Would you choose the beliefs you have

[PrinceMyshkin]

Would you choose the spiritual values you have if you could choose them all over again? Assuming, that is, that you chose them in the first place. To what extent do you believe that you did choose your beliefs rather than have them imposed on you?

Can our beliefs have any value in defining us if they were not chosen, as much as possible, free of external influence? (Which is virtually impossible, of course, but as a matter of degree.)

[BlueSkyGB]

Yes...my beliefs and all my experiences, both bad and good, have made me the person I am today...
I would not change a thing...:)

[Granny5]

Would you choose the beliefs you have if you could choose them all over again? Assuming, that is, that you chose them in the first place. To what extent do you believe that you did choose your beliefs rather than have them imposed on you?

Can our beliefs have any value in defining us if they were not chosen, as much as possible, free of external influence? (Which is virtually impossible, of course, but as a matter of degree.)

I attended many different churches growing up. I went with my family, friends, extended family. I learned a lot of different opinions and takes on what was being said in the Bible. As I grew up, I was encourged to learn for myself and make my own decisions based on what I understood the Bible to mean.
So I found a church that wanted me to Seek and Find what was meaningful to me. I believe I chose my religion and I am pretty satified with it. But, I will continue to study and seek truth based on what the Bible is telling me, not what others tell me it says. And I am not limited to the "Bible" as most know it. I have no reason to believe that there is nothing else out there that will offer me information or wisdom just because a group of old men decided hundreds of years ago that I didn't need to know what else was being said.
Now, the reasons I believe as I do doesn't mean that everyone should believe as I do. I just don't want to be a hypocrite and say I believe something just because someone else tells me it's the "right" thing to believe.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I attended many different churches growing up. I went with my family, friends, extended family. I learned a lot of different opinions and takes on what was being said in the Bible. As I grew up, I was encourged to learn for myself and make my own decisions based on what I understood the Bible to mean.
So I found a church that wanted me to Seek and Find what was meaningful to me. I believe I chose my religion and I am pretty satified with it. But, I will continue to study and seek truth based on what the Bible is telling me, not what others tell me it says. And I am not limited to the "Bible" as most know it. I have no reason to believe that there is nothing else out there that will offer me information or wisdom just because a group of old men decided hundreds of years ago that I didn't need to know what else was being said.
Now, the reasons I believe as I do doesn't mean that everyone should believe as I do. I just don't want to be a hypocrite and say I believe something just because someone else tells me it's the "right" thing to believe.

From the little I know of you, I intuit that you chose your beliefs the way you choose your friends, and that when you do choose them you do not necessarily overlook their human imperfections but that you love their hearts.

May your beliefs continue to strengthen you in your capacity to love and the joy you get from doing so.

[Niamh]

yes. I chose by beliefs because of how they made me feel. They felt right to me compared to what i was made to believe as a child.

[symphony]

I know I havent seen enough of the world yet, and my current beliefs may/will change with the passage of time. And yet I'd like to think I have chosen my beliefs well('well' here is a relative term), and will like to stick to them.

Influences count, of course. But again it may happen that influences may work out differently and may bias someone to be repelled from a definite ideology/faith. I dont know if that's the case with me. But when people asks me my religion, i dont reply with a brief "Hinduism", i rather say "I'm from a hindu background", for I have my own way of respecting/worshipping and believing in God different from the ways of Hinduism.
So that goes for religious beliefs. Speaking of other beliefs, there are these loads of confusing theories of science and nature that, at times, are contradictory, and gives room to choose swiftly. I wont really like to change the beliefs I believe in this case either.

[Sweets America]

My attitude towards beliefs tends to lead me to constantly ask myself questions instead of deciding for a definite answer. When it comes to religion or God for instance, I think that no one will ever know the 'truth' and thus I think that I don't need to decide if I believe or not. The most important to me is not to know the truth, it's rather to get interested in the subject and come with hypothesis. Since no one will ever have a real answer, I am interested in listening to everyone's opinons, and to the reasons that made them think this or that way. We are never really objective when it comes to religious matters because everyone's opinion will come from their own experience. Some people will pray and feel that they are heard, while some people will be totally sure that there is no one to hear them. We don't know who's right and who's wrong, and that doesn't really matter in the end of the day because the thing that matters is what the belief or absence of belief bring to those people's lives. Most of the time, faith is stronger than any truth. I think believing in something, keeping hope, helps a lot sometimes when we are facing difficult situations.

Personally, I feel blocked when I have to decide if I feel closer to the believers or to the non-believers, if I feel closer to this or that side of the question. I just can't choose and I don't want to. I want to be in the middle. I dislike the feeling of restraining my views to one side of a problem. I like hearing each view of the question.
I tend to repeat that pattern with everything, and when I discuss with someone who has his mind set on one side of a problem, I can't help bringing the other side into the discussion, just to balance things. The fact that I defend the other side of a question doesn't mean that I believe in it, that just means that I need to equilibrate things.

