Trashing Beliefs

[Jesus The Inane]

Yes, this thread is about trashing one's beliefs. I will put forth my beliefs about life and the world, and the meaning of life etc etc and the job of the rest is to question my beliefs, critisize them, and analize them. The purpose of doing this is to test if my "Theory on Life" is correct or not. I love truth and as I treat my thinking seriously (although once I put forth my beliefs I know a lot of people will call me childish, I'm serious) I would like to get serious responses. What I hope to accomplish by putting my beliefs forth is so that I can change/modify them and hence be in the way of truth. The last thing I want to do with my life its belief in a lie or something that its wrong. For half my life I believed in things which now I think were a lie/wrong.

I would hope that we could discuss in a kind of Socratic way so that we can come to an agreement in things like; Whats good? Whats bad? What are ethics, what a good man does in life etc etc. In other words, eternal truths... a philosophy we can apply to our daily life and also to everything else... and that we know its right.

I am deeply trouble by ethical questions all the days of my life; from spitting in the floor, or throwing trash in the floor, to sex before marriage issue -- I always ask myself, is it right? And so I hope someone respond and in the end of the thread we come to some definitions and conclusions. But before we start (if anybody is interested as I'm not sure if anybody at all is gonna respond to this as my Topic about Plato's book didn't get any response), I would like to ask a question;

In this world there are two kinds of people; Those who have beliefs that are flexible, (for example; if you proof to me that theres a God, and he is the Christian God, I will follow him.) Or the people who can't never change their beliefs (Like most religious people...)

The question is; which one is right?

The problems about having flexible beliefs, I have noticed, is that people doesn't know what you belief and so they lose confidence and respect towards you, as your beliefs just keep changing. Some people start thinking you are confuse. And maybe with this kind of belief of having flexible beliefs you do get confuse... and uncertain.

The good side of having flexible beliefs is that you won't have blind faith or you won't be unreasonable. Hence you can find truth more easily.

The people with constand and almost never changing beliefs are more confident (in a sense). But they might become unreasonable.

This question is the first one because the answer to it will tell what kind of outcome this thread will have, on whether we'll reach some definitions or it will just be a mere waste of time, where people argue and then leave with the same beliefs they had before the argument.

So who would be up for it?

[Rand Al Thor]

Well I would say those who are willing to change their beliefs based on current evidences are far better off than those that hold to their believes as a safety blanket that can never change or be wrong. It is just common sense. Devotion is nice, blind devotion is foolish.

[smack]

Sounds good to me. I'm all for it, thought I'm not sure we can reach 'definitions' so much as your own personal definitions. That's the heart of the Socratic method: finding the conclusions that you must based on the logical extension of your truthes. They may not be the same for all. Socrates was more concerned with the process for an individual than arriving at a conclusion for everyone. That's just a nice benefit. (I didn't say that right, but its late, and nevermind)

So plunge ahead!

[Garbarsardar]

Dear Jesus The Inane, I place my trust in the members as you since this seems like a very nice idea...
permit me now to dissect your question and the premise:

There are two categories of people. One with stable beliefs, one with flexible beliefs. I think that very few people can fall exclusively in one of the two categories: Most of us have a set of beliefs wich we usually do not question and some that are flexible. (for me:"racism is wrong"/but "should alcohol be illegal?").
Or what I just said categorises me as a person of flexible beliefs since I can doubt for a part of them?
Now if we accept that there are people without absolutely no doubt then your last retort comes in question

where people argue and then leave with the same beliefs they had before the argument.

.

That said, I find it really interesting to see which of my presumptions about life and the universe belongs to the category of :"presumptions I never thought of questionning".
So, shoot! :happy

[Portuguese Rebel]

I always ask myself, is it right?

Excelent. Ask yourself and think using your own mind. Gather information and then judge for yourself on whatever issue at hand. It can sometimes be hard because there doesn't seem to be someone to point a way. You make the rules, you have your own morals and thrive for clear justification for your actions.

If you want to remain faithful to yourself then it is the only way.

[Nihil]

In this world there are two kinds of people; Those who have beliefs that are flexible, (for example; if you proof to me that theres a God, and he is the Christian God, I will follow him.) Or the people who can't never change their beliefs (Like most religious people...)

