all see the same even though the report has to be translated.

The subjectivity of written and spoken language creates problems for people since it is not grounded on rational connections. Often when reading the bible many scholars will try to use the original languages since they had their own subjective platform that may not translate to the modern in such a way as to create the universal visual verification.

As a different example, the word gay used to mean festive such as gay apparel for the holidays. In modern times it also means homosexual males. Although the latter came later, it was bumped to the top of the list creating confusion. Both definitions can induce a visual image in the mind's eye, using the universal language of sight. So which is it? If we could go to the place and physically point out a visual source to confirm universal meaning, this would be rational and universally consistent. Instead, subjectivity of verbal language, only, becomes the source of many problems. Commandeering language is often used as method to create confusion; Babel.

As another example, in Physics, matter is composed of sub particles called quarks. Some of the quarks have charm. What do you visualize? Language is also used by lawyers and politicians to manipulate feelings via inducing visual subjectivities in the universal language. Last summer, for example, peaceful demonstrations burned area of American cities. Democrat words, added subjectivity to the universal visual language to create confusion. Many allowed this manipulation, since they assumed spoken language was objective and did not require a more fundamental objective visual language as checks and balance, to verify it; Tower of Babel revisited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me explain with this with a thought experiment. Picture a huge hall, filled with 6500 people, with one person, each, speaking the world's 6500 known languages. I am at center stage and I place objects on a table and one by one, I ask each member of the audience to tell me what they see.

There will be a very wide variety of noises and sounds for the same thing. Depending on the object I might get up to 6500 different noise and sounds. Language is arbitrary and subjective in terms of describing reality. There is no common cause and affect between the sounds and the objects. Nobody will call the cat, "meow" to create a common cause and affect. Instead they will go out of their way to make a noise cats do not make. Have you ever heard a cat call itself "cat"?

The story of the tower of Babel describes this situation having occurring at one time, where the creative minds of humans, made up their own noises and sounds to where nobody could understand each other. Each became the center of a new subgroup. Language is not fully rational or based on cause and affect, except as subjectively defined by any group. But even in tight knit groups there will be areas of subjective fuzziness as new noises are added for old things.

Let me change the experiment and place different objects on the table. In this experiment I will have each person sketch what they see, without the use of any spoken language. What you will find is our sight depends on a common visual language. We all see the same things, because there is natural cause and affect between the object and how its reflected light is processed by the human brain. This visual language was the original universal language before the subjectivity of spoken language.

This is why science, for example, is not about just depending on the spoken and written language of a paper or report. Rather the philosophy of science requires the duplication of the experiments; seeing is believing since this is universal. The Chinese, Germans, British and American will all see the same even though the report has to be translated.

The subjectivity of written and spoken language creates problems for people since it is not grounded on rational connections. Often when reading the bible many scholars will try to use the original languages since they had their own subjective platform that may not translate to the modern in such a way as to create the universal visual verification.

As a different example, the word gay used to mean festive such as gay apparel for the holidays. In modern times it also means homosexual males. Although the latter came later, it was bumped to the top of the list creating confusion. Both definitions can induce a visual image in the mind's eye, using the universal language of sight. So which is it? If we could go to the place and physically point out a visual source to confirm universal meaning, this would be rational and universally consistent. Instead, subjectivity of verbal language, only, becomes the source of many problems. Commandeering language is often used as method to create confusion; Babel.

As another example, in Physics, matter is composed of sub particles called quarks. Some of the quarks have charm. What do you visualize? Language is also used by lawyers and politicians to manipulate feelings via inducing visual subjectivities in the universal language. Last summer, for example, peaceful demonstrations burned area of American cities. Democrat words, added subjectivity to the universal visual language to create confusion. Many allowed this manipulation, since they assumed spoken language was objective and did not require a more fundamental objective visual language as checks and balance, to verify it; Tower of Babel revisited.

Let me sum up. You are mainly talking about the objective elements of the world and then noting that language has an inter-subjective element. It is subjective, but shared in local groups, thus inter-subjective. And you then note feelings, but added that there is an universal visual language.

The last part is in practice not true for all of the world and all words.

It is simple once you "look" closer, because you don't just look.

1. I can show you a cat.
2. I can show you that 2+2=4.
3. I can show you that killing is wrong.
4. I can show you the meaning of life, the universe and all the rest.
5. I can show you what the world really is.

So that is all the same. No, because it is different and indeed contradictory versions of "show".
It is visual, cognitively abstract in the brain, a feeling in the end, existential and metaphysics.
So you are in effect doing a classical assumption. You are treating one version of empiricism, namely only external sensory experience is need. But the falsification of that is I can think, feeling, make sense of my life and believe different about what the world really is, than you.

I am skeptic, so I will in practice do the world differently than you for 3 to 5 in some likelihood and even maybe 2, when it comes whether the world is logical.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ah, but words can do so much more when properly applied!
They can inspire, shock, disgust, anger, confuse; they can create images and sounds in our mind, related to or independently of their meaning. They can connect or divide people, communities, and entire cultures. Sometimes, we might want to miscommunicate on purpose, to set people off and create a productive state of confusion.

All of those, I would argue, are valid use cases for specific situations. Let us not marry our dictionaries!

It is, of course, the writer's duty to apply each in the proper fashion.

Reminded me of this quote...

Books must be treated with respect, we feel that in our bones, because words have power. Bring enough words together they can bend space and time.
Pratchett