Now I must add I have hard times with people who are intolerant towards people who think differently, and maybe that explains that I need to defend the point of view that is opposite to theirs. I think that when someone criticizes someone else's belief, it is because they forget that the opinion of the other has been made up with a different logic than theirs. Things must be put into their context. For instance, about abortion. Some people believe that it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, and that it is normal. Some other people believe that it is up to a God to decide. That does not mean that the latter despise the woman in question, that just means that according to their logic, it is intolerable that someone else than God should decide about a human life. Understanding the logic of people's thinking does not mean that we agree with their views. It just helps not to forget that their beliefs should not be judged as being right or wrong, they should be judged according to the logic that goes with them. What can seem like a bad thing to someone will seem to be the best thing to do to someone else. People are just not building their reasonings on the same basis.

This is why I personally can't choose a side generally speaking. I decide what to do when I face an important question, I decide to behave this or that way depending on the situation. But I won't tell anyone else how they should behave because they are not me and their experiences might be entirely different. Reciprocally, I don't want anyone to force their beliefs on me. But if they try to do so, I try to keep in mind that they don't do it to annoy me, they only do it because, according to their logic, they truly think that would be better for me if I followed them. Then I just have to respect their views and politely decline their invitation.

Ok I have written a book, and I'm not quite sure I answered the questions of the original poster. I hope you won't be mad at me for getting carried away like that.
PS: I have reread what I wrote and I don't like the fact that I have a hard time with people who are intolerant to other's opinions. My reacting that way means that I'm intolerant towards intolerant people, and that disturbs me.

[PrinceMyshkin]

My attitude towards beliefs tends to lead me to constantly ask myself questions instead of deciding for a definite answer. When it comes to religion or God for instance, I think that no one will ever know the 'truth' and thus I think that I don't need to decide if I believe or not. The most important to me is not to know the truth, it's rather to get interested in the subject and come with hypothesis. Since no one will ever have a real answer, I am interested in listening to everyone's opinons, and to the reasons that made them think this or that way. We are never really objective when it comes to religious matters because everyone's opinion will come from their own experience. Some people will pray and feel that they are heard, while some people will be totally sure that there is no one to hear them. We don't know who's right and who's wrong, and that doesn't really matter in the end of the day because the thing that matters is what the belief or absence of belief bring to those people's lives. Most of the time, faith is stronger than any truth. I think believing in something, keeping hope, helps a lot sometimes when we are facing difficult situations.

Personally, I feel blocked when I have to decide if I feel closer to the believers or to the non-believers, if I feel closer to this or that side of the question. I just can't choose and I don't want to. I want to be in the middle. I dislike the feeling of restraining my views to one side of a problem. I like hearing each view of the question.
I tend to repeat that pattern with everything, and when I discuss with someone who has his mind set on one side of a problem, I can't help bringing the other side into the discussion, just to balance things. The fact that I defend the other side of a question doesn't mean that I believe in it, that just means that I need to equilibrate things.

Now I must add I have hard times with people who are intolerant towards people who think differently, and maybe that explains that I need to defend the point of view that is opposite to theirs. I think that when someone criticizes someone else's belief, it is because they forget that the opinion of the other has been made up with a different logic than theirs. Things must be put into their context. For instance, about abortion. Some people believe that it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, and that it is normal. Some other people believe that it is up to a God to decide. That does not mean that the latter despise the woman in question, that just means that according to their logic, it is intolerable that someone else than God should decide about a human life. Understanding the logic of people's thinking does not mean that we agree with their views. It just helps not to forget that their beliefs should not be judged as being right or wrong, they should be judged according to the logic that goes with them. What can seem like a bad thing to someone will seem to be the best thing to do to someone else. People are just not building their reasonings on the same basis.

This is why I personally can't choose a side generally speaking. I decide what to do when I face an important question, I decide to behave this or that way depending on the situation. But I won't tell anyone else how they should behave because they are not me and their experiences might be entirely different. Reciprocally, I don't want anyone to force their beliefs on me. But if they try to do so, I try to keep in mind that they don't do it to annoy me, they only do it because, according to their logic, they truly think that would be better for me if I followed them. Then I just have to respect their views and politely decline their invitation.

Ok I have written a book, and I'm not quite sure I answered the questions of the original poster. I hope you won't be mad at me for getting carried away like that.
PS: I have reread what I wrote and I don't like the fact that I have a hard time with people who are intolerant to other's opinions. My reacting that way means that I'm intolerant towards intolerant people, and that disturbs me.