The question is; which one is right?

I think Garbarsardar is right, you won't find anybody who fits into the extreme of either category. The two categories do largely hold true, but nobody is entirely rigid or entirely flexible just like Garbarsardar says.

In my opinion, flexibility in belief is one of the quintessential tools you need in your search for truth. It is at the heart of the scientific, questioning approach. Of course I, just like anybody, can be a self-righteouos fundamentalist on certain topics...

But in general, I think most of us would agree, in the search for truth, an open mind is the first prerequisite. Otherwise, when you find the truth you will simply reject it. Sometimes the hardest thing in learning something is not finding the truth, but being able to accept it. People who staunchly refuse to ever change their minds about anything have a severe disadvantage when it come to learning new things.

The problems about having flexible beliefs, I have noticed, is that people doesn't know what you belief and so they lose confidence and respect towards you, as your beliefs just keep changing. Some people start thinking you are confuse.

To hell with them! Who cares what they think.

The good side of having flexible beliefs is that you won't have blind faith or you won't be unreasonable. Hence you can find truth more easily.

Precisely.

The people with constand and almost never changing beliefs are more confident (in a sense). But they might become unreasonable.

As somebody once said - the problem with keeping both feet planted firmly on the ground is that it's impossible to take off your trousers.

Silliness aside, thinking that you have all the answers may give confidence in the short term, but it's a fool's confidence. In actual fact people whose minds and ideas have visited more places develop a wider array of skills and the ability to cope with more situations. So don't be afraid to allow your world-view to disintegrate, even if it leads to confusion. Fundamental truths endure. It's by testing to see what does endure and what does not that we find those fundamental truths.

[Jesus The Inane]

WOHO!! This should be interesting. I am almost certain that my beliefs (which I hold sacred) are gonna be totally trashed in here. I spend much time bothering people at my school, I ask them; whats the meaning of life? etc etc and most of them haven't really thought deeply about their beliefs. Some don't care. Most of the time the answer to the meaning of life question is; "having fun, enjoying life"... now thats deep lol But they never prove me wrong... which is what I really want them to do. But in here, I am the youngest one I suspect, in here there are older people and more educated then me... this won't be a walk in the park like at school then... and I mean, if you try and have a good discussion with your family they always end up saying things like; "when I was your age...," or "when you are your age you start getting confuse, but don't worry, it'll make sense when you get older" which is rather helpless. And I mean, I can't tell my family that I think families are evil... So thats why I have come here...

Well I would say those who are willing to change their beliefs based on current evidences are far better off than those that hold to their believes as a safety blanket that can never change or be wrong. It is just common sense. Devotion is nice, blind devotion is foolish.

Yes, but then again, the belief of having flexible beliefs is in itself unflexible. Or is it? if I decided in this moment to change that belief into never changing my beliefs, then I would have been flexible yet again... maybe then I would have used that belief for the last time... ? But, by chagining my belief to that I would have realized that flexible beliefs is what have lead me to truth (of not changing my beliefs)... so how could I, then, believe that I should have never changing beliefs? So my conclusion is that having flexible beliefs is rather a principle. Just like the principle, in my mind, that I exist because I think, therefore, I am. But then when would I make a belief "oficially a principle"? Wouldn't, then, all my beliefs eventually become principles?... ?

Sounds good to me. I'm all for it, thought I'm not sure we can reach 'definitions' so much as your own personal definitions. That's the heart of the Socratic method: finding the conclusions that you must based on the logical extension of your truthes. They may not be the same for all. Socrates was more concerned with the process for an individual than arriving at a conclusion for everyone. That's just a nice benefit.

Then so we should discuss not to find a general conclusion, but to find our own conclusions? That sounds good to me then. Then it wouldn't be wasteful. However, this would imply that each individual would come out thinking that he is right, but surely there must only be one who is right... ? that would be like saying that whats good in here isn't good some where else... so we are left with not that much certainty. There must be something that holds truth in this universe, in this life, in this existance -- something thats good everywhere? But thats a belief of mine then, which, perhaps, we should discuss when I start writting my beliefs?

