Philosophism

Yeah, something I created myself. I don't care much for other religions. I'm neither Agnostic, nor am I Atheist, but I enjoy the beliefs I have now, and I call it Philosophism.

Within every religion, there is a large amount of people who view it as facts, or like to start arguments, taking what they've learned in those religions to be fact, and it annoyed me for A long time.

So, here it is, Philosophism. A somewhat religion/belief that is based on the constant questioning of the world around it, even the questioning of this religion/belief itself. A way to gather those of different beliefs and share without accusation, but more a way to spread knowledge and to think about the world around them.

~Nothing is a fact, all is to be questioned~

As a helpful service to the Cellar community, I'll translate:

Dunlavy wrote:

Yeah, something I created myself. I don't care much for other religions. I'm neither Agnostic, nor am I Atheist, but I enjoy the beliefs I have now, and I call it Philosophism.

I haven't read Joseph Campbell, Kant, Descartes, or Derrida, so I'm going to assume that I've created this assume thing that nobody has ever thought of that's a contradictory ad hoc mix of radical skepticism and spiritual pluralism

Within every religion, there is a large amount of people who view it as facts, or like to start arguments, taking what they've learned in those religions to be fact, and it annoyed me for A long time.

Within these belief systems, there are like, these people who like, believe the stuff that the belief system is tied to believing in. Like, they really believe it! Don't you hate that?

So, here it is, Philosophism. A somewhat religion/belief that is based on the constant questioning of the world around it, even the questioning of this religion/belief itself. A way to gather those of different beliefs and share without accusation, but more a way to spread knowledge and to think about the world around them.

As I said before, I hate it when people believe stuff, and get all superior about it because they, like believe stuff. I am superior to them, because I believe that everything should be doubted, which is an inherently better belief than the beliefs of all those other people. They should be more like me, and believe what I believe, that everything should be doubted.

~Nothing is a fact, all is to be questioned~

Which I will state simply, and elegantly, as an unquestionable fact.

We hope you've enjoyed this service of the cellar community.

Dunlavy wrote:

~Nothing is a fact, all is to be questioned~

Please do me the favor of not driving anywhere near where I need to.

I feel It refreshing to look at possibilities that make others uncomfortable. Even though I find the word philosohism a bit implicate, I find the ambiguity of it relative to the whole argument of other theoretical definintions.

cmon, ya just know this is an 18yr old stoner. weren't you that guy once, smooth? i know i was. i've refined that into my current pickandchoosist religosophy. but is it any different really? dont beat up on the young and vulnerable. save it for dicks like mr condescendingman above me here.

[john leavy]
smooothmonikerman, chewing up newbies and spittin' 'em out.
the smoothmeister
[/john leavy]

good work, sm

I hope there is a Round 2.

Note to newbie: sm is wicked sharp and your self-esteem may get bruised but a few ritual butt whippings later you're in the club. good luck


oh, you may want to try politics next. that's pretty safe territory

Heh, let them say what they want. And i'm not a stoner by the by. For someone who replies under a thread within a section known as Philosophy, Smooth doesn't exactly sound too open to listen to other beliefs. Excuse me if you will if I ignore him. I doubt how high a number of posts generally shows the character of a person, or determine how they should be treated..

You really do make yourself appear intelligent, don't you think? Taking someone's views and warping them to make the person sound stupid themselves. I never stated that "Philosophism" or whatever you may choose to call it was original, I merely stated that what I believe is something I created, not something that another person laid out before me. Next time you decide to try and chew out someone who is new to the forum, get your head out of your arse.

We hope you've enjoyed this service of a guy that joined a forum not for the purpose of being stepped upon by someone who's been apart of the forum longer than me.

-Dunlavy

I never stated that "Philosophism" or whatever you may choose to call it was original, I merely stated that what I believe is something I created, not something that another person laid out before me.

There's a difference between taking the first thing that's laid out in front of you, and making the effort to learn everything you can about philosophy (or anything) and then drawing conclusions. The fact that you believe it is something you created proves that you haven't done much research into what other people have written on the subject. And if you don't make the effort to learn the answers, 'questioning all' is really just being contrary.

You didn't deny the "18-year-old" part of the "18-year-old stoner" supposition. Ten years from now, you may stumble across something you wrote on your Philosophism, and you will laugh at yourself too.

Dunlavy, I'll quit jumping up your ass when you start making sense.

“Doubt Everything”. Really? You want to doubt everything? Ok, start by doubting that chair you’re sitting in will hold you up, that the roof won’t fall in, that somebody isn’t standing behind you with a knife, that the whole world isn’t just 2 minutes old but pre-programmed with mass memories so that we believe to have thousands of years of human history. What’s the problem?

“Spread Knowledge”. What is knowledge, if everything is dubious?

“Gather people who believe different things without accusation”. What if the things I believe are inherently contradictory to the things you believe? The mere fact of my holding them is a passive accusation that your beliefs are false. I think the only way you can concoct this ecumenical wonderland is if the only people you let into your circle are people who really don’t believe anything at all.

“What I believe is something I created”. Why believe it? If you know that some particular idea, thesis, tenet, principle, whatever, has no grounding in reality, and is only based on your creative intuition, why believe it at all? If I create a belief that pink bunnies will one day usher in a utopian socialist paradise if we worship them, what possible reason could I have for thinking it’s true? Ask wolf what we call self-created beliefs held by people that have no grounding in reality.

Here’s why this gets my goad; I think I know what you really mean. What you meant to say is, “These things that people believe can’t really be true, so let’s see if we can get them all together in a room and pick and choose, buffet style, the things we like from each of them and assemble them together in a sort of cold bouillabaisse that manages to believe everything and nothing at all.”

Only you don’t know it well enough to say it.

I thought I'd make my pm reply part of the public record. It may help other new guys understand the lay of the land.

