|
OwlFancier posted:So, uh, you walk places based on whether your animal brain tells you there might be food or a mate there, you are possibly the only creature in existence with an instinctive understanding of narrative, and you buy things almost entirely based on whether you think they're shiny, immediately edible, or you can have sex with them, and also somehow were born with the understanding of 'buying' something instead of just taking it, again possibly unique in the world. I'll grant you the rest, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about the physical act of walking, like taking steps. You don't typically think about how you're walking, and when you do, over thinking the act is usually a hindrance. I don't think most people remember learning to walk, but one could argue that baby brain logic is used in figuring that out before you develop the reflexes to do it without thinking. In that regard, most actions are based in some reasoning, since, like playing the piano, you have to reason out what you're doing while you're learning the act.
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
People don't start from first principles, but reason is an integral part of how people go about their day to day lives. Most of our wants aren't really grounded in logic, because they're either instinctive or emotional. We still have to reason out how to achieve these goals, though. Human activity is a mixture of instinct and reason, because we have both, and frequently the one aspect utilizes the other. We learn new things using reason based on some instinctive want. A musical instrument is a great example, as the desire to play one isn't usually logical, but you absolutely have to use reason when figuring out how to interface with the instrument to get the desired results. Once learned, we reason that, through practice, we can do the thing without the need to reason it out every time. Eventually you can play the trumpet without having to think about the specific finger movements to hit each note.Cavaradossi posted:So you evaluate every piece of clothing you have against dimensions of dress code, weather, ability to change, and internal emotional state? How long do you spend analysing your model for weighting these criteria? What data do you capture to assess the success of your choice? You don't have to analyze a situation perfectly to use reason in decision making. I usually think about the weather before deciding if I need to wear a coat. Not thinking hard doesn't mean not using reasonable faculties. It just means not having strict criteria. On the other hand, I've had girlfriends who care a whole bunch about how they look, and they'll absolutely go to that level of effort to decide how to dress themselves. Edit: You seem to have this idea that using logic or reason is trying to come to perfect solutions, when in reality, as you say, we don't really use logic perfectly on a regular basis, cause that's hard and boring and gets into epistomological issues that most people don't even know about. That said, every consideration you make about how to do something is using reason and simple logic, cause you're analyzing yourself and your environment to reach a goal, even if imperfectly. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Precisely. Faith is the same way. Applying reason to it is boring and gets into a bunch of dull unimportant stuff really quickly ("is God being omnipotent compatible with free will?" is not a question of any real importance to faith). So don't bother, just like you don't bother with most of the rest of the stuff in your life. Wait. You seem to be implying that, because we don't do so on a regular basis, there isn't value in critically analyzing things. The hard and boring applications of logic are sometimes the most valuable, and it's frequently worthwhile to question preconceptions. My overall point was that you were downplaying how much of a role logic and reasoning play in day to day life, and you've decided to cherry pick one phrase and try to turn it around in a frankly bizarre manner. Why? What's your point? Are you actually trying to say that accepting God based on faith alone is the right thing to do because it's easy; that questioning God is difficult, so why bother? I could just approach that from a different perspective. I've always lacked faith in much other than reality, and I basically boiled that down to just that reality is a thing I perceive. It must exist as a result of that, although mere existence doesn't explain the nature of reality, which is unknowable. Why bother trying to believe in a non-falsifiable deity? It's existence and prayers to it are only as valuable as the good feelings they create in those that already believe. By it's very nature, a God that cannot definitively be proven to exist or not to exist cannot act in a context we can perceive, because such perception would serve as proof, one way or the other.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No. I'm saying that applying reason to faith doesn't work. Reason is not the be-all and end-all of how we interact with the world; in fact, it is very limited in its application. Applying reason to faith is simply a mistake, it doesn't make sense, it's not why people have faith. You don't apply reason to faith. It's not an ointment, and faith isn't a rash. You apply reason to the sorts of questions people use faith to answer. Reason and faith are methodologies for arriving at conclusions. There are very, very few questions that reason can't be used to answer, and faith doesn't really answer those either, at least not in a manner that will satisfy everyone. So, the problem is this. Faith is wishy washy. Every answer is pretty much equally valid given sufficient faith. Reason is definitive. Given a set of circumstances and a question, you can arrive at a conclusion. Given the exact same set of circumstances, with the exact same question, the answer will always be the same. Faith can answer every question, because you simply have no need for circumstance. However, faith can't ever tell you whether or not your answer is right before testing it out. That's why I'm faithless. The questions I need faith to answer simply aren't worth asking. They provide no purpose or value beyond establishing those basic principles, and if I'm interested in having useful basic principles, those that are more likely to result in correct conclusions when tested, they should be as simple as possible. That rules out pretty much everything other than the existence of perception. I suppose I just applied reason to faith, so maybe my initial statement doesn't stand. Whoops. Can I ask you why, in your opinion, people have faith without tempting you to make the same mistake, as you call it? Edit: I suppose I'll also put this out there. The limit of reason is faith. We don't have all the information in those imperfect situations we find ourselves in. We have to fill the gaps. That's what makes us wrong. That's what causes mistakes. Faith. Givens we accept without testing, or reasoning them out. I suppose with this it might seem like I'm arrogant in calling myself faithless, but I use that in a mostly religious sense. I take lots of things for granted long enough to screw up all the time, but I will readily admit that my faith was misplaced when it proves incorrect. The faithful, in my experience, lack such readiness. Also, I probably am a little arrogant, but I try like hell not to be. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
You could try the Buddhist approach. Just be members of each denominational group, based maybe on large differences for practicality's sake, one after another. Either you'll find your personal path eventually, or you'll find Christianity wanting, and move on to something else. Morality is way too personal for there to be a one-size-fits-all catchall for religion, since most religious claims are moral claims. Alternatively, you could just ask your parents, since religion tends to be a traditional institution as well. Edit: If you do go that route, just try to avoid stuff that's too culty. Peeps be vulnerable to weird rear end brainwashing techniques, and nobody really wants to die in a jumpsuit drinking poison. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 20:13
|
|