Political Crossfire Forums

[mojo]

I was reading the bible the other day when it occured to me that people will always follow someone else. Throughout time men have always reached out to some great power whether mortal or immortal. People will always look to either a God, a secular leader, or religious priest for their grievances.

No doubt some have achieved a state of being completely cut off from other points of view. But in general wont the masses always look to someone higher for their problems. In America the president or other governement officials are the ones looked up to. Or perhaps it is another kind of leader like a philosophy teacher.

Whatever the case maybe people will always be dependant on someone else to fix their problems. I dont know whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. So I would love your opinion so that I may decide for myself.

[Fiscal_Conservative]

Like anything it is bad if taken in excess. In this modern society of ours it is impossible to do something without people opening their mouths, thus conditioning you. You cannot escape the influence of others. Everybody would like to shape the world according to their views, and today, more than ever, everybody comes up with something, anything quite often even if they have no clue, each idiosincrasy often competing to be the stupidest one. I think our ancestors were much happier. Can you imagine to wake up one day, go out and not be forced to swallow all those fastidious commercials (I include religion since it lacks spirituality and today it only survives as part of a bureaucratic state, nothing else). If anybody wants to reach higher than most men, very little influence is my recommendation. For, by absorbing others' ideas, you risk losing your own.

[Ray Ray]

politicalmojo wrote: I was reading the bible the other day when it occured to me that people will always follow someone else. Throughout time men have always reached out to some great power whether mortal or immortal. People will always look to either a God, a secular leader, or religious priest for their grievances.

No doubt some have achieved a state of being completely cut off from other points of view. But in general wont the masses always look to someone higher for their problems. In America the president or other governement officials are the ones looked up to. Or perhaps it is another kind of leader like a philosophy teacher.

Whatever the case maybe people will always be dependant on someone else to fix their problems. I dont know whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. So I would love your opinion so that I may decide for myself.

Who do you look up to to fix your problems?

[mojo]

Ray Ray wrote: politicalmojo wrote: I was reading the bible the other day when it occured to me that people will always follow someone else. Throughout time men have always reached out to some great power whether mortal or immortal. People will always look to either a God, a secular leader, or religious priest for their grievances.

No doubt some have achieved a state of being completely cut off from other points of view. But in general wont the masses always look to someone higher for their problems. In America the president or other governement officials are the ones looked up to. Or perhaps it is another kind of leader like a philosophy teacher.

Whatever the case maybe people will always be dependant on someone else to fix their problems. I dont know whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. So I would love your opinion so that I may decide for myself.

Who do you look up to to fix your problems?

God, but he doesnt neccesarily 'fix' my problems. I use his teachings as guidance so that I may fix my own. He is more strongly encouraging me that anything else.

[Prog]

politicalmojo wrote: Ray Ray wrote:

Who do you look up to to fix your problems?

God, but he doesnt neccesarily 'fix' my problems. I use his teachings as guidance so that I may fix my own. He is more strongly encouraging me that anything else.

And is this good or bad?.....

politicalmojo wrote: So I would love your opinion so that I may decide for myself...

Alas! You need no other opinion, you have answered yourself!

[Ray Ray]

politicalmojo wrote: Ray Ray wrote: politicalmojo wrote: I was reading the bible the other day when it occured to me that people will always follow someone else. Throughout time men have always reached out to some great power whether mortal or immortal. People will always look to either a God, a secular leader, or religious priest for their grievances.

No doubt some have achieved a state of being completely cut off from other points of view. But in general wont the masses always look to someone higher for their problems. In America the president or other governement officials are the ones looked up to. Or perhaps it is another kind of leader like a philosophy teacher.

Whatever the case maybe people will always be dependant on someone else to fix their problems. I dont know whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. So I would love your opinion so that I may decide for myself.

Who do you look up to to fix your problems?

God, but he doesnt neccesarily 'fix' my problems. I use his teachings as guidance so that I may fix my own. He is more strongly encouraging me that anything else.

The world could use more people like you. I'd prefer everyone look to their gods for guidance rather than follow human leaders here on Earth.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: The world could use more people like you. I'd prefer everyone look to their gods for guidance rather than follow human leaders here on Earth.

When people look to god's for guidance they are really looking to themselves. This might answer your thread.

[Mad_Michael]

I don't belief that any substantive thought is possible without the usage of language.

Language is entirely a 'social' conception.

Ergo, no individual can engage in any 'substantive' thought without engaging the fruits of society - and thus cannot truly think independent of society and its constructions. The very act of human thought is a social construct and is thus not independent.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I don't belief that any substantive thought is possible without the usage of language.

So a person isolated from birth could not have any substantive thoughts? How did anyone ever get substantive thoughts in the first place?

Quote: Language is entirely a 'social' conception.

Not true. A language can be made up and understood by a single being, of course.

Quote: no individual can engage in any 'substantive' thought without engaging the fruits of society - and thus cannot truly think independent of society and its constructions

Non-sequitor. One may engage society, in order to see facts etc. but one's thought can be independent in how the facts are evaluated.
Quote:
The very act of human thought is a social construct and is thus not independent.


:lol: Maybe for you - thinking outside of what you're told is something you've probably not chosen to do. There is no wire connecting my brain to another persons, no brainwaves that turn us subconsciously into one collective thought machine. I can choose to accept other people's ideas, or not. I am an independent rational being.

[Prog]

Reason wrote: I am an independent rational being.

...complete with a fully indoctrinated subconscious.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: ...complete with a fully indoctrinated subconscious.

Subconscious? You mean the thing that tells my heart to beat? I fail to see how something that is basically mechanical can be indoctrinated.

[Prog]

Reason wrote: Quote: ...complete with a fully indoctrinated subconscious.

Subconscious? You mean the thing that tells my heart to beat?

No. Research the relationship of mind and subconsciousness, then get back to me.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: No. Research the relationship of mind and subconsciousness, then get back to me.

You assert something, you research it and show your evidence....as opposed to simply parroting what yo've picked up from tv. Some people are indoctrinated - you see - but you're letting yourself be.

[Prog]

Reason wrote: Quote: No. Research the relationship of mind and subconsciousness, then get back to me.

You assert something, you research it and show your evidence....as opposed to simply parroting what yo've picked up from tv. Some people are indoctrinated - you see - but you're letting yourself be.

Actually, I am parroting what I have learned in school and books.....and yes, I'm as much indoctrined as the next guy or gal...the first step is to know thyself.

How about you?

[Johnathan]

We all pick up ideas from other people. You can't be COMPLETELY original, but you can be original. In fact, by definition we are ALL original. Some people just have more original IDEAS than others. That is to say, more ideas that no one else has had before.

You're fooling yourself if you think you've constructed your entire identity from scratch all by yourself however. You've had plenty of help - as have I.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: How about you?

I'm not otherwise I'd have the same silly ideas as you (we both belong to the same broad culture).

Quote: Actually, I am parroting what I have learned in school and books.....and yes, I'm as much indoctrined as the next guy or gal...the first step is to know thyself.

Then I'd advise you adopt a critical approach to information presented to you. Evaluate don't just accept it, because otherwise you're mindless.
Quote:
You're fooling yourself if you think you've constructed your entire identity from scratch all by yourself however. You've had plenty of help - as have I.

I never said that. I'd argue that we should absorb other people's ideas, if after evaluation they make sense.

[Prog]

Reason wrote:

I'm not otherwise I'd have the same silly ideas as you (we both belong to the same broad culture).

Then I'd advise you adopt a critical approach to information presented to you. Evaluate don't just accept it, because otherwise you're mindless.


I'll attempt to heed your advice:

You likewise, need to adopt a critical approach to information presented to you. Evaluate - don't just criticize it, because otherwise you will remain crass and immature.

[Mad_Michael]

Reason wrote: Mad_Michael wrote: I don't belief that any substantive thought is possible without the usage of language.
So a person isolated from birth could not have any substantive thoughts? How did anyone ever get substantive thoughts in the first place?
Human beings have always been social animals. Language/communication is a social construct.
Thus, human beings have always had the necessary condition for substantive thoughts.

On this basis, there is no "first place" here unless you postulate God as Creator.

Reason wrote: Mad_Michael wrote: Language is entirely a 'social' conception.
Not true. A language can be made up and understood by a single being, of course.
Not without first observing/learning/adopting the idea from a social setting.

Without the logical existence of 'another' human being to communicate with, the concept of communcation is absurd.

Reason wrote: Mad_Michael wrote: Ergo, no individual can engage in any 'substantive' thought without engaging the fruits of society - and thus cannot truly think independent of society and its constructions
Non-sequitor. One may engage society, in order to see facts etc. but one's thought can be independent in how the facts are evaluated.
It is true that one's thought may be independent in how the facts are evaluated - but the manner and process of collecting those facts and the manner and process of evaluation both depend upon tools this individual adopted/learned from society. Without society, he would not possess these tools.

Reason wrote: Mad_Michael wrote: The very act of human thought is a social construct and is thus not independent.


:lol: Maybe for you - thinking outside of what you're told is something you've probably not chosen to do. There is no wire connecting my brain to another persons, no brainwaves that turn us subconsciously into one collective thought machine. I can choose to accept other people's ideas, or not. I am an independent rational being.
Whether I think 'inside' or 'outside' of what I'm told, I'm still using a social construction to conceptualise it or express it.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Human beings have always been social animals. Language/communication is a social construct.

Some humans are very social, some aren't...

Quote: Thus, human beings have always had the necessary condition for substantive thoughts.

If human's learn how to have substantive thought from other humans, then how did the first substantive thought having human have their substantive thought - who did they learn off?

Quote: Not without first observing/learning/adopting the idea from a social setting.

Wrong. You aretrying to argue that a langauge can only come from observing a language...pray tell how the first language came about....
Quote:
Without the logical existence of 'another' human being to communicate with, the concept of communcation is absurd.

A computer language is useful. A langauage for expressing one's thoughts to oneself. A lanaguage for writing stuff down to aid memory. A lanaguage for fun. You state that language is necessary for thinking, thus a single human should make their own langauge if no other is available.

Quote: the manner and process of collecting those facts and the manner and process of evaluation both depend upon tools this individual adopted/learned from society. Without society, he would not possess these tools.

Then how did those tools develope in the first place? You are saying that without othe rpoeple having those tools we can't develope, but someone has to have developed them in the first place.....
Quote:
Whether I think 'inside' or 'outside' of what I'm told, I'm still using a social construction to conceptualise it or express it.

You might, or you might not. You keep referring to society as if it is a conscious being, but any new idea must be arrived at by an individual in the first place. There are plenty of new ideas all the time, and if they couldn't be created it then we'd have no ideas.

[Ptalkopher]

Mad_Michael wrote: Reason wrote: Mad_Michael wrote: Language is entirely a 'social' conception.
Not true. A language can be made up and understood by a single being, of course.
Not without first observing/learning/adopting the idea from a social setting.

Without the logical existence of 'another' human being to communicate with, the concept of communcation is absurd.
Not necessarilly. There's no proof that the idea of communication is only concieved from experiencing it. Our brains have lots of parts that could only be for communicating. In other words, we're born with it. Now, whether or not that part of your brain could be 'unlocked', so to speak, without other intelligent beings to communicate with is unknown, but most definitely not absurd.

(heh, a bit off topic... but the quote in my sig is actually from a conlang that I made :) )