philosophical question

[DailyBlessings]

someone please tell me i'm wrong

You are wrong.

 

[The Nihilist]

You are wrong.

do it better!

 

[quatona]

do it better!

Is that your way of returning a favour you have asked for?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Ok, I think your real question is this: How do we interpret the world, and what is the best way to live in it?

I think the answer is this: we each essentially decide for ourselves, whether by actively choosing for ourselvesor by accepting what we are told by our society. If our system of interpretation has the infrastructure to support it, then everything is fine. And I mean, I dunno, maybe a church, a community, and kind of a social reinforcement of the belief system. If not, there is a possibility that the system will break down, and in that case, nihilism may result., and that's bad.

wait a sec... are you saying that there could be some sort of pressure to conform to a society that believes a freak accident is the only possible explanation for life?

 

[DailyBlessings]

do it better!

Your demands are endless!

Seriously though, if you really want someone to refute your claim, you should probably make a more convincing case for it. So far all we really have is your opinion. How does one refute a general perception of things? And why would one want to?

 

[The Nihilist]

Your demands are endless!

Seriously though, if you really want someone to refute your claim, you should probably make a more convincing case for it. So far all we really have is your opinion. How does one refute a general perception of things? And why would one want to?

It's more like I'm looking for a manageable arlternative, that won't, no offense, require I join a religion

 

[DailyBlessings]

It's more like I'm looking for a manageable arlternative, that won't, no offense, require I join a religion

I see. Well, what is it that you want from this alternative?

 

[The Nihilist]

I see. Well, what is it that you want from this alternative?

In a perfect world, nothing dogmatic, nothing arbitrary, and no nihilism. If anyone is selling, I'm in the market.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

So your looking for something that does everything a religion like say, Christianity does (or is supposed to do), without the actual religious part?

 

[The Nihilist]

So your looking for something that does everything a religion like say, Christianity does (or is supposed to do), without the actual religious part?

To be fair, a plethora of nontheistic philosophies will do this too, but they, like Christianity, seem both dogmatic and arbitrary at times

 

[quatona]

Seems like you want a dogma without the dogma part.

 

[Blackguard_]

What objective difference does your meaning make?Are you physically or psychologically different from other people because you have a different meaning than others?

I think I screwed up and equated "meaning" too much with what is called a "calling". Now I'm pretty sure the 'meaning' of life is more an ethical thing than a purpose/ some sort of grand plan.

someone please tell me i'm wrong

You seem to be right actually. Any thing we could recommend to you would be you making your own choice about how to interpret the world.

The only thing I can think of that;s close to what you want would be extreme Cynicism and to jsust do what comes naturally and ignore the Big Questions.

But that doesn't seem very practicable outside of a tropical island paradise or something.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, I think your real question is this: How do we interpret the world, and what is the best way to live in it?

I think the answer is this: we each essentially decide for ourselves, whether by actively choosing for ourselves or by accepting what we are told by our society. If our system of interpretation has the infrastructure to support it, then everything is fine. And I mean, I dunno, maybe a church, a community, and kind of a social reinforcement of the belief system. If not, there is a possibility that the system will break down, and in that case, nihilism may result., and that's bad.

I'd say this is pretty much correct. I'll just add that if the infrastructure doesn't exist, then create it. This is what happened when Martin Cowen saw the need for a somewhat church-like community for nontheists, and who then went ahead and started the Fellowship of Reason.

Also, I think that any system can break down, as Christianity has been crumbling in Europe for quite some time, and to at least some extent nihilism has been the result, and that's definitely bad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

I'd say this is pretty much correct. I'll just add that if the infrastructure doesn't exist, then create it. This is what happened when Martin Cowen saw the need for a somewhat church-like community for nontheists, and who then went ahead and started the Fellowship of Reason.

Also, I think that any system can break down, as Christianity has been crumbling in Europe for quite some time, and to at least some extent nihilism has been the result, and that's definitely bad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Crap. I was completely afraid you'd say that.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Yes, I would think it is rather hard not to be dogmatic in such group settings...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, I would think it is rather hard not to be dogmatic in such group settings...

It depends on what you consider "dogmatic".

Let's say, just for example, that you were to start a group called Existentialists-R-Us. This is a club for Existentialists who want to discuss such issues as how to conquer angst, create meaning, and generally to discuss Existentialist insights into various issues of human existence for personal edification.

Is this group dogmatic simply because it officially has an Existentialist theme and purpose? I don't think so. Under what circumstances would it be dogmatic? Some examples that come to my mind:

1) If all discussion of contrary views to the "party line" was strictly forbidden.
2) If members could be kicked out simply for disagreeing with the party line.
3) If ex-members were shunned or harassed by members

Travel this road long enough and Existentialists-R-Us would become a kind of cult.

What makes a group principled, and yet undogmatic, IMV, is that it allows open discussion without fear of reprisal, it allows an easy exit from the group so that there isn't a fear of losing friends simply because one has changed philosophies, and it generally promotes an atmosphere of intellectual openness and tolerance. That doesn't require that the group have no theme or rudder and be a blank "freethought" group. It would, of course, advertise that it specializes in making life better for Existentialists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DailyBlessings]

It depends on what you consider "dogmatic".

Let's say, just for example, that you were to start a group called Existentialists-R-Us. This is a club for Existentialists who want to discuss such issues as how to conquer angst, create meaning, and generally to discuss Existentialist insights into various issues of human existence for personal edification.

Is this group dogmatic simply because it officially has an Existentialist theme and purpose? I don't think so. Under what circumstances would it be dogmatic? Some examples that come to my mind:

1) If all discussion of contrary views to the "party line" was strictly forbidden.
2) If members could be kicked out simply for disagreeing with the party line.
3) If ex-members were shunned or harassed by members

Travel this road long enough and Existentialists-R-Us would become a kind of cult.

What makes a group principled, and yet undogmatic, IMV, is that it allows open discussion without fear of reprisal, it allows an easy exit from the group so that there isn't a fear of losing friends simply because one has changed philosophies, and it generally promotes an atmosphere of intellectual openness and tolerance. That doesn't require that the group have no theme or rudder and be a blank "freethought" group. It would, of course, advertise that it specializes in making life better for Existentialists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your definition of dogmatic is far too narrow: it's an element of human interaction, not a specific type of organization. I would consider dogma to be one of those terms that represents an idealized state, a "perfect" situation in which the central beliefs of the community are never in question. This is very rarely achieved in the real world, but the trend of dogmatism is going to be present in any group wherein people are identified by their ideas. If you've been going to existentialist meetings for two years, then suddenly read "Left Behind" and see the eschatological light and start going to prayer meetings, that is going to impair your ability to be a part of the first community, both on your part and theirs. This is just human psychology. We tend to organize ourselves into groups, and this has worked out pretty well evolutionarily, but the cost is that any and every group has some form of exclusivism at work. Avoiding this is impossible, and I think your theoretical principled yet undogmatic society is also impossible. Your little non-prayer meeting may not be officially dogmatic, but I cannot imagine that viewpoints contradicting the primary uniting idea would genuinely be encouraged. If an evangelical popped in week after week to object to everything being said, he would be "kicked out" and "harassed" and "shunned" just as much as with any other group.

 

[The Nihilist]

Your definition of dogmatic is far too narrow: it's an element of human interaction, not a specific type of organization. I would consider dogma to be one of those terms that represents an idealized state, a "perfect" situation in which the central beliefs of the community are never in question. This is very rarely achieved in the real world, but the trend of dogmatism is going to be present in any group wherein people are identified by their ideas. If you've been going to existentialist meetings for two years, then suddenly read "Left Behind" and see the eschatological light and start going to prayer meetings, that is going to impair your ability to be a part of the first community, both on your part and theirs. This is just human psychology. We tend to organize ourselves into groups, and this has worked out pretty well evolutionarily, but the cost is that any and every group has some form of exclusivism at work. Avoiding this is impossible, and I think your theoretical principled yet undogmatic society is also impossible. Your little non-prayer meeting may not be officially dogmatic, but I cannot imagine that viewpoints contradicting the primary uniting idea would genuinely be encouraged. If an evangelical popped in week after week to object to everything being said, he would be "kicked out" and "harassed" and "shunned" just as much as with any other group.

That's not really the point, though, is it? I mean, insofar as we're talking about such communities as infrastructure to support a world-view, an evangelical would have no place at all, and I don't really think that's a characteristic of a dogmatic organization. I wouldn't want someone coming and messing up the worldview I was trying to make anymore more than I'd want someone coming over and kicking my sandcastle.
Alternatively, though, if a worldview is held that is believed to be the only correct worldview, and if this is held without good reason, that is, if someone of good sense cannot be brought into agreement with it, then I think we can get into some ugly territory.

 

[DailyBlessings]

That's not really the point, though, is it? I mean, insofar as we're talking about such communities as infrastructure to support a world-view, an evangelical would have no place at all, and I don't really think that's a characteristic of a dogmatic organization. I wouldn't want someone coming and messing up the worldview I was trying to make anymore more than I'd want someone coming over and kicking my sandcastle.

Well, that's why people start excluding those who disagree with them. I didn't say it was wrong per say, but it is, on a smaller scale, exactly what establishing dogma is meant to accomplish.

Alternatively, though, if a worldview is held that is believed to be the only correct worldview, and if this is held without good reason, that is, if someone of good sense cannot be brought into agreement with it, then I think we can get into some ugly territory.

So, it's only dogma if it is irrational? Isn't that sort of a... dogmatic position?

 

[quatona]

So, it's only dogma if it is irrational? Isn't that sort of a... dogmatic position?

No, it´s how the word is defined.