What a wonderful answer! It reads like a programme like keeping your mind alive, and without a vital, reflective mind, how much less interesting a life you might have. If I disagree with anything at all in what you have written it is with your PS, where you chastize yourself for being intolerant to the intolerant! You have feelings as well as intellect, so forgive yourself if occasionally you fall short of your demanding ideal.

Here's my credo on this subject:


"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438

[Sweets America]

I am glad you appreciated my answer, as I was afraid I had somehow missed the point. I easily get carried away, and I question a lot of things, and it sometimes annoys the others. As an example, when I was a little girl, I had the utmost difficulties when it came to doing mathematics, because the teachers gave us some rules to follow, but it disturbed me very much that they did not tell us who had found those mathematical rules, how they had found them, and when. We just had to follow the rules without thinking of it. It still scares me to think that people can follow rules that they don't fully understand. I remember how my attitude made my mother throw fits, because it went like this:

Mother: 'What do you have to do to solve this mathematical problem?'
Me: 'I have to multiply this number by this number'
Mother: 'Yes, that's it. So, just do it'
Me: 'I know what I have to do, but I won't do it if I don't know how the rule was found, and who found the concept of multiplication, and how they found it'
Mother: 'You don't care how it was found!!! Just do your homework!!!'
Me: 'No, I want an explanation. If I don't know how they found the rule, why would I apply it? What if it was a false rule? They gave me no proof.'

And in the end, my mother lost her temper and I always made my homework, but that gave me bad feelings. Then I had a bad relationship with mathematics, but I'm sorry for the mathematics because this was not their fault. I think my reasoning is quite strange, in a way, because I was asking for 'proofs', and now I say I don't care about the truth, I just like questionning things. That's a little contradictory. One truth is that I might be nuts.

Ah, the little girl that I was was a real pain, lol. I don't think I have changed that much, though. When I was doing my psychology studies at College, the problem came back when we studied schizophrenia and hallucinations. I just couldn't help thinking: 'What if hallucinations were true? What if those people saw things that I am just not able to see? It would then be horrible and unfair to try to 'cure' them!'. I can't help thinking that way. I understand how it can annoy people, though.

See, I'm annoying people again here because I'm writing off-topic things. I should stop here, I guess. And I've written a book again. When I told you I was a pain. :p
PS: I forgot to say that I love the quote in your last post.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I am glad you appreciated my answer, as I was afraid I had somehow missed the point. I easily get carried away, and I question a lot of things, and it sometimes annoys the others.

Well, if I may apply a little bit of the same process as that "annoying" little girl you speak of below:

Annoying Little girl (henceforth ALG): Well, there I go again, letting myself get carried away, questioning a lot of things, and sometimes annoying the others.
Me: What does it mean to "get carried away"?
ALG: It means allowing my thoughts to go where they want to go.
Me: And what's wrong with that?
ALG: Maybe I shouldn't question everything?
Me: Oh, and how will you determine what's worth questioning and what you should just accept because these "others" say it is so?


As an example, when I was a little girl, I had the utmost difficulties when it came to doing mathematics, because the teachers gave us some rules to follow, but it disturbed me very much that they did not tell us who had found those mathematical rules, how they had found them, and when. We just had to follow the rules without thinking of it. It still scares me to think that people can follow rules that they don't fully understand. I remember how my attitude made my mother throw fits, because it went like this:

Mother: 'What do you have to do to solve this mathematical problem?'
Me: 'I have to multiply this number by this number'
Mother: 'Yes, that's it. So, just do it'
Me: 'I know what I have to do, but I won't do it if I don't know how the rule was found, and who found the concept of multiplication, and how they found it'
Mother: 'You don't care how it was found!!! Just do your homework!!!'
Me: 'No, I want an explanation. If I don't know how they found the rule, why would I apply it? What if it was a false rule? They gave me no proof.'

And in the end, my mother lost her temper and I always made my homework, but that gave me bad feelings. Then I had a bad relationship with mathematics, but I'm sorry for the mathematics because this was not their fault. I think my reasoning is quite strange, in a way, because I was asking for 'proofs', and now I say I don't care about the truth, I just like questionning things. That's a little contradictory. One truth is that I might be nuts.

Ah, the little girl that I was was a real pain, lol. I don't think I have changed that much, though. When I was doing my psychology studies at College, the problem came back when we studied schizophrenia and hallucinations. I just couldn't help thinking: 'What if hallucinations were true? What if those people saw things that I am just not able to see? It would then be horrible and unfair to try to 'cure' them!'. I can't help thinking that way. I understand how it can annoy people, though.

See, I'm annoying people again here because I'm writing off-topic things. I should stop here, I guess. And I've written a book again. When I told you I was a pain. :p
PS: I forgot to say that I love the quote in your last post.