Dear Jesus The Inane, I place my trust in the members as you since this seems like a very nice idea...

I fear that this thread might end up with people fighting instead of discussing. With people insulting and saying childish things, so I say we put down some rules to keep it under reasonable control.

1.No bad words what so ever...
2.No one can answer a question with another question, first you must answer the given question. (Portuguese Revel, I think I saw you doing that before, maybe it was someone else though.)
3.No one can say a belief is dumb just because its dumb. You must give logical reasons.
4.Let us think reasonably about it. Logically.

Feel free to add or, perhaps, take away from that but I feel this should keep us civilized. Its all common sense. Another thing I would like to point out is that everyone should read the entire posts before posting in it. Hence we won't have repetition. If a new arriving member posts something that has already been discussed then we should tell him to read the entire thread, or atleast point out where it was discussed. Again, feel free to dissagree and prove me wrong...

There are two categories of people. One with stable beliefs, one with flexible beliefs. I think that very few people can fall exclusively in one of the two categories: Most of us have a set of beliefs wich we usually do not question and some that are flexible

I agree with you. Perhaps, then, this topic will be about changing atleast some of one's beliefs... wait, so then, what I said before about the two categories is wrong? Neither is right and neither is wrong? Ofcourse, because there are no two categories; theres principles and beliefs. All people have this two. The beliefs are the ones that are flexible... and they change when we interpret our principles in different ways... ? so, for example, someone would hold the Bible as a principle (meaning the Bible is right, period.) but change its beliefs according to the interpretations of it? Yet never questioning wheter the Bible its right or wrong... why? because it did once and came to a conclusion...

Now if we accept that there are people without absolutely no doubt then your last retort comes in question

where people argue and then leave with the same beliefs they had before the argument.

.

That said, I find it really interesting to see which of my presumptions about life and the universe belongs to the category of :"presumptions I never thought of questionning".
So, shoot!

According to what has been said above, I would think that we will change some of our beliefs and so this won't be a waste of time... that part of "there are people without absolutely no doubt" makes me wonder, does the Pope have no doubt?

[DarthJames]

Most of the time the answer to the meaning of life question is; "having fun, enjoying life"... now thats deep lol

What else are you going to do? If you try to put some kind of higher meaning to life, then you:
a) have to invoke some kind of destiny/fate/God's will
b) have to, by implication, assume that you have some special significance to the world.

Even if you don't belive that there is any point to life, you still may as well enjoy yourself because your along for the ride anyway.

I don't think that the real question is about people who have flexible or fixed views. People who have fixed views are by defenition beyond debate and so beyond reason.

What you should concentrate on is the idea of having a fixed truth, or believing that 'people should make their own minds up'.

There must be something that holds truth in this universe, in this life, in this existance -- something thats good everywhere?

That's it there. Problem is this: there doesn't have to be something that holds truth together. There is no reason (assuming that you don't want to play the God card, for that see 'beyond debate&#39 for there to be such a thing. The problem is that this leads on to a form of Moral Relativism that simply amounts to saying that right and wrong do not exist.

The good side of having flexible beliefs is that you won't have blind faith or you won't be unreasonable. Hence you can find truth more easily.

Precisely.

Uh oh. And when you 'find the truth', will you become as inflexible as all the other people who have 'found the truth' in their 'fixed ideas'. It's a logical contradiction to on the one hand say that people should be flexible in their beliefs, and on the other hand still ascribe to the existence of an external truth.

People as a whole are not flexible with their beliefs. If you challange someone's deeply held beliefs, then they get a 'cognitive dissonance' (read: brain cramp) where their reason will shut down and they will deny everything that you say, simply getting irritated with you. It happens to everyone.

Just to end:

Yes, but then again, the belief of having flexible beliefs is in itself unflexible

Yep, that's the logical 'nail on the head' for Moral Relativism.

Personally, while I'm flexible in my beliefs, I also hold what I belive to be absolutely true until I am persuaded otherwise. I belive that while there is no 'external truth' to be found lying around, one should act as if one's beliefs are an external truth, or, as John Stuart Mill would say; If you do not make a link with action with your beliefs, then your beliefs are a dead dogma.

