Half a concept: what does that get you?

[Gottservant]

If you believe persecution would be better without religion, you are already saying something that is nonsense.

How can something be better, just because it is without something else?

When does a starving child steal less, because they are more hungry?

 

[bricklayer]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

You are describing your point of view accurately; however, one can build nothing from only one point of view. It takes more than one point of view to build even the simplest of things or ideas. The more complicated the thing or idea, the more perspicacity is required.

For example, a perspective 180% from yours is one I treasure like a north star - No creature conceives ideas; they merely perceive concepts eternally existent within their Creator. Therefore, even your friends mis-perceptions are providential.

Anyway you look at it, and I recommend that your look at it many ways, your curiosity is well placed.

In defense of antithesis and all that is annoying,
I would not as well understand what I am left to believe if not for the contributions of those who did not see it my way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Unfortunately, you do not extend the same grace to God as you do to the universe, merely because you see the universe but you do not see God.

Funnily enough, I don't believe just anything without good reason.

The idea of God is growing, just questioning it is going to leave you behind, nothing else.

Impossible. The only thing that can leave me behind in any way that really matters is to sacrifice my integrity.

Your statement that we already exist in the universe, with the subtext that we do not already exist in God, is presumptive and false.

Or it is well-considered and true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

How can something be better, just because it is without something else?

Simple. My wife's lungs would be better if she went without smoking. Eliminating something toxic is healthy.

Religion can be toxic. Not in every case, but too often for my comfort. You can believe what you like. My take on history is that religion, on balance, has been more of a detriment than a benefit to human society. Sure, if there was no religion, bad people would find other reasons to behave badly. But--and I forget who said this:

"Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things requires religion."

 

[Cush]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

TeeHee I made bold the comment part that reminds me of Medicare prescription plans. And Italicized the part that reminds me of Obama's America. Rob Peter to pay Paul, then count on Paul's support.

Shout Glory

 

[variant]

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

I am quite capable of believing that people can do good because they are deluded into doing so by religion.

Whether or not a concept is true has little to do with how peoples interpretations of it effect their lives.

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

No not really. I am quite capable of doing good things without appealing to deities.

I consider my philosophy to be more mature than yours. I have to investigate what is good and act accordingly rather than being told what is good by those who interpret to me what the supreme being wants.

Part B of my philosophy is more complicated than yours is, It involves thinking for myself and acting in accordance with my beliefs.

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

They are separate ideas. One is a concept of God, and the other a concept of morality.

You religious types tend to get the metaphysics and the morality all mixed up together because they come in a package deal to you, but I have no such predisposition.

 

[Gottservant]

You are describing your point of view accurately; however, one can build nothing from only one point of view. It takes more than one point of view to build even the simplest of things or ideas. The more complicated the thing or idea, the more perspicacity is required.

This basically answered the root of the problem for me. Thank you. Asking whether something is true or not, is enough for hope of an opinion, nothing more, and half a concept leaves you with hope of a perspective, nothing more. Very true.

I think you set out to address this from a less practical point of view, though, as the reason I introduced a sort geometrical analysis of concepts, as to how much of a shape they are, that is, was that I want to know what happens to the mind when you limit its sphere of understanding to things that it was not designed for. I don't believe half a concept is normal or natural and I think people have a funny idea of the favour they do people when they just refute what is being said or write off a particular way of saying things, AND what has occurred to me is that these two things are not exclusive to theists or atheists, but that actually being left with half a concept is a common occurence where ignorance abounds.

For example, a perspective 180% from yours is one I treasure like a north star - No creature conceives ideas; they merely perceive concepts eternally existent within their Creator. Therefore, even your friends mis-perceptions are providential.

I find this fascinating. Not so much the concept itself, but your way of interpretting it. Would you care to tell me what something is, if it is not an idea? Or how you perceive a concept within someone else, without an idea? I have taken what you have said about friends misperceptions being providential to heart.

 

[Gottservant]

Or it is well-considered and true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you learn anything about people at all, it is that they resent being opposed for the sake of it.

 

[Gottservant]

Simple. My wife's lungs would be better if she went without smoking. Eliminating something toxic is healthy.

Yes, except you are using a confusion of terms to make your point. A toxic thing is not a thing, it is toxic and therefore not a thing. Can you make it your thing? No? Then it is not a thing. I did not say how can the absence of something that is toxic be good.

"Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things requires religion."

I would add "and even then, its not likely it will happen straight away".

 

[Gottservant]

I am quite capable of believing that people can do good because they are deluded into doing so by religion.

And you don't see that in itself as a delusion, how interesting...

Whether or not a concept is true has little to do with how peoples interpretations of it effect their lives.

Therefore whether it is true or not is of less importance than the way in which people let it affect them, no?

No not really. I am quite capable of doing good things without appealing to deities.

Oh good! What are they? I have charities.

They are separate ideas. One is a concept of God, and the other a concept of morality.

Accepting this as a challenge lead to inspiration for great idea to do with morality, thank you. You of course did not say what you actually do, as an atheist, you might want to address that.

You religious types tend to get the metaphysics and the morality all mixed up together because they come in a package deal to you, but I have no such predisposition.

If it were a package deal, my life would be over.

 

[variant]

And you don't see that in itself as a delusion, how interesting...

Not terribly interesting. If I thought my own reasoning was delusional I would probably re-evaluate it.

You can try to convince me if you like.

Therefore whether it is true or not is of less importance than the way in which people let it affect them, no?

That depends on the alternatives.

Some may be terrible people if they are not religious because they can't come up with good reasons for doing good.

On the other hand, I think it is of utmost importance for some because it is quite reasonable that we might need to move beyond religious reasoning for being good.

Oh good! What are they? I have charities.

I prefer the hands on approach.

Accepting this as a challenge lead to inspiration for great idea to do with morality, thank you. You of course did not say what you actually do, as an atheist, you might want to address that.

I really have no interest in trying to impress you.

It's something I learned when I was a Christian that I have no reason to move beyond.

In this analogy you are the right hand that I'm not interested in informing what my left is doing.

If it were a package deal, my life would be over.

I am saying that morality has very little to do with metaphysics for me. I have never been able to marry the two.

I don't think the shape of the universe is important to me when deciding what is right.

I do decide what I think is right every day though, in the actions I take and the reasoning behind them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi there!

I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".

The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?

The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?

I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?

I really don't know how people think about this.

Yea...I don't believe in the "good works" either. You see, your part B is a result of part A. You've never shown part A to be real, therefore any discussion of part B is irrelevant. Show me part A exists....then I'll gladly discuss part B all you like.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do atheists think that though? I'm sure they'd like to.

The point about something true is really what I was trying to get at, actually. Well done! You answered my questioning. I haven't always thought that concepts have to have results (as pragmatism suggests), but something happened recently that led me to question that. Now I see that there is actually a difference of opinion about what a concept is for.

You think a concept is for truth or the discernment thereof, I think a concept is like a beacon or a marker on a map that guide and directs behaviour, like an instruction. There is a big difference! But only if you are actually going somewhere! One will get you there, the other will leave you there (and that's not the way around I had it originally!)

So yes, thankyou, that clears quite a bit up. I don't suppose you can tell me what half a concept is to the truth? Is it half a truth? Is that what is the other side?

I would be extremely wary of anyone using concepts as guideposts without first discovering they are true. Ever hear of eugenics?

 

[bricklayer]

This basically answered the root of the problem for me. Thank you. Asking whether something is true or not, is enough for hope of an opinion, nothing more, and half a concept leaves you with hope of a perspective, nothing more. Very true.

I think you set out to address this from a less practical point of view, though, as the reason I introduced a sort geometrical analysis of concepts, as to how much of a shape they are, that is, was that I want to know what happens to the mind when you limit its sphere of understanding to things that it was not designed for. I don't believe half a concept is normal or natural and I think people have a funny idea of the favour they do people when they just refute what is being said or write off a particular way of saying things, AND what has occurred to me is that these two things are not exclusive to theists or atheists, but that actually being left with half a concept is a common occurence where ignorance abounds.



I find this fascinating. Not so much the concept itself, but your way of interpretting it. Would you care to tell me what something is, if it is not an idea? Or how you perceive a concept within someone else, without an idea? I have taken what you have said about friends misperceptions being providential to heart.

