the relivance of beliefs in finding truths and the definition of liber

[kvnchrist]

I remember coming to the first site who's mindset was opposed to mine. I remember looking at that place as a bastion of wacked out fanatical ideas that were so far from the mainstream, as I defined mainstream ideals and was determined to quote/unquote straighten those guys out. After a fairly juvenile attempt to paint them as I'd been indoctrinated to think they were, I abruptly left in a self-righteous huff for what I thought were more wholesome surroundings.

It was only after I had began noticing just how much those I had listened to, before mimicked the very small minded attitudes that they claimed the opposition had. The epiphany of the reliance in beliefs in the determination of truth was both degrading to the values I thought I possessed and the person I wanted to be known as. I thought of myself as a philosopher and ended up being so close to a bigot that it unnerved me.

Are Morales so attached to Ideology that those not those not adhering to the accepted line of thought somehow beneath consideration or is it that those so stringently idealistic so invested in a line of thinking that questioning of that system of beliefs jeopardizes the structure of their entire being.

How would you define the heart and soul of liberalism and conservatism? Is there an end game to this social struggle and how would one reside in the fight over issues? I once thought that deep down, every liberal was an activist at heart, but I've sense concluded that we are all activists in a sense. Liberal or conservative, it's just the relevance of the issue that brings activism out of us.

Could it be said that liberals go against the prevailing attitudes and if so. Once they had won the fight and their views become the accepted standard would it not be argued that defending those standards would make the liberals conservative and those assaulting those veiws the liberals?

[Lord Garon]

(bump) (I'd thought I was done with public forums. Guess not.)

 

 

<snip>

It was only after I had began noticing just how much those I had listened to, before mimicked the very small minded attitudes that they claimed the opposition had. The epiphany of the reliance in beliefs in the determination of truth was both degrading to the values I thought I possessed and the person I wanted to be known as. I thought of myself as a philosopher and ended up being so close to a bigot that it unnerved me.

Are Morales so attached to Ideology that those not those not adhering to the accepted line of thought somehow beneath consideration or is it that those so stringently idealistic so invested in a line of thinking that questioning of that system of beliefs jeopardizes the structure of their entire being.

How would you define the heart and soul of liberalism and conservatism? Is there an end game to this social struggle and how would one reside in the fight over issues? I once thought that deep down, every liberal was an activist at heart, but I've sense concluded that we are all activists in a sense. Liberal or conservative, it's just the relevance of the issue that brings activism out of us.

Could it be said that liberals go against the prevailing attitudes and if so. Once they had won the fight and their views become the accepted standard would it not be argued that defending those standards would make the liberals conservative and those assaulting those veiws the liberals?

 

Quite a range of topics here. Everyone thinks they're open-minded until bumping up against something which actually challenges it. Then, its actually a two-sided fall-back onto closed internal "values" for the ensuing discussion between participants. There's hardly ever a discussion of "relative merits" or an acknowledgement the other person is "right". It gets so frustrating and heated that things degenerate. (See Godwin's Law) For individuals, its flame wars. For society, its revolution. For nations, its war. Its pretty much the history of mankind.

 

Win or lose. Competition seems in-bred; probably has something to do with evolution and survival. Now, that last remark will polarize some in a discussion concerning morals, ideology, beliefs, and values. We've begun already.

 

There is a tendency to try and subsume things under our "world view" so that they fit. Some things just won't, and we label them deviant, or whacko. In another world view, those whacko things fit like a glove. That's one thing to remember; its perfectly rational to the other guy and you are the wacko. Everyone is as precisely convinced they are "right" as is everyone else. You can't acknowlege the other world view without "losing" (without admitting to a flaw in your own world view), so it goes on and on until one manner of winning finally silences the other, or it simply goes on and on. Compromise means that both sides lose; eventually, the issue will come up again.

 

Its kind of hard to take sides in a debate, without a statement of position. Do you have a specific position to promote, even a straw one to kick things off? I am fascinated by the concepts of "truth", "morality", and "values". I'd like to participate, but I don't want to hijack your thread.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lord Garon