[DarthJames]

A quick addition: for a good analysis of the implications of 'trashing beliefs', read 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill. Its hefty, and a lot to get into, but the basis of his arguments are that one should be constantly challanging set beliefs. You would like it.

[Jesus The Inane]

I will continue answering in another post because I didn't thought that I could fit it all in one post. Also, just to let you know, I edited the other post a lot because I was checking when was the limit to words in a single post.

"Excelent. Ask yourself and think using your own mind. Gather information and then judge for yourself on whatever issue at hand. It can sometimes be hard because there doesn't seem to be someone to point a way. You make the rules, you have your own morals and thrive for clear justification for your actions."

Well, sometimes our minds are too full of hate so we cannot reason fully. Sometimes some ideas just don't come to you. Some people tell you thinks you never thought of before. And that probably you wouldn't have thought of, ever. I'm judging myself everything I read and so I'm judging this too. Lastly, I think in finding truth, one person has 30% chance to be correct, seven persons discussing it have a 60% chance to get it right, or atleast better.

"Fundamental truths endure. It's by testing to see what does endure and what does not that we find those fundamental truths."

I agree.

[MoROmeTe]

First of all, good topic. Not Good, cause then it would be an Idea, but good.
First you have to realize that truth does not exist. You can not say people with fixed beliefs (I'll follow you lead and call fixed beliefs principles) are right and that people that only have beliefs (that are flexible) are wrong or the other way around. There is no ultimate truth, no sustainable ultimate truth, that can be attached to anything in this world. Also, the categories are not clear-cut, there's no one that only has principles or only has beliefs. In this aspect, we are all half-breeds.
About the way truth exists, Karl Popper is very instructive. He says we cannot find truth in life. Why? Because we are like a man going up a mountain in thick fog. We can't see the highest peak. But we can see that we are climbing. Upon reaching a peak we will believe we found the highest one, only to see that we can climb further. The fog is our lack of knowledge. The peaks are different truths that we perceive as ultimate during our lives. But we can only go higher, cause there's always somewhere else to cllimb. So, in life we can only eliminate errors, but we can never finf the truth, the ultimate truth.
In reality both me and you have certain principles that we believe to be the Truth, as Plato would put it. But we must be careful to try and question them, even if it is a hard endeavour. Moral Relativism cannot be killed by the nail that even the belief in relativity is relative. It is so. Man is dual. It can be sure, on one hand, that every belief is relative, and yet, on the other hand, man can hold upc ertain beliefs, for a certain period os time, and under certain circumstances, as being the ultimate truth. Moral Relativism only says we should be aware that we can be perfectly adept at lying to ourselves. What is true to me is true to me because of my past, my experiences and because I am I. It is another business with you. Different experiences, different existence, different truths. And they are al, mine and yours, relative, even if both you and I cant easily accept the fact.

[Jesus The Inane]

What else are you going to do? If you try to put some kind of higher meaning to life, then you:
a) have to invoke some kind of destiny/fate/God's will
b) have to, by implication, assume that you have some special significance to the world.

For A and B I will discuss when I set down my beliefs, if I may?

Even if you don't belive that there is any point to life, you still may as well enjoy yourself because your along for the ride anyway

Purpose. And purpose in life its what truly is enjoyble, not getting drunk and having sex... but then again, I am geting into my beliefs yet again....

That's it there. Problem is this: there doesn't have to be something that holds truth together. There is no reason (assuming that you don't want to play the God card, for that see 'beyond debate&#39 for there to be such a thing. The problem is that this leads on to a form of Moral Relativism that simply amounts to saying that right and wrong do not exist.

I think I understand. And I will post something more after I have thought about it. For now, I need to think as you have made a great point.

Personally, while I'm flexible in my beliefs, I also hold what I belive to be absolutely true until I am persuaded otherwise. I belive that while there is no 'external truth' to be found lying around, one should act as if one's beliefs are an external truth, or, as John Stuart Mill would say; If you do not make a link with action with your beliefs, then your beliefs are a dead dogma.

So you are saying theres no Truth outside our minds... ?

"John Stuart Mill would say; If you do not make a link with action with your beliefs, then your beliefs are a dead dogma."

