Pride and Foundations - things we should avoid

[finsternis]

I was watching the whole controversy that was going on in Notre Dame with Obama. While looking at YouTube videos about it, I found this video.

You don’t have to look at the whole video, just look at the first 3 people. The Third guy is the one that I’m going to concentrate on. This is what he said:

And while there may be a diversity of opinions and academic debate, that is something that is welcomed but not to the extent that replaces the foundation of whom we are.

I’m not going to be talking about abortion but about whether foundations are a good thing.

First off, this guy made a contradiction: when he says that debate is allow (meaning, the exchange of ideas in a logical matter are allow) yet we should not debate if it goes against our foundation. That pretty much means “yes, we can argue, but you will not change or affect my opinion in the subject”. If that is the case, then why debate? If no progress is made, the why try? Why argue with someone who would not listen? This thus brings the question of whether we should have foundations; they seem to not allow progress since people will fight for them even if they are wrong (if, lest say, abortion is proven to be ok, this guy will not change his view since debate is not a option if it goes against his foundation. Thus, he won’t progress).

The same goes for pride and for people who have combined their emotions with their beliefs. We see it all the time, conservatives defending ideas to the death just because of their “pride” and “love” to their “foundations” and “morality” (which could be right or wrong); liberals attacking an idea just because they are in love with the idea of being “different” and “new” (regardless whether it is good or not).

So what can I conclude of this, foundations and pride destroy progress since they do not allow debate. That guy’s “foundations” did not allow him to debate (even though he said that he welcomes debate) and since he does not allow debate, then he does not allow progress. So my advice to all is do not have pride.

[Da Skinna]

I hate the semantics war over abortion. I like life too.

And epic video by the way.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

The foundation of life is the loving God, and our basic emotion is the love of God. All progress in individual life and the life of humankind is based on this strong spiritual connection. If you can pass through this major ego generated hurdle, I promise you that you will absolutely love the bliss of life - not only, you will witness miracles in your life and the lives of others.

[IrishHitman]

The foundation of life is the loving God, and our basic emotion is the love of God. All progress in individual life and the life of humankind is based on this strong spiritual connection. If you can pass through this major ego generated hurdle, I promise you that you will absolutely love the bliss of life - not only, you will witness miracles in your life and the lives of others.

Translation: Cult Talk.

Can you imagine agreeing with this person if the God he was referring to demanded that you hand over your cash?
Oh wait, that is the God he was referring to.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

Translation: Cult Talk.

Can you imagine agreeing with this person if the God he was referring to demanded that you hand over your cash?
Oh wait, that is the God he was referring to.

I am not a cult member, and I don't want your money. There's only one God, a God who loves you unconditionally. Attacking others only shows your insecurity about life. You don't have to fear anything, my friend. I will say a quiet prayer for you tonight.

[Arch-hereticK]

I am not a cult member, and I don't want your money. There's only one God, a God who loves you unconditionally. Attacking others only shows your insecurity about life. You don't have to fear anything, my friend. I will say a quiet prayer for you tonight.

Sounds a bit cultish to me too.

[Curtis13]

I am not a cult member, and I don't want your money. There's only one God, a God who loves you unconditionally. Attacking others only shows your insecurity about life. You don't have to fear anything, my friend. I will say a quiet prayer for you tonight.

Maybe he's a cult bot.

[SorelusImperion]

Sounds a bit cultish to me too.

Crazy ? Maybe but not more than the in general and definitively not "cultish". He doesn't postulate that there is some leader one has to follow, nor does he demand one to join an organization.

There's only one God, a God who loves you unconditionally

This assumption may of course be wrong but one thing is sure it doesn't fit to what defines a cult and would be a grave danger to the authority of any cult leader.

[Phier]

I think he means this.

Hakuna Matata

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

Realize the immutable fact that your entire existence comes from within, not from outside of yourself.

[Arch-hereticK]

Your mother's inside you?

[Curtis13]

Realize the immutable fact that your entire existence comes from within, not from outside of yourself.