Welcome aboard! You may have caught Smooth at a bad moment. He really is especially sharp in discussions of philosophy. It'd be a shame if you didn't interact with him. The Cellar has a long history of giving new guys a hard time to test their tolerance for opposing ideas. It's just something that evolved over time but it has had the positive effect of reducing the number of thin-skinned posters, which improves our ability to communicate ideas. see yah, Griff

Griff wrote:

The Cellar has a long history of giving new guys a hard time to test their tolerance for opposing ideas. It's just something that evolved over time but it has had the positive effect of reducing the number of thin-skinned posters, which improves our ability to communicate ideas.

And it also serves to drive away potentially intelligent individuals who aren't interested in taking crap from strangers. Sad.

And it also serves to drive away potentially intelligent individuals who aren't interested in taking crap from strangers. Sad.

Talk shit, get shitted on, everyone's pretty much equal round here.

One who has a solid background about WHY they believe what they believe shouldn't be afraid to debate those reasons. This is a group of intellegent debaters, if you're not into that, then this isn't the place for you I guess. Me, I'm still in the info gathering mode, so I don't participate much in the political or philosophical topics.... I read what others write, and ask myself "do I agree with that or not? Why?" I'm not really ready for the debating part there.

garnet wrote:

And it also serves to drive away potentially intelligent individuals who aren't interested in taking crap from strangers. Sad.

garnet, did you take any flak when you first popped up? you are still here and posting. i think you have thinner skin than most of the other regulars, but you've toughened your skin enough to stick around. in just the last 10 months that i've been here, i've seen a lot of people pop up, post something, get blasted and then go into full troll mode. they usually go away. those that get blasted but argue their point intelligently usually stick around and gain acceptance and possibly respect.

lookout123 wrote:

garnet, did you take any flak when you first popped up?

Yes, and I probably probably deserved most of it. My skin is pretty thick, so I stuck around. I don't think this guy deserved to get slammed the way he did. He's new, and went out on a limb to start a new thread. What's so hard about giving him a little encouragement? He he made a polite post and got slammed for it. If you disagree with him, fine--but it's not neccessary to attack him.

I'll never understand the stong desire around here to drive away new people. It's not a contest, and I for one wouldn't mind hearing some new points of view once in a while.

I guess my answer to this would be that sm treated Dunlavy the exact same way he would have treated me or you or any other poster. I respect that. Why should Dunlavy get a pass because he's new. sm has gored people in the past over this and, if Dunlavy had lurked and explored the history of this place before walking in and blurting out, he'd have known. But he didn't and I think Dunlavy needs to take responsibility for that and not sm. sm shouldn't have to modify his response based on the characteristics of the poster. sm, it appears to me, replys to posts and not posters.

Personally, I think that's how it ought to be.

Beestie wrote:

if Dunlavy had lurked and explored the history of this place before walking in and blurting out, he'd have known. But he didn't and I think Dunlavy needs to take responsibility for that and not sm.

HUH? So dunlavy is now responsible for what SM said? Shouldn't people be held responsible solely for their OWN words?

He is in a sense, he talked crap and got bitchslapped for it, SM wouldn't have been able to shred him if he didn't talk crap in the first place.

was SM's post harsh? yep, actually i thought it was a little uncharacteristic of him, but that is ok. When it comes to philosophizin' and structuring a case for a belief SM is top notch. if you want examples, see his periodic grilling of Radar, among others, when their arguments become circular or nonsensical. he saw an immature approach to life's great questions trying to pass itself off as deep thinking and original - he responded to the post.

keep in mind that if Jaguar had responded, rather than SM, it would have sounded a little something like...

You stupid effing american. You are too stupid and self absorbed to realize that this is not a new line of thinking, but a very old one. But, you as a stupid ugly american who probably smells bad, oppresses the poor, rubs asbestos in the faces of the old, and purposely hunt endangered animals... where was i going with this??? oh yeah, you are stupid and america sucks.

:stickpoke

Ok, lookout, so you're saying that I can personally insult you the next time I think one of your abortion arguments or pro-Bush statements is nonsensical? You'll be OK with that then, right?

actually garnet, you do post in an insulting manner sometimes, as we all do. like i said, i was a little surprised at SM's approach, but his translation of the original post was pretty darn accurate. he didn't name call, he didn't say "you are a stupid poopy-head" he simply restated, in a more obvious fashion, what the thread started with. he replied to a post without regard to who the poster was. new or old cellarite, the original post was begging for someone to walk by with an auger and set to work.

I enjoy debating about beliefs and the such, but I don't think what SM said counts as a "debate start". I would have gladly debated my point if someone had asked me to elaborate on certain things, or state why they are skeptical rather than purposefully insult me.

So now that you have been specifically questioned you're not willing to respond?

garnet wrote:

And it also serves to drive away potentially intelligent individuals who aren't interested in taking crap from strangers. Sad.

I Can't believe you made that statement. Is that not like calling the kettle black. I am sure your response will be the same as others. You doubt my intellegence, because of my lack of using proper english.That's o.k. you won't find anyone more thickskinned or as hardheaded as me. However, I do agree with you on this subject. Who are we to decide the intelligence of others.
You know I have a brother who is severely dyslexic and he happens to own three buisnesses and lives in a 2 million dollar home. He has an mba. If you saw his writing you would think it was that of a fifth grader. You know the peoples whose checks he signs don't seem to mind........ Sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors........ :biggrin:

Sweetheart, you really need to relax. You've said the same thing in your last five posts, and in case you don't get it, nobody cares.

And BTW, you've been around since last October I can see, so you therefore aren't exactly "new." Regardless, when someone attacks me the way you did (go back to your original thesaurus comment in the other thread), I will respond in kind. Now go take your pills.

lumberjim wrote:

cmon, ya just know this is an 18yr old stoner. weren't you that guy once, smooth? i know i was. i've refined that into my current pickandchoosist religosophy. but is it any different really? dont beat up on the young and vulnerable. save it for dicks like mr condescendingman above me here.