Thats what I am trying to get, a belief that I can link with my actions. So, my beliefs would be the reason for my actions?

[Jesus The Inane]

About the way truth exists, Karl Popper is very instructive. He says we cannot find truth in life. Why? Because we are like a man going up a mountain in thick fog. We can't see the highest peak. But we can see that we are climbing. Upon reaching a peak we will believe we found the highest one, only to see that we can climb further. The fog is our lack of knowledge. The peaks are different truths that we perceive as ultimate during our lives. But we can only go higher, cause there's always somewhere else to cllimb. So, in life we can only eliminate errors, but we can never finf the truth, the ultimate truth.

But a mountain has an end (final peak, or highest peak). And so it could be said that there is a Truth, although we can't see it or reach it. And the fog can become clarity when summer comes?

In reality both me and you have certain principles that we believe to be the Truth, as Plato would put it. But we must be careful to try and question them, even if it is a hard endeavour. Moral Relativism cannot be killed by the nail that even the belief in relativity is relative. It is so. Man is dual. It can be sure, on one hand, that every belief is relative, and yet, on the other hand, man can hold upc ertain beliefs, for a certain period os time, and under certain circumstances, as being the ultimate truth. Moral Relativism only says we should be aware that we can be perfectly adept at lying to ourselves. What is true to me is true to me because of my past, my experiences and because I am I. It is another business with you. Different experiences, different existence, different truths. And they are al, mine and yours, relative, even if both you and I cant easily accept the fact.

And on what would we base the Truths on? is it on survival needs?

[smack]

Originally posted by Jesus The Inane@May 21 2005, 05:46 PM

Sounds good to me. I'm all for it, thought I'm not sure we can reach 'definitions' so much as your own personal definitions. That's the heart of the Socratic method: finding the conclusions that you must based on the logical extension of your truthes. They may not be the same for all. Socrates was more concerned with the process for an individual than arriving at a conclusion for everyone. That's just a nice benefit.

Then so we should discuss not to find a general conclusion, but to find our own conclusions? That sounds good to me then. Then it wouldn't be wasteful. However, this would imply that each individual would come out thinking that he is right, but surely there must only be one who is right... ? that would be like saying that whats good in here isn't good some where else... so we are left with not that much certainty. There must be something that holds truth in this universe, in this life, in this existance -- something thats good everywhere? But thats a belief of mine then, which, perhaps, we should discuss when I start writting my beliefs?

Don't worry, Socrates made sure to send the relativists packing. He believed in Good, so a person's struggle will be relative to their experience of truth, and hence personal. But the 'right' conclusion is there to be arrived at, nonetheless. The Socratic method just shows that we can get to the proper conclusion from various starting points. IE, we don't first have to accept that men are Good to arrive at that or implied conclusions by argument...but anyways.

You don't need to respond to everyone if you don't want to. We're just a rowdy audience. Please carry on and deliver the goods! *tongue*

[DarthJames]

Thats what I am trying to get, a belief that I can link with my actions. So, my beliefs would be the reason for my actions?

Its more the other way around. Mill was saying that when someone holds a belief, but does not act on it, that belief loses its power. They still hold that belief, but it does not mean anything.

First you have to realize that truth does not exist...There is no ultimate truth, no sustainable ultimate truth, that can be attached to anything in this world.

But you have provided absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The irony is that you are claiming with absolute authority that it is impossible to claim anything with absoute authority, which is the fallacy in your position.

My suggestion would be to accept the possiblity that an absolute truth exists, but propose that the chances of us reaching that point and realising it as the truth (and not another falsehood) are so remote that one may as well act as if there were no absolute truth. The problem is that one can substiute the final point with 'as if what you believe is an absolute truth.

Whether you choose to take up my suggestion to alter your position is up to you, but I have to object to comments such as

It is so. Man is dual.

while you are denying that it is impossible to know anything with absolute truth.

Purpose. And purpose in life its what truly is enjoyble, not getting drunk and having sex... but then again, I am geting into my beliefs yet again....

Problem is, if you want an external purpose in life, you still have my original objections to deal with. If you want to set yourself an internal purpose to life, then that's fine, however whatever you decide can have no relevance or authority over other people.

