philosophical question

[DailyBlessings]

No, it´s how the word is defined.

By whom? Not the dictionary.

Definitions, you'll find, tell you a lot about the person who is using them. They are not objective or unchanging. So telling me that the word is defined such also gives us no new information. It is defined so, I suspect, mostly by communities who already do not regard the bodies that put forth official dogma as authoritative, or rationally operating, and who for that matter regard rationality as the only acceptable means of supporting an idea.

Mind you, I'm no fan of the process of establishing opinion as unquestionable truth. But I do think that it occurs in every organized group, to a greater or lesser degree. Imagining that, veiled by the mystical power of areligiosity, you are somehow freed from the standards of human interaction, is just going to lead to a false sense of pride and a denial of the dogmatization of your own ideas when it occurs.

 

[The Nihilist]

By whom? Not the dictionary.

dogma
noun1. a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof 2. a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

dogma. Dictionary.com. WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma (accessed: September 16, 2007).

 

[The Nihilist]

That's a Chicago Manual of Style citation, for those of you keeping score at home.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I don't see any mention of rationality in that definition. My Oxford concise doesn't even mention the "without proof". And again, definitions are not objective truths. A dictionary definition tells you, at best, that a given definition is used by a group of people somewhere. And wordnet is not even intended as a dictionary- it's function is more like that of a thesaurus. I note that you plowed right past quite a few other definitions to single out the one that sounded the most like yours.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't see any mention of rationality in that definition. My Oxford concise doesn't even mention the "without proof". And again, definitions are not objective truths. A dictionary definition tells you, at best, that a given definition is used by a group of people somewhere. And wordnet is not even intended as a dictionary- it's function is more like that of a thesaurus. I note that you plowed right past quite a few other definitions to single out the one that sounded the most like yours.

That's true, but you're the one who brought the word rationality into the discussion in the first place. More to the point, though, if this will, help, when I was whining, I didn't want to have to accept a position that must be believed without good reason. I still don't want this.

 

[quatona]

By whom? Not the dictionary.

Yes, it is. The emphasis in the word "dogma" is on the fact that it points to a teaching that is not adopted for rational considerations but by authoritative decree.

Definitions, you'll find, tell you a lot about the person who is using them. They are not objective or unchanging. So telling me that the word is defined such also gives us no new information.

Yes, it gives you the information in which meaning the person uses the word, and in case this definition is congruent with the dictionary definition, in which meaning the word is commonly used.

It is defined so, I suspect, mostly by communities who already do not regard the bodies that put forth official dogma as authoritative, or rationally operating, and who for that matter regard rationality as the only acceptable means of supporting an idea.

That´s a pretty wild guess, but it doesn´t change anything about the fact that this word has the purpose of distinguishing between teachings based on logical reasoning and teachings that are to be accepted by appeal to authority. The valuating connotation (positive or negative) of a person using it is a different issue.

Your initial response implied that defining a word properly is dogmatic. This is not so. It is the attempt of enabling communication by agreement on the (otherwise arbitrary) use of words. It is your prerogative to deconstruct the established meaning of words by pointing to the arbitrariness of symbols, but that indicates that you are not interested in communication.
Here´s my offer: You tell me what "dogma" means in your opinion. Disregarding the common usage of this word, I will accept your definition for purposes of our conversation; in return I want you to accept the word "rutvoss" as the signifier for "teachings appealing to authority and accepted not based on rational considerations but by virtue of accepting the source as authoritative".
If you don´t want to accept a word for this concept I can also use the entire phrase each time I am referring to this concept, which would make the discussion a little more complicated, but oh well.
However, I think the simpler approach would be to keep to the commonly accepted use of words. It would also help preventing confusion on part of persons who don´t know about our private agreement.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your definition of dogmatic is far too narrow: it's an element of human interaction, not a specific type of organization.

I wasn't defining the word dogma. I was applying it to a particular case.

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.

I know for a fact that this sort of thing is possible. The Fellowship of Reason holds a "Philosophy Night" lecture course that teaches many different philosophies, including those obviously contrary to eudaimonism. These courses are not even "filtered" -- they are often based directly on taped lectures by philosophy professors who are simply covering the material as they might in a University setting. The aim is to ensure that members are able to have a well-rounded knowledge of philosophy.

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.

Of course he would, for the same reason that people don't like getting unwanted spam in their inboxes. However, this doesn't make one dogmatic. There is a proper time, place, and manner of considering what philosophical arguments evangelicals may have to offer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ArchaicTruth]

You know, this reminds me of a rather interesting dream I had once. I dreamt the Catholic Church crumbled and fell apart, and a new church rose up in it's place. It was called the Church of Truth, and it had a most wonderful library that contained books and writings from all the world and every time period, and the priests dedicated their lives to these works, and every Sunday, people would gather and read the works of the past and those written by the priests and work and discuss and debate, there were no angry words, no sharp comments, only progress. The actual dream occurred in my normal period of half sleep half awake state I usually enter before actually falling asleep when my mind goes in all directions. It occurred in a rather montage like sequence and was rather blurry, I do remember one thing very clearly though, outside the entrance to the church library thing, or whatever, there was a plaque that said "Those who enter here come not to prove the truth, but to discover the truth".

Rather silly I know, but I thought I'd share it anyways.

 

[Jebediah]

You know, this reminds me of a rather interesting dream I had once. I dreamt the Catholic Church crumbled and fell apart, and a new church rose up in it's place. It was called the Church of Truth, and it had a most wonderful library that contained books and writings from all the world and every time period, and the priests dedicated their lives to these works, and every Sunday, people would gather and read the works of the past and those written by the priests and work and discuss and debate, there were no angry words, no sharp comments, only progress. The actual dream occurred in my normal period of half sleep half awake state I usually enter before actually falling asleep when my mind goes in all directions. It occurred in a rather montage like sequence and was rather blurry, I do remember one thing very clearly though, outside the entrance to the church library thing, or whatever, there was a plaque that said "Those who enter here come not to prove the truth, but to discover the truth".

Rather silly I know, but I thought I'd share it anyways.

Now that is a beautiful dream.

 

[DailyBlessings]

You know, this reminds me of a rather interesting dream I had once. I dreamt the Catholic Church crumbled and fell apart, and a new church rose up in it's place. It was called the Church of Truth, and it had a most wonderful library that contained books and writings from all the world and every time period, and the priests dedicated their lives to these works, and every Sunday, people would gather and read the works of the past and those written by the priests and work and discuss and debate, there were no angry words, no sharp comments, only progress. The actual dream occurred in my normal period of half sleep half awake state I usually enter before actually falling asleep when my mind goes in all directions. It occurred in a rather montage like sequence and was rather blurry, I do remember one thing very clearly though, outside the entrance to the church library thing, or whatever, there was a plaque that said "Those who enter here come not to prove the truth, but to discover the truth".

Rather silly I know, but I thought I'd share it anyways.

To the litany on the plaque, I say a heartfelt "amen."

 

[Eudaimonist]

You know, this reminds me of a rather interesting dream I had once. I dreamt the Catholic Church crumbled and fell apart, and a new church rose up in it's place. It was called the Church of Truth, and it had a most wonderful library that contained books and writings from all the world and every time period, and the priests dedicated their lives to these works, and every Sunday, people would gather and read the works of the past and those written by the priests and work and discuss and debate, there were no angry words, no sharp comments, only progress. The actual dream occurred in my normal period of half sleep half awake state I usually enter before actually falling asleep when my mind goes in all directions. It occurred in a rather montage like sequence and was rather blurry, I do remember one thing very clearly though, outside the entrance to the church library thing, or whatever, there was a plaque that said "Those who enter here come not to prove the truth, but to discover the truth".

Rather silly I know, but I thought I'd share it anyways.

There's nothing silly about that at all. Don't wait for the Catholic Church to crumble. Live that dream yourself!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I try, I try oh so hard. Of course, my gut tells me I don't have long before the Catholic Church hits the fan.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I try, I try oh so hard. Of course, my gut tells me I don't have long before the Catholic Church hits the fan.

Many would say that it fit the fan in 1965. But, the next Papal appointment will tell us how things really stand.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Time will tell I suppose

 

[Ganymede]

What is the meaning of life?

procreation

 

[Philothei]

procreation

animals procreate having only instinct humans live to Glorify their creator.

Philothei

 

[Jebediah]

animals procreate having only instinct humans live to Glorify their creator.

Philothei

What is your evidence and argument for that assertion?

 

[Philothei]

Because humans have intelect and also free will to act upon. Animals lack logic and they are instict driven... are they not? Have you seen a bird questioning its existance? or a monkey asking existential questions like you?? if you chose to call your self part of the animal kindgom do not let me stop you.....lol.... as far as me pllllease I dare to differ....

God bless,
Philothei

 

[Jebediah]

Because humans have intelect and also free will to act upon. Animals lack logic and they are instict driven... are they not? Have you seen a bird questioning its existance? or a monkey asking existential questions like you?? if you chose to call your self part of the animal kindgom do not let me stop you.....lol.... as far as me pllllease I dare to differ....

God bless,
Philothei

I don't know that they don't consider thoughts even more profound, with psyches arising from their own brains and bodies. Just because I don't speak their language doesn't mean they don't have one. Communication is only possible between beings on the same plane.

But my real question was about the "humans live to Glorify their creator" part... could you explain why you believe that to be true?

 

[quatona]

What is the meaning of life?

procreation

What is the meaning of procreation?