Sir, your use of the english language has me encouraged. Beat me please.
I guess every site needs someone to be the token bully. But please, say something that makes sense ever so often........You don't have to be 18 to be a stoner. Apparently, you already knew that......

"Your socks are untied"

Wear sandles instead.

garnet wrote:

Yes, and I probably probably deserved most of it. My skin is pretty thick, so I stuck around. I don't think this guy deserved to get slammed the way he did. He's new, and went out on a limb to start a new thread. What's so hard about giving him a little encouragement? He he made a polite post and got slammed for it. If you disagree with him, fine--but it's not neccessary to attack him.

I'll never understand the stong desire around here to drive away new people. It's not a contest, and I for one wouldn't mind hearing some new points of view once in a while.

I was going to be an ass, but Arthur Miller died and I am in a greiving mode.
You may want to check your senteces in this post, for I'm afraid they are flawed. I think your final paragraph may need to be questioned; not by me, but you........ Again, I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors.

wolf wrote:

So now that you have been specifically questioned you're not willing to respond?

I was specifically questioned? Give me a second as I go through the posts again. Seems that i've become lost through other conversations going on.

Ok, well. As responding to some. I am at a young age, and I will likely look at the things I say now and laugh at them in the future after i've come to learn more. What I wrote likely didn't make sense, guess it was "newby instincts" to try and boost myself up. Bit of a common thing for newbies... Guess i'll start on something new now.

Let's see if I can make more sense. I stated that I was bothered by those who have their own beliefs and state them as facts, when really I meant I was bothered by those who have their facts and try to force them upon me.

Secondly, I know I didn't create this myself. I've actually read multiple books and writings based on similar beliefs, which is what inspired me to be what I am now. I can't find many groups and/or people that share the same interests, so around where I am, it's somewhat of something I started here in the area, for those who haven't come in contact with such theories.

And now that I look at what I typed before, I do laugh at it. Because it does not make sense. I hold my beliefs as truths, so i'm contradicting myself. I don't feel like questioning everything, but rather take a wider look on things that have not been proven yet. If that makes any sense.

Sorry if i've come off as a noob. Situations in the real world are probobly adding to it, and i'd enjoy being able to "prove myself" in order to gain respect here.

peace

-Dunlavy

The best way to gain respect here is to just be yourself, be honest, no matter who you are. and this last message is a great example of that.

garnet wrote:

Sweetheart, you really need to relax. You've said the same thing in your last five posts, and in case you don't get it, nobody cares.

And BTW, you've been around since last October I can see, so you therefore aren't exactly "new." Regardless, when someone attacks me the way you did (go back to your original thesaurus comment in the other thread), I will respond in kind. Now go take your pills.

I,m afraid maybe you need some pills to relax. I take my pills for a terminal illness. I don't know what you were referring to in my last five post. Iapologize for insulting your intelligence in that post. However, I feel I was probably provoked. If you notice in other post, I do not troll or become defensive unless provked. I have just found some of your recent post controversial to previous post you have made. Now go find a doctor and get some valium.
Again, I apologize for any grammatical errors.

The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war." Desiderius Erasmus
PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :yelgreedy

Give it a rest, you guys.

of course if you want to look like an ass, follow the lead of Brown Thrasher

as i read these posts, i can't help but think "troll mode: active"

Hmmm... I glanced over this thread in hope of finding something intelligent, but - oh, well. BTW, I'm new; so when do I get jumped on, or was the "100,000 Civilian Dead in Iraq" thread my baptism?

People get jumped on when they type before thinking, not when they're new. You seem to do a lot of thinking before you type (even if some of that thinking is misguided.) ;)

Clodfobble wrote:

People get jumped on when they type before thinking, not when they're new. You seem to do a lot of thinking before you type (even if some of that thinking is misguided.) ;)

Yeah, damn that scientific method, anyhow! You wouldn't believe the trouble it's gotten me in! ;)

Oh, BTW, thank you (I think!)

Dunlavy, here's the problem I have with the kind of spiritual pluralism that you're advocating. When we talk about spiritual belief (metaphysical principles), there are two modes of thinking about the justification for holding beliefs:

1) Statements about metaphysical principles (existence of God, moral laws, etc.) should be evaluated based on their coherence to reality. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if we have justified reason to think that our statement corresponds with reality, that God actually exists in a real sense. Any statement that we do not have justified basis for holding should be excluded from the list of things we believe as true. The best analog would be the scientist who believes that the earth rotates around the sun because the best evidence available demonstrates that this is the actual case in reality.

2) Statements about metaphysical principles should be evaluated based on the benefit that is derived from holding those beliefs. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if doing so causes us to benefit in some way from holding the belief. The correspondence of the statement to reality, whether there is actually a God or not, isn't nearly so important as the beneficial state that accrues to me based on my holding the belief. The best analog is a girl sitting in a cancer ward being told be everyone that she is going to get better, and so derives benefit from holding that belief, whether or not it is actually the case in reality.

You seem to be standing in the second camp, category 2, looking at a multiplicity of belief systems and saying, "We need some way of distilling the good benefit that these people derive from holding these beliefs and shed everything that causes conflict between these beliefs. We are entirely justified in doing this, because the reason for holding a belief has nothing to do with how well it corresponds to reality, and has everything to do with the benefit we derive just from holding the belief." This is, I think, almost always the perspective of people who stand outside of belief systems. The problem is that nearly everyone within a belief system holds it for the first reason - they hold the belief based on their justified (whether or not ...) perception that the thing they believe to be true is true in actual fact, in reality.

The problem is that category 2 people really aren't making any sort of statements about metaphysical principles at all - they are making statements about sociology, about the emotional nature of humanity. People in category 2 have so modified the meaning of the word "knowledge" about metaphysical principles as to make it unrecognizable, and as a result, believe nothing at all.