Maybe he's an early modern Idealist, like Hume. They make good reading.

[SorelusImperion]

Your mother's inside you?

Look up "Cogito ergo sum"

[finsternis]

The foundation of life is the loving God, and our basic emotion is the love of God. All progress in individual life and the life of humankind is based on this strong spiritual connection. If you can pass through this major ego generated hurdle, I promise you that you will absolutely love the bliss of life - not only, you will witness miracles in your life and the lives of others.

Wow, talk about off topic. You know, most people try to stay in topic for a while and gradually go off topic to their troll source or place of comfort (or so I think). You didn't bother, you just went out.


I like how a simple observation about pride and foundations turns into a god argument.

I posted the OP for two reason: one I wanted to show an observation and analysis I amde about Pride and progress, and two to try to give people a brake from the god arguments.

It is called Ethos, Mores et Monastica, not simply Monastica.

[Jams79]

I think deciding all foundations are bad based on one example is a tad over generalised.

Foundations are called such for a reason, they are necesarily solid although they do tend to shift with time. Look at the changes in the Catholic church over the last few hundred years.

[finsternis]

I think deciding all foundations are bad based on one example is a tad over generalised.

No, my problem with foundations and pride is not that there are bad ones, but that people tend to defend their foundations (meaning, have pride in their foundations) even if they are wrong. That is why I say that foundations should be avoided all together (because you can never know if your foundation is true or false). For example, let us say that abortion is PROVEN to be wrong and that it should be illegal (I'm picking the event that the liberals are wrong to better show this), do you think that most liberals will just say "ok". No, why? Because they are humans. Most of them will not take it, they will keep arguing no matter what; just like Creationists keep arguing even though it has been proven wrong. Same thing if abortion is proven to be right and that it should be legal, a lot conservatives will keep arguing and fighting.

Why? Because they have merged their emotions with their beliefs, they have foundations that they will defend to the death no matter what.

Foundations are called such for a reason, they are necesarily solid although they do tend to shift with time. Look at the changes in the Catholic church over the last few hundred years.

Yes, the catholic church has changed over the years, but is that because foundations change, or because more "liberal" (if I may use that term) ideas have overcome the world and thus they have put pressure on the catholics. Newer catholic officers have been less connected to the original foundations (because they have been more connected with the new "liberal" world: they were born in it) of the church and thus have allow the pressure from to the world to change "some" their ways (more changes to come).

As I said above, the problem with foundations is that they tend to stop progress since immediately they questioned, people will not listen to whatever logic is thrown at them.

Now, you may be thinking "but that means that I cannot function since everything is questionable". Well, here I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself: you can have foundations, is just that you should not pride yourself in them (hence why pride is in the title of the OP). Meaning, allow them to change. "But wait a minute, aren't foundations suppose to NOT change?" And that's why I don't like foundations. I wish there was another word for a foundation that IS allow to change. Foundhange™?

There you go, you can Foundhange™ but you should not have foundations.

[TheOutsider]

I do not see why people who embrace certain ideologies only because they are prescribed as such by some system they're making part of should be taken seriously at all..The word ''catholic'' already kind of implies that there is no to little logic to be sought here..

If anything Obama has made himself guilty of much greater crimes than abortion could ever mean..in terms of chrsitian sense of morality aswell..those things get overlooked cause it's not the hot topic inside the chistian societies i assume?..again i refer to my initial point..


+


Life in it's very nature is unfair.

[Jams79]

No, my problem with foundations and pride is not that there are bad ones, but that people tend to defend their foundations (meaning, have pride in their foundations) even if they are wrong. That is why I say that foundations should be avoided all together (because you can never know if your foundation is true or false). For example, let us say that abortion is PROVEN to be wrong and that it should be illegal (I'm picking the event that the liberals are wrong to better show this), do you think that most liberals will just say "ok". No, why? Because they are humans. Most of them will not take it, they will keep arguing no matter what; just like Creationists keep arguing even though it has been proven wrong. Same thing if abortion is proven to be right and that it should be legal, a lot conservatives will keep arguing and fighting.