Contingent beings cannot conceive ideas. Contingent beings can only perceive ideas.
Man cannot conceive of an idea that is not eternally present in the mind of God.
Man cannot conceive ideas at all. God is the original conceiver of all ideas.
Nothing comes to exist, but some things come to be.
Being is actualized existence.
Many ideas exist that will never be actualized.
Many ideas exist that cannot be actualized.
All that actually exists has being.

Reasoning is the ontological sequencing of ideas; it is the ordering of ideas apart from their physical, spatial or temporal being.
There are two types of ideas: intellectual conceptions and intellectual perceptions.
Intellectual conceptions are implied; intellectual perceptions are inferred.
God's reasoning ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions (all at once).
Man's reasoning ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions (one at a time).
One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first one's to have our ideas.

Necessary beings are simple actuality.
Contingent beings are a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Necessary being has no potential change or not be.
Contingent being must change even if the only change is coming to be.
Everything that is subject to change is subject; it is not-sovereign. It is not-necessary; it is contingent.

I'd love to go on, but I'm pretty sure I've lost anyone who even started into this wall of text.

 

[Gottservant]

I follow. I follow.

Yet for some reason I do not agree.

For you see, there is a difference between a godly man who is not contingent on anyone but God, and worldly men who are entirely contingent on one another.

Actually, I think I see the value of your distinction while keeping the qualification I offered in mind. There is something distinctly humbling about refusing to call man original, when he is not godly.

 

[Gottservant]

I would be extremely wary of anyone using concepts as guideposts without first discovering they are true. Ever hear of eugenics?

Yes, but how do you discover something to be true without first using it as a guidepost?

 

[Gottservant]

Yea...I don't believe in the "good works" either. You see, your part B is a result of part A. You've never shown part A to be real, therefore any discussion of part B is irrelevant. Show me part A exists....then I'll gladly discuss part B all you like.

There are many starving kids who would gladly show you that Part A exists, any way you would like.

 

[Gottservant]

Not terribly interesting. If I thought my own reasoning was delusional I would probably re-evaluate it.

You can try to convince me if you like.

Why would anyone do something they knew was deluded, for someone else's gain?

I mean wouldn't you make yourself out to be something fantastic, anything, before you used a delusion to help someone else?

Some may be terrible people if they are not religious because they can't come up with good reasons for doing good.

That is rather the point. People fail. Religion pads the failure out. People then recover.

On the other hand, I think it is of utmost importance for some because it is quite reasonable that we might need to move beyond religious reasoning for being good.

You've no idea what your diagnosis is, do you. Your Doctor Judgment Day Asteroids headed for Earth and someone has to be held to Account, diagnosis? The thing you will panic about when the inevitable comes hurtling toward Earth and wants to claim everything you hold dear?

I am saying that morality has very little to do with metaphysics for me. I have never been able to marry the two.

I don't think the shape of the universe is important to me when deciding what is right.

I do decide what I think is right every day though, in the actions I take and the reasoning behind them.

This to me makes a lot of sense - though naturally I need time to think about it - only I don't know why it took so long to share it - though naturally you did and that is more to the point.

 

[variant]

Why would anyone do something they knew was deluded, for someone else's gain?

I mean wouldn't you make yourself out to be something fantastic, anything, before you used a delusion to help someone else?

I'm not, so your question comes out of left field.

In the sense that religious people do things that are deluded for someone elses gain, it comes at a gain to themselves as well, at least psycologically. Delusions often exist because of psycological needs.

That is rather the point. People fail. Religion pads the failure out. People then recover.

This makes religion useful to some people in some circumbstances, but not nessisarily true.

You've no idea what your diagnosis is, do you. Your Doctor Judgment Day Asteroids headed for Earth and someone has to be held to Account, diagnosis? The thing you will panic about when the inevitable comes hurtling toward Earth and wants to claim everything you hold dear?

I know what you believe (or I should say I think I know what you're getting at here).

My morality revolves around what I think is the best course of action, I don't nessisarily care about invisable entities that people claim want to weighn in.

This to me makes a lot of sense - though naturally I need time to think about it - only I don't know why it took so long to share it - though naturally you did and that is more to the point.

It is just a rephraseing of something I said earlier, communciation problems and such.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you learn anything about people at all, it is that they resent being opposed for the sake of it.

I wasn't opposing what he said just for the sake of it.


eudaimonia,

Mark