My Eve Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Offensive to a very large percentage of the human population, I might add!

Hmmm ... first you come across as a one-man thinking machine; then suddenly you care what a host of others think.

Or am I mistaken?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm open to at least consider such concepts(!?)

You'd have to put up with other peoples' fingerprints on documents, written with the authority of someone whose fingerprints are not on said documents.

Can you handle that?

 

[SelfSim]

Hmmm ... first you come across as a one-man thinking machine; then suddenly you care what a host of others think.

Or am I mistaken?

There is objective evidence that we all share a common mind type (because I can conceive of an objective test for that, which produces consistent results).
I would have to deny that evidence in order to exclude other minds .. (as you just did).

 

[SelfSim]

You'd have to put up with other peoples' fingerprints on documents, written with the authority of someone whose fingerprints are not on said documents.

Can you handle that?

Of course I can handle that notion .. but where is the test which would separate (distinguish) this 'authority' from the owners of those evidently human fingerprints?
Without that, all I have is evidence producing a sense of something nefarious going on in the backroom!?

PS: Or, the alternative would be simply to believe that there exists this authority figure .. in which case, I have to always remember that that particular notion, (or posit), was arrived at by way of the process of belief and not by the way of the process of objective testing. Regardless, 'twas all my mind at work in both cases, of concluding its 'existence' .. but how do I separate the influence of my human mind from the mind of this 'authority' figure?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Judgments are for defending something going on in a 'backroom' somewhere .. (where what's going on in the backroom is 'monkey-business' .. meaning power-play ... or something like that).

Not sure what you mean.

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure what you mean.

Judging others is a signature of a particular psychological game people commonly play, in order to cover up for their own weakness or failings.

Most people think of judgments in a courtroom/judicial sense though, which may be how you're interpreting what I'm saying(?) I'm using it in the sense I outline above however, because its a highly useful way for achieving a rapid understanding in the moment where judgments may arise during a conversation (such as those in the Bible).
Courts seek a truth behind past occurences, assuming there is such a thing .. and one has to admit, I think, in the case of, say, a dead body with a knife sticking out of it, its pretty obvious murder may be such a 'hard' objectively evidenced truth and judgments are assessed against those hard, evidenced 'truths'.
However, in a case which tracks back to a purely untestable belief, one has to conclude that the belief itself, is the source of any ensuing perceived truths against which judgments must be assessed. But what distinguishes such a belief over the myriad of other human beliefs (or opinions)? Why should anyone accept judgments made on the basis of a merely yet another believed truth?

Or, more importantly, how does one distinguish such a judgment from the age-old, well-known, psychological game people commonly play, in order to cover up for their own weakness or failings? How can one tell the difference?