Why? Because they have merged their emotions with their beliefs, they have foundations that they will defend to the death no matter what.

How do you avoid having foundations connected to your beliefs? How do you avoid having foundations in any way?

Yes, the catholic church has changed over the years, but is that because foundations change, or because more "liberal" (if I may use that term) ideas have overcome the world and thus they have put pressure on the catholics. Newer catholic officers have been less connected to the original foundations (because they have been more connected with the new "liberal" world: they were born in it) of the church and thus have allow the pressure from to the world to change "some" their ways (more changes to come).

Well done, you just described a foundational change. Slow but it happens.

As I said above, the problem with foundations is that they tend to stop progress since immediately they questioned, people will not listen to whatever logic is thrown at them.

Now, you may be thinking "but that means that I cannot function since everything is questionable". Well, here I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself: you can have foundations, is just that you should not pride yourself in them (hence why pride is in the title of the OP). Meaning, allow them to change. "But wait a minute, aren't foundations suppose to NOT change?" And that's why I don't like foundations. I wish there was another word for a foundation that IS allow to change. Foundhange™?

There you go, you can Foundhange™ but you should not have foundations.

You're right if it changes easily it isn't a foundation. People are going to take pride in their foundations or else they lose there entire perspective on life.

[finsternis]

How do you avoid having foundations connected to your beliefs? How do you avoid having foundations in any way?

As I said towards the end of my previous post, you can have them, but you must allow the to change. You can have Foundhange™. And you can do this, physicists do this all of the time, new theories demand a rethinking of the universe which most physicists will do, but there are some physicists that won't because they are in love with the old universe (yes, even they do it).

Well done, you just described a foundational change. Slow but it happens.

Is it changing? Or is it being ignored? You can see it both ways.

You're right if it changes easily it isn't a foundation. People are going to take pride in their foundations or else they lose there entire perspective on life.

I must disagree with that. I think that I'm foundationless. I do have some beliefs in issues that have not been proven (like abortion and gay marriage) but should anyone prove to me that my beliefs in the subject are wrong, I'll change them. An example of this my view of god: I used to be atheist but enough philosophy classes and religion arguments here in Ethos and in my college convinced me that the only way you can go about it is through agnosticism. My favorite example is, however, how I went from a moral fundamentalist to a socio-moral fundamentalist (if those are words) back when I had a debate with bspiken over fundamental morals. He showed me that it makes no sense to talk about individual morality without other people.

If one foundation CAN be easily changed, the foundation itself is not worth of the title.

It must be hard to change through logical debate, a honed opinion on many debates, if you will.

If it CAN be changed through logical debates, then it CAN be changed. But if it CAN be changed, then is it a foundation? Yes it will take debate to "change" the Foundation of a person, but the person must allow the foundation to change (meaning, have a Foundhange, not a foundation). If he doesn't, then it won't be changed. Again, a perfect example of this are Creationists. My family (whole family) is an example of this: even though I give him the prove, my uncle still beliefs in creationism, even though I give him all the prove, my cousin (who is a little older than me) still beliefs that god makes the other planets move around the sun since they don't have gravity, and even though I argue with him, my father still thinks that gays are an abomination. They all have these beliefs, these "foundations", and they won't change them for anything.

[Jams79]

I must disagree with that. I think that I'm foundationless. I do have some beliefs in issues that have not been proven (like abortion and gay marriage) but should anyone prove to me that my beliefs in the subject are wrong, I'll change them. An example of this my view of god: I used to be atheist but enough philosophy classes and religion arguments here in Ethos and in my college convinced me that the only way you can go about it is through agnosticism. My favorite example is, however, how I went from a moral fundamentalist to a socio-moral fundamentalist (if those are words) back when I had a debate with bspiken over fundamental morals. He showed me that it makes no sense to talk about individual morality without other people.

Foundations aren't merely those aspects of us that believe without question, as you said earlier a liberal will question everything, that is their foundation. Try to convince them that they are wrong about that and you will see little difference between them and the catholics.