[Jesus The Inane]

"Thats what I am trying to get, a belief that I can link with my actions. So, my beliefs would be the reason for my actions?"


Its more the other way around. Mill was saying that when someone holds a belief, but does not act on it, that belief loses its power. They still hold that belief, but it does not mean anything.

So, my actions are my beliefs. If I believe in something and I don't act upon it, then I really don't believe in it? Is that what he means?

And I agree with what DarthJames is saying. Maybe there is a truth, maybe not. But we should have beliefs that we think (or rather act as if) are absolute, but question them too. IF, thats what he meant...

I see now that we won't come to a final conclusion in this thread and that people will argue and most people will come out of it with the same beliefs they had before the argument, however, some will change it. Then let us argue to see how good our beliefs are, to test them, to see what flaws there are in them, and then we ourselves will choose to act as we wish on it.

Do you guys agree? If yes, then I will post my beliefs on monday as I need time to think on how to put them in here and make sure that they make sense.

[smack]

Originally posted by Jesus The Inane@May 22 2005, 01:46 PM
Then let us argue to see how good our beliefs are, to test them, to see what flaws there are in them, and then we ourselves will choose to act as we wish on it.

That's a quote for the Symposium *noideas* . We look forward to hearing more on Monday.

[MoROmeTe]

Allright, DarthJames. My view is this. I can state that man is dual and that there is no absolute truth while being sure that even this sentence ("There is no absolute truth") is subjected to itself and may be wrong.
Where does this leave us? At saying that the absolute sentence is "There may or may not be an absolute truth". But this is also relative. And so on... It is a paradox. We cannot escape from it once we go into it. If need be I hold that saying "There is no absolute truth" while knowing that even this sentence is subjected to itself is better than saying "here is an absolute truth" while knowing that this sentence is subjected to itself.
In the first scenario, holding relative the sentence "There is no absolute truth", my universe and belief system is open ended. Actually I become quite aware of how little I know and I can try and find out more, while knowing what I do find out is relative.
In the second scenario, holding absolute the sentence "There is an absolute truth", mt universe is closed, subjected to this truth that I know to be absolute, even if I may or may not know this truth. I like the first atitude best...
Man I hope someone followed my post. It is kind of twisted...

[DarthJames]

Man I hope someone followed my post. It is kind of twisted...

Just seperate it up a bit with paragraphs. My brain hurts just from trying to read that (for the 2nd time) :><

The problem with what you are saying is this

And so on... It is a paradox. We cannot escape from it once we go into it.

Us philosophers try to avoid paradoxes like the plague. If you run into a paradox, then somewhere along the way your thinking has become fuzzy. In this case the paradox is inherent in the statment &#39;There is no absolute truth&#39;. The problem with your &#39;openended&#39; view of truth is that it leads on to show that nothing that you or anyone else can say or do which has any meaning at all, because there is always an infinite number of equally valid alternatives. Essentially, you may as well curl up into a little ball and die now, for all that your life has any meaning. Even this very thread has no point.

From that conclusion, I think that it is far better to work from the assumption that there is an absolute truth, even accepting that it will never be found, because that brings meaning to discussion and argument, because you can actually get somewhere.

So, my actions are my beliefs. If I believe in something and I don&#39;t act upon it, then I really don&#39;t believe in it? Is that what he means?

Eh, not quite. Mill would say that you still hold that belief, but if you do not act on it then the belief loses meaning. Hence I can beleive that it is important to cut greenhouse emissions, but unless I am willing to give up my car, that belief is worthless. I might still think that the principle of saving the environment is important, but my belief has no strength.

Then let us argue to see how good our beliefs are, to test them, to see what flaws there are in them, and then we ourselves will choose to act as we wish on it.

That is Mill in a sentence, although he coined the term &#39;lifetsyles&#39;. It&#39;s why the freedoms of speech, movement and association are so important to him. Seriously, find a copy of his book and read it, I am convinced that you would agree with what he says.

[Last_Crusader]

Ultimate truth is irrelevant, as the social structures we have are based upon the imperfect assumptuons we have- fear of the unknowns generated by alternate truths and so alternate societies root the masses into an unquestioning state regarding belief.