So here's where the conversation goes from here. You tell me know you mean by "knowledge", "believe", "prove", and "justification (for belief)", and we'll see if any of those things make sense in the context of your new ecumenical creed.

I have no problem with you being new. I have no problem with you being young. I have a very strong negative reaction to sloppy thinking, particularly when your sloppy thinking is standing in critique to the thinking of others (category 1 believers). I think we should have this conversation, but you need to not take it personally when I use satire to convey my point.

-sm

wrote:

Belief:
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

Fact:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. . Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed b. A real occurrence; an event c. Something believed to be true or real 3. A thing that has been done. 4.The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence
ETYMOLOGY: Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do

A belief is a personal construct, which may or may not be shared with others. A fact is a reality, which is there for everyone to see.

God's existence or non-existence has yet to be proven as a fact based on real occurrences. Various religions have created groups of writings centered around the system of belief shared by their individual members, but Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or the Earth Mother has yet to appear in a concrete form to the rest of us. I have always found fundamentalist Christians to be the most interesting examples of brainwashed individuals that I have ever encountered. They take a book of belief as their ultimate authority and are horrified if the person they are speaking with does not share this belief. The mind of a fundamentalist seems literally incapable of breaking free from years of indoctrination with a dogma that began from his birth and has continued up to the present day. True believers have the same fascination for me as some people have for fire or leaping from great heights or evil. I am amazed that any human being would abandon precisely that attribute which distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom and defines us as Homo sapiens (sapiens - from the Latin to be wise).

That said, if someone takes solace in a certain belief system and does not act out of it to harm others, then I have no problem with it - believe away. Just don't ask me to share it.

Oh yeah, just noticed that this is my 100th post. Does this mean I now get to believe I'm an official cellar member? Any tracts that I must now deliver door to door? Perhaps a small, but tasteful picture of UT that I might discretely place on my desk? Perhaps an amulet consisting of a monkey at a typewriter that I might wear around my neck and tucked out of sight beneath the collar of my lab jacket? Anything? As a new cult member, I'm eager to obey all commands! :D

I think i'll actually start again tommorow. I have a killer headache at the moment, and i'll prolly head out for bed soon enough. I actually came here to widen my understanding of others' beliefs, more than my own. A way to widen my own views.

There is no specific philosophism. I just called the heading for that philosophism for something to be made up for others to come in and share their beliefs rather than just stating my own. I mean, forums are meant to discuss. There isn't much weight on a topic where all we talk about is one thing. I completely forgot to describe what we were doing in here. O.o

gah

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:

Oh yeah, just noticed that this is my 100th post. Does this mean I now get to believe I'm an official cellar member? Any tracts that I must now deliver door to door? Perhaps a small, but tasteful picture of UT that I might discretely place on my desk? Perhaps an amulet consisting of a monkey at a typewriter that I might wear around my neck and tucked out of sight beneath the collar of my lab jacket? Anything? As a new cult member, I'm eager to obey all commands! :D

The tatoo team will be there shortly, kindly shave your butt.

there were tshirts....

i'm just going to go ahead and edit my first post to make things more clear...

eh..... darn. Forgot that these types of forums can only edit the last post made..... hum...

changing the meaning of a post after people have replied is the fastest way of getting your ass torn off.

He can edit to the bottom, footnotes as it were.

I agree, new posts are better though.

Schrodinger, you said something interesting in building a taxonomy for "belief" and "fact" that I think bears further investigation.

Lets take the definitions you've given for each (i'm assuming they're from OED or dictionary.com, or some such?) and construct the relationship between them.

In normal, empirical investigation, the causal chain of knowledge goes something like this

[thing in reality] --> [perception of thing in reality(sensate or logical)] --> [knowledge construct of perceptions] --> [belief in knowledge construct]

Take this chain in relationship to the existence of the chair I'm currently sitting in.

[chair exists] --> [I perceive visual and tactile information from the existence of the chair] --> [I interpret the perceived data as being evidence of a chair existing in reality, and reduce the perceptions down to that knowledge construct] --> [I believe in the existence of the chair in reality, to such a degree that i act in accordance with that belief, and sit in the chair]

Note that in this case, the difference between fact and belief becomes a question of degrees; we might say that a fact is a belief that has reached a certain threshold of evidence so as to be normatively accepted by any reasonable person with access to the same data. What we *cannot* say (in terms of our own mental states) is that a fact is a thing which exists in reality, because we have no access to that information! We only have access to our perceptions and knowledge constructs of it. We can speak ideally about things in actual existence, but in terms of our own personal knowledge, there is in no sense a distinction between belief and fact - a fact is a belief of a certain type.

It's important to note that a fact is still contingent on the accuracy of the data received and the accuracy of the knowledge construct drawn from it. If i find a way to alter your brain state so that you perceive a chair in every normative way, even though that chair does not exits, for you that chair reaches the threshold of being fact. You "believe" it to be real, right up to the point where you try to sit in it, and your ass hits the Persian throw rug under it instead. At that point, you have new perceptions that alter your knowledge construct, and so your belief.

I'm going to apply this same idea to metaphysical principles, but I'll do so in a later post - now I need some eggs and coffee, and I have to take down our Christmas lights before our neighbors catch on to the fact that we're pure white trash.

-sm

jaguar wrote:

of course if you want to look like an ass, follow the lead of Brown Thrasher

Better an ass, than a Londener. My ex-wife was from there and she was a bithc.........

Your right... it's not like i'm trying to get out of anything, but I was forgetting to write some things that mentioned that were' not all just talking about mine.

Either way, probobly should have been a safer bet to post in other topics before I started one of my own.

dunlavy, don't apologize for what you posted, just make it more clear; I really do want to have this conversation with you!

Dunlavy wrote:

Your right... it's not like i'm trying to get out of anything, but I was forgetting to write some things that mentioned that were' not all just talking about mine.

Either way, probobly should have been a safer bet to post in other topics before I started one of my own.

Welcome, Quit apologizing. You discussed an idea you had, and in my opinion that is fine.......... Most of the argument you are getting is from only one form of philosophy; that being logic. It's good to be young and to question ideas. I was brought up a fundamentalist. Now, I hate that belief system.

"Those of us who have suffered much become very bitter or very gentle," Will Durant :biggrin:

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Most of the argument you are getting is from only one form of philosophy; that being logic.

What the hell? when did logic become an "optional" component of philosophy? I think you want this forum instead

Ok... this'll be it. I apologize for apologizing. ^_^

I enjoy being different. It's what founds most of my beliefs in so many ways. The reason why I want to question everything is because so many of my peers have yet to question anything. I question myself and my existence as well as the existence of everything around me. It's not that I want to continue questioning everything, but rather find a better way to get my own facts and beliefs rather than just take what others hand to me.

When I say i'm tired of religions that have people who take their beliefs as "facts" and place those "facts" ontop of me, it's more based around the whole world than just religions. I enjoy pondering, especially on my own beliefs. I have nothing against the people themselves. They are like me, they have their own beliefs, as I have mine.

When I say doubt everything, I really should have meant "doubt everyone" through a belief of mine that has kept me thinking for many years.

Much of what I belief in can be found in most eastern religions. One of my prime beliefs is the belief in reincarnation. The difference found in mine is that many beliefs feel that you are reborn 15 years forward, while I feel that reincarnation goes beyond space and time, to a point where you could be reborn anywhere at any time. Hence where most of my questions came from about doubt everything. If reincarnation could go beyond space and time, could there not be a point where you are your own family? Where all the friends you've met are actually yourself? If you've lived so many lives over and over that you are the whole population? In murder situations, might there be the possibility that the murderer lead to their own life through the death of the person they killed?

It's just something I like to think upon.

so dunlavy, here's my question.

How do you trace the causal chain of knowledge backward to the fact-in-reality that grounds your belief in reincarnation? Are you saying that you believe it because it is the case, or are you saying that you believe it because you like the effect it has on you to believe it? I trust you see the distinction.

I'll start the causal chain for you

[reincarnation-in-reality] --> [?? perception (logical or sensate)] --> [knowledge construct that reincarnation is a true state of reality] --> [belief in reincarnation, such that you act in accordance with it being true]

Now, if you're saying that your belief in reincarnation doesn't follow this sort of epistemic grounding, then you need to give me a definition for justified belief that makes your comments sensical.

-sm

Unfortunatly, I don't know how to take back the causal chain to prove it. I know I don't just believe in it because I like the effect it has on myself, but from a young age i've always felt as if I had a split life, as if I lived another life before. I don't have specific facts on why I believe what I do, but rather just what I, myself, feel is right. My perception of the world around me has grown this way after multiple large-scale experiences of Deja Vu, experiencing something a friend of mine does as if I had done it in the past.

I wish I could support my theories better, but I still have much to learn, about my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

[brief threadjack] Hey Dunlavy, if you have frequent, instense deja vu experiences that are far beyond what normal people describe, you should see a neurologist. An EEG will determine if you're actually having very mild seizures. And the more mild seizures you have, the more likely you are to have a grand mal seizure (the kind you normally think of, with your body shaking uncontrollably) later in life. [/threadjack]

Two things I've never gotten about reincarnation.

1. If there is reincarnation, then everyone was someone before. Problem is, we have more people now than before. Where did the extra people come from? Take the answer to that question and explain why it doesn't apply to everyone. An unstated assumption of reincarnation, therefore, is that some people used to be someone else and some people are version 1.0 (first generation people). My question is why is it not possible, therefore, that everyone is version 1.0. Ultimately, what question does reincarnation, as an idea, answer? I can't come up with one other than to explain neurotic/pschotic episodes which are best explained in the lab.

2. How come no one ever has/d de deja vu about being a freakin' janitor in a previous life instead of a King, Queen, Emperor, Grand Pooh Bah, etc.

I wanna know how so many people were Cleopatra. I mean I know the girl got around, but ...

Beestie, to partly answer your #1 question (why are there some reincarnated people and some 1.0 people) it's because the reincarnated people either wanted or had to come back for some reason. Maybe they didn't learn what they were supposed to learn or maybe they just want another go at it. Some people choose to remain where they are, others come back. 1.0 people are fresh out of the oven and new to this place. See? :)

Another line of thinking for reincarnation, Schizophrenia. Mayhaps it's more than just one person becoming everyone, what if perchance Schizophrenia was more than a brain disorder, but really two people reincarnated into one body? Have we proven anything?

Most Schizophernia websites have the line "Recent scientific research on the causes of schizophrenia is increasingly suggesting that it is possible to prevent many cases of schizophrenia..." Increasingly suggesting? Possible? "The key message is that the onset and course of schizophrenia are most likely..."

In a sentence, we haven't learned anything yet about it, but rather, we are working off of hypothesises.

The split mind of schizophrenia has nothing to to with more than one personality ... it's a disconnent between perception and reality.

Multiple personalities, or what we call Dissociative Identity Disorder these days, is an artificial condition, inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapists who are either unscrupulous, or incompetent.

Good to know, well, ignore what I said about that then.

smoothmoniker wrote:

What the hell? when did logic become an "optional" component of philosophy? I think you want this forum instead

Never stated it was optional. Just a methodology. logic- "branch of philosophy that studies the metods and principles of correct reasoning."

ethics- "area of philosophy that analyzes the good and right thing to do."

metaphysics- "area of philosophy studying what is real"

Aesthetics-"area of philosophy that studies beauty especially in the arts."

Classic Philosophical Questions- eight edition by James A. Gould

"This we do affirm - that if truth is to be sougtht in every division of philosophy, we must, before all else, possess trustworthy principles and methods for the discernment of truth. Now the Logical branch is that which includes theory of criteria and proofs: so it is with this that we ought to make our beginnings." - SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

"Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic."-CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE

Thanks for your proposition of the forum I should visit. I enjoyed viewing it. I found it thought provoking. However, I still enjoy the philosophy forum. I may learn something.........

Meaning that you haven't yet?

wolf wrote:

The split mind of schizophrenia has nothing to to with more than one personality ... it's a disconnent between perception and reality.

Multiple personalities, or what we call Dissociative Identity Disorder these days, is an artificial condition, inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapists who are either unscrupulous, or incompetent.

Schizophrenia as defined by DSM-IV-R: Prescence of psychotic symtoms in an active phase.
!.delusions, prominent hallucinatios (throughout the day for several days or several times a week, each period not be limited to a few brief moments.
incoherance or marked loosening of associations, catatonic behavior, flat or grossly inappropriate affect.

2.Bizarre delusions(ie, involving a phenonomen that the person's culture would regard totally out of the norm.)

3. prominent hallucinations whether auditory or visual. Ie. two or more voices conversing with each other.

Schizophrenia is listed on AxisI of the four axis which would consider it a mental disease. There are also personality disorders on AxisII such as paranoid, schzoid, and schizotypal disorder that may mimic schizophrenia. Personality disorders are not considered a mental disease as major depression, or bi-polar disorder,etc...Personality disorders are usually longstanding and others consider their behavior troublesome.
Dissassociative disorder can be depersonalization disorders, MPD, Psychogenic amnesia and fugue. I think MPD is interesting their has been quite a deal of contoversy over the issue. The overwhelming view is that people that have been classified with this disorder were severely abused as children. This seems to be why you see this form of dissassociative disorder in women who were sexually abused as children. I find your statement that a dissassociative disorder: "is an artificial condition inflicted upon suggestable patients by therapist who are either unscrupulous or incompetent" a bit subjective at best.
Btw there are psychogenic drugs that can also cause a shortlived diassassociative state; such as PCP and Ketamine.......

Woot, Schizophrenia debate, now!

smoothmoniker wrote:

Schrodinger, you said something interesting in building a taxonomy for "belief" and "fact" that I think bears further investigation.

Lets take the definitions you've given for each (i'm assuming they're from OED or dictionary.com, or some such?) and construct the relationship between them.

Close enough - American Heritage Dictionary, online version.

smoothmoniker wrote:

In normal, empirical investigation, the causal chain of knowledge goes something like this

[thing in reality] --> [perception of thing in reality(sensate or logical)] --> [knowledge construct of perceptions] --> [belief in knowledge construct]

Take this chain in relationship to the existence of the chair I'm currently sitting in.

[chair exists] --> [I perceive visual and tactile information from the existence of the chair] --> [I interpret the perceived data as being evidence of a chair existing in reality, and reduce the perceptions down to that knowledge construct] --> [I believe in the existence of the chair in reality, to such a degree that i act in accordance with that belief, and sit in the chair]

Note that in this case, the difference between fact and belief becomes a question of degrees; we might say that a fact is a belief that has reached a certain threshold of evidence so as to be normatively accepted by any reasonable person with access to the same data. What we *cannot* say (in terms of our own mental states) is that a fact is a thing which exists in reality, because we have no access to that information! We only have access to our perceptions and knowledge constructs of it. We can speak ideally about things in actual existence, but in terms of our own personal knowledge, there is in no sense a distinction between belief and fact - a fact is a belief of a certain type.

True, we can "believe" in facts. We can also believe in superstitions, religious dogma, magic, or politicians. What is the difference between soeone who has no understanding of science, yet accepts the atomic theory; versus a fundamentalist who believes in the "rapture index"? Very little, really. One believes blindly in science, and the other believes blindly in the Bible as the ultimate authority. If I believe blindly in the atomic theory or the second law of thermodynamics without ever having studied the observations and without understanding the logical steps which gave rise to these these two constructs, I'm really no more enlightened in my thinking than a peasant in the Middle Ages who believed the sun and the rest of the universe rotated around the earth.

wrote:

It's important to note that a fact is still contingent on the accuracy of the data received and the accuracy of the knowledge construct drawn from it. If i find a way to alter your brain state so that you perceive a chair in every normative way, even though that chair does not exits, for you that chair reaches the threshold of being fact. You "believe" it to be real, right up to the point where you try to sit in it, and your ass hits the Persian throw rug under it instead. At that point, you have new perceptions that alter your knowledge construct, and so your belief.

I would submit that in the example above, you are describing an individual who suffers from a delusion, and calls that delusion "fact." I may see a chair where no one else does because my brain chemistry or ability to percieve has in some way been altered, but my belief does not make a fact out of something which has no basis in reality.

my point is that we're all in exactly the same state as the deluded person. We have no access to the "thing-in-reality", the fact itself, and we are all to the same degree as the deluded person reliant on the only information that we have access to, the perceptions and knowledge constructs that ensue.

Gimme a couple hours, schroed. I've realized that this thread isn't the best place to hash this out, so I'm going to start and epistemology thread. coming soon to a cellar near you!

-sm

Dunlavy wrote:

Meaning that you haven't yet?

No, I've learned a great deal. However it was mostly about personalities not philosophy. For example, I have learned that I still have a tendency towards passive-aggresive behavior. I have learned a great deal about others tendencies as well. There are some very intellegent people on this site, but some :biggrin: appear to need others to know this about them. There is a personality disorder called Narcisism. Most people with this personality disorder which is listed on AxisII of the DSMIV-R, have a hard time accepting or even trying to understand others perspectives. It is almost impossible, to see anything other than through their own eyes.........Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the case of the majority of people who post on this site. I think the majority of people posting are smart people who enjoy debate.

Dunlavy wrote:

Meaning that you haven't yet?

No, I've learned a great deal. However it was mostly about personalities not philosophy. For example, I have learned that I still have a tendency towards passive-aggresive behavior. I have learned a great deal about others tendencies as well. There are some very intellegent people on this site, but some :biggrin: appear to need others to know this about them. There is a personality disorder called Narcisism. Most people with this personality disorder which is listed on AxisII of the DSMIV-R, have a hard time accepting or even trying to understand others perspectives. It is almost impossible, to see anything other than through their own eyes.........Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the case of the majority of people who post on this site. I think the majority of people posting are smart people who enjoy debate.

hum... *reads the posts* Oh, whew.... At first I thought is was Deja Vu again. ^_^

Dunlavy wrote:

hum... *reads the posts* Oh, whew.... At first I thought is was Deja Vu again. ^_^

Sorry about posting the post twice. I was in the middle of something, and I did not realize the mistake. People who realize their mistakes and apologize are usually to an extent fairly healthy.However, people who have a problem with this are usually have narcisistic tendecies. These people do not have the capacity for empathy....

"Deja Vu"" could be considered a topic of the mystical order, such as reincarnation.

Has the people as a whole lost the ability for social politeness?

I am joking, monsieur. I apologize if my comment came off as me snidely pointing out your mistake.

Dunlavy wrote:

I am joking, monsieur. I apologize if my comment came off as me snidely pointing out your mistake.

I accept your apology. A bit of advice, stay on the road less traveled. THere appears to be a "click" for lack of better words that have nothing better to do than degrade others. I think that is the road most travelled. I compliment you on your ability to follow the narrow path.....

oh c'mon BT - it seems you have some pretty thin skin and don't understand how otherwise intelligent people can possibly look at a set of facts and form a different opinion than you do. if you haven't realized it yet, about half the cellarites here excel at playing the devil's advocate and enjoy a good debate.

lookout123 wrote:

oh c'mon BT - it seems you have some pretty thin skin and don't understand how otherwise intelligent people can possibly look at a set of facts and form a different opinion than you do. if you haven't realized it yet, about half the cellarites here excel at playing the devil's advocate and enjoy a good debate.

Lookout, I made it quite clear in another post that I have very tough skin. If you would look at some of the replies to my post, I think you would realize this. I just have a problem with intellegent people considering their opinons as fact. There is a difference in being a devil's advocate and a narcissistic asshole..... I wish to meet the other half of cellarites that enjoy debate without considering their facts as infallable. However, it is quite natural for people who have similar personalities to try and persecute people who do not share their beliefs. I find it difficult to understand how you and others can call me down on the least inference I may ascribe too. Maybe if some of the cellarites ascribed to the dialectical method when debating, there possibly would be more skepticism to these "otherwise intellegent people" that you say form about half of the cellearites..........

I cannot nor will I cower down to Omniiscient thought.

yeah, uh huh.

lookout123 wrote:

yeah, uh huh.

My sentiments exactly. :thepain2:

on second thought...

I wish to meet the other half of cellarites that enjoy debate without considering their facts as infallable.

statements like these make people want to lend less weight to your opinions - you come off as stuffy and full of yourself. have you ever met someone and walked away thinking "wow, that guy thinks his poo doesn't stink?" that is what you often sound like in your posts.
your opinions are valid here, as are everyone else's. don't treat your ideas as holy writ in an argument and other posters will be more inclined to do the same with theirs.

However, it is quite natural for people who have similar personalities to try and persecute people who do not share their beliefs. I find it difficult to understand how you and others can call me down on the least inference I may ascribe too.

Similar personalities? There is a pretty wide assortment of individuals here. Faith-wise we range from atheists, agnostics, pagans, catholics, protestants, and probably just about everything else you can think of. politically - there are republicans, democrats, libertarians, independents, socialists, maybe an anarchist or two. age wise we've got younguns at 16 and those of a certain age as well. i'd say there are a variety of folks in the cellar.

Maybe if some of the cellarites ascribed to the dialectical method when debating, there possibly would be more skepticism to these "otherwise intellegent people" that you say form about half of the cellearites..........

and so we return to the idea that those who look at the same input that you do, but arrive at a different output are somehow less intelligent. that isn't a very open minded approach to discussion, IMO.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

I accept your apology. A bit of advice, stay on the road less traveled. THere appears to be a "click" for lack of better words that have nothing better to do than degrade others. I think that is the road most travelled. I compliment you on your ability to follow the narrow path.....

Thank you for the compliment, and I am happy that you accept my apology. Damnable internet in not being able to show expression. Maybe it does and it just comes out differently for other people. Thanks again for your comment relating me to what i've said in the past as well as what's written in one of my quotes. ^_^

lookout123 wrote:

yeah, uh huh.

"so may targets, so little time."

Thank goodness for the lack of time.

lookout123 wrote:

on second thought...



statements like these make people want to lend less weight to your opinions - you come off as stuffy and full of yourself. have you ever met someone and walked away thinking "wow, that guy thinks his poo doesn't stink?" that is what you often sound like in your posts.
your opinions are valid here, as are everyone else's. don't treat your ideas as holy writ in an argument and other posters will be more inclined to do the same with theirs.



Similar personalities? There is a pretty wide assortment of individuals here. Faith-wise we range from atheists, agnostics, pagans, catholics, protestants, and probably just about everything else you can think of. politically - there are republicans, democrats, libertarians, independents, socialists, maybe aanarchist or two. age wise we've got younguns at 16 and those of a certain age as well. i'd say there are a variety of folks in the cellar.



and so we return to the idea that those who look at the same input that you do, but arrive at a different output are somehow less intelligent. that isn't a very open minded approach to discussion, IMO.

You did not adress the idea of reading replies to my post. I don't think my opions on a subject has ever been declared as "holy Writ" by me. However, I have heard arguments on most subjects, where the debaters considered their opions to be the correct argument. If I come off as "stuffy" and full of myself, I apologize. And I promise you, I have no doub't about my "poo" stinking... I have no doub't there are many different ages, cultures, religion, etc. of folks in the cellar. I was not talking about age, religion, etc...., when discussing personality. A great deal of people including myself; have personality traits which are often considered troublesome. For example, I consider myself passive aggresive, which means I am a passive person:until I feel I've been wronged. When I feel I've been treated unfairly< I become agressive. At least I am able to admitt this. I apologize to anyone, I have called narcissistic, but that is exactly what you are referring too when calling me down. As I have said before, for the most part, I don't go after others unless i feel wronged or threatned. This site has been going on much longer than I have been involved. If you go to some previous post to my arrival, I think you will see what I'm talking about. I assure you my arguments are of the inductive nature...... Sir, I don't think calling others less intelligent as I, one of my calling cards. I agree there are very inteligent people on the cellar. Again, if you take the time to look, I think yo will find this to be true......

garnet wrote:

My sentiments exactly. :thepain2:

garnet, I was hoping you had, as I decided to quit trying to belittle the other.If you have time read post #83 dated 2/17/05 at 1:39 pm., please do, for you are one of the cellarites I was discussing. Peace. Now, if you please, I feel both of us would be better suited to quit badgering the other.......As of today, I will to the best of my ability practice humility, which is a form of wisdom. Something I need more of. Again, I apologize for any deragatory comments made. :blush:

For example, I consider myself passive aggresive, which means I am a passive person:until I feel I've been wronged. When I feel I've been treated unfairly< I become agressive.

that isn't what passive aggressive means. it refers to someone who prefers not to enter direct confrontation so they make little rabbit punches at the opposition while maintaining a friendly smile and insisting that they have no problem.

lookout123 wrote:

that isn't what passive aggressive means. it refers to someone who prefers not to enter direct confrontation so they make little rabbit punches at the opposition while maintaining a friendly smile and insisting that they have no problem.

Actually your correct. Really what I am is someome who is agressive when treated unfairly or feel I have been. Now, since you do know something about psychology, why not delve deeper into what I was trying to get across. If you would like give me your definition of narcisisim. I've admitted my fault because I didn't think anyone would know the corect definition of passive aggressiveness. Why not try to quit proving someone wrong and look at your own propositions of others beliefs. You know your right again. My point was that I am non-confrontational until provoked: then I can become anti-social. I think you will find that trait a better fit for me...... However, rather than answer any of the arguments I presented , you decided to find the one glaring fault possible. What does that say about your personality. If you want to argue psychology, great that is something I feel I know as much about as our fellow cellarites arguing evoulution vs. creationism......How bout practicing what you preach.

lookout123 wrote:

that isn't what passive aggressive means. it refers to someone who prefers not to enter direct confrontation so they make little rabbit punches at the opposition while maintaining a friendly smile and insisting that they have no problem.

That's really not how a passive aggresive person reacts. Actully the behavior is quite ambiguous, meaning the person is actively passive and aggressive at the same time. They may not be openly confrontational. However, they do exibit their hostility without a smile.......Actually, that was the reason for using that term. I'm not usually actively cnfrontational, but I do show my displeasure at the same time as many cellarites do......
You ever notice the little rabbit punches by cellarites followed by a smile symbol. :alien:

I've admitted my fault because I didn't think anyone would know the corect definition of passive aggressiveness. Why not try to quit proving someone wrong and look at your own propositions of others beliefs.

you misunderstand what i am saying. what i have been getting at since i first addressed you was this repeated decision to insult, put down, or otherwise underestimate your fellow cellarites.

i've outdebated smarter men than you and i've had my ass handed to me by people much less intelligent than you. everytime i've thought i was smarter than those around me, someone showed up who was prepared to take me to school. the cellar is definitely a place where that can happen very easily.

i guess what i am saying is... be real. show some humility. be a part of the cellar without feeling like you have to always take someone on. we'll have much more engaging discussions if we can approach discussions as peers rather than in a superior/inferior manner.

i'm just sayin'...

lookout123 wrote:

you misunderstand what i am saying. what i have been getting at since i first addressed you was this repeated decision to insult, put down, or otherwise underestimate your fellow cellarites.

i've outdebated smarter men than you and i've had my ass handed to me by people much less intelligent than you. everytime i've thought i was smarter than those around me, someone showed up who was prepared to take me to school. the cellar is definitely a place where that can happen very easily.

i guess what i am saying is... be real. show some humility. be a part of the cellar without feeling like you have to always take someone on. we'll have much more engaging discussions if we can approach discussions as peers rather than in a superior/inferior manner.

i'm just sayin'...

Thanks lookout, and i mean that. No, I havent been misinterpreting the point you were making. At the time, I just thought there were many others who needed the same advice. You know sometimes, there is a need to be put in ones place. I appreciate you doing that in a manner that did not provoke my defevensive tendencies. I do not feel superior at all, but i don't feel inferior either. I am an educated person; just as most on this site. I won't argue that there are more intelligent people using this site than I. However, am I the only one you feel trys to act superior? If so, I think maybe you once again should read some of the replies I have been :) sent; I am fairly new, but I have been educated in philosophy. If you will notice I was jumped on like Dunlavy pretty much from the beginning. I enjoy this site, and I am prepared to practice humility. I just hope others are able to do the same thing.... Thanks again!!!

However, am I the only one you feel trys to act superior?

i've said the same thing with a few other people in the cellar. it is just my pet peeve. regular cellarites probably just tune me out, but that's ok. i figure everyone is just as personally invested in there opinions as i am, so i find no value in insulting those who disagree. we can state our beliefs and occassionally try to sway each other, but we should do so in a respectful way. FWIW, i'm just as guilty as anyone of being nasty at times.

Schrod, the thread I promised earlier is now up .