You know, as a Jew I used to blame all the Germans in WWII who didn't rise up and protest against what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, the Gypsies, homosexuals and the "mentally deficient." But then I came to realize that they had jobs, they had families, they needed to feed their families &c. Could they really have been expected to be heroes on top of all that? Were they required to put their own lives in danger in order to try to save the lives of others?

Of course your mother was impatient! Possibly she had a full-time job and house-keeping, shopping, cooking, a moody or demanding husband...

DO NOT let me catch you putting yourself down again!

You hear?

[MaryLupin]

On the first day of teaching a class in Sociology I tell the students that I don't care what they believe, I don't expect them to change what they believe but I do expect them to question what they believe using the tools that come with an academic study of human social behavior. I expect them to be able to demonstrate that they can ask good questions. I do not expect them to give good answers.

For me, my beliefs evolve according to the evidence of the world but my basic premise came in to focus when I was 17. I knew that no one (including myself) could every have a definitive answer to the Truth because there wasn't one definitive Truth. So I decided to pick amongst the belief systems that I already knew based on which one seemed the most respectful of life in general, did the least amount of damage to other beings, and held the most potential for exploring the nature of self and world.

Now I still have the same basic "bottom line." Stephen Jay Gould said

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."

Yes.

[aeroport]

Good question, PrinceMyshkin!


Stephen Jay Gould said

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."

Yes.

I like this quote a lot.
For me, I'd say I would "choose" - so far as it may be called that - my beliefs, considering that that's what I've more or less done, in spite of the huge range of beliefs found in my family. But I wouldn't really say I've "subscribed" to atheism; I've never honestly seen it as a school of thought. I just decided at some point (and I can remember the feeling I had at the very moment) that I was not sufficiently convinced by anything to call myself any sort of "believer".
Now, I won't pretend I didn't go through the "believer-bashing" phase that is commonly held as the attitude of most nonbelievers, but it seems at some point I've reverted to the attitude I held at my "conversion", which has more to do with a need for complete self-honesty (which is why this quote appeals to me, MaryLupin) than anything that warrants even discussing/debating the issue with other people. I've consequently grown more tolerant toward believers.
Which is all simply to say, "Yes," PrinceMyshkin. :) I have done as much, and I think I am nearly sure enough of myself to keep from having a nervous breakdown when my grandparents discover by nonbelief. (Not a joke)

[Noisms]

Would you choose the beliefs you have if you could choose them all over again? Assuming, that is, that you chose them in the first place. To what extent do you believe that you did choose your beliefs rather than have them imposed on you?

Can our beliefs have any value in defining us if they were not chosen, as much as possible, free of external influence? (Which is virtually impossible, of course, but as a matter of degree.)

I think that, as children, our beliefs are definitely imposed. My parents are Fabian Socialists, so until I was around 18 or 19 my political views were very left wing - it was natural given what my parents and their friends used to talk about, and the fact that I was surrounded by that sort of thinking.

Once I went away to university, I would have once said that I chose my beliefs - I went through a period of sloughing off my earlier opinions and thinking things through so I could come up with new ones - but the more I think about it, the more I think that it's almost impossible to "choose" your beliefs. Rather, I think they choose you. That's because your character, personality and experience are mostly beyond your control, and your beliefs are so contingent on those things. Whether you believe a thing for subjective or objective reasons, you see those reasons in terms of how your experience and character have shaped your thinking.

[Noisms]

Now I still have the same basic "bottom line." Stephen Jay Gould said

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."

Yes.

One thing I've found about S. J. Gould is that it's hard to disagree with anything he's ever said.

It's a sad thing that he's not around any more.

[motherhubbard]

I was careful in choosing. I searched and studied and engaged in many debates and conversations. I know that some people become angry if you cast doubt on their core beliefs. Some people want to accept whatever it is that they believe as absolute truth and never question or be questioned, but I can’t understand that. I have a “prove it” attitude.

The list of things I beliefs in is a long one. I disagree with most everyone in at least some way, including those in my own congregation of worship. Basically though, I believe in God. I also believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that he would not allow it to become so corrupt that it no longer contained a pattern for us. The Bible was written by over 60 men spread over a huge time span and is in perfect agreement with its self. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power unto salvation. I still want to see proof. That doesn’t mean one scripture that is taken out of context and forced to stand alone. I want to know everything God has to say on a subject, who is he talking to, in what context, under what dispensation. Then I think God expects us to apply some commonsense. I also believe in action, personal responsibility, obligation, getting outside of yourself and hard work.

I prove and choose my religion everyday. Of course I could be wrong and I look all the time for answers. For me religion is more than the Ten Commandments or the plan of salvation or any list of things to do or things not to do. I think it would be easier if it was that way.

[Bii]

It's quite informative that the majority of people have answered this question in reference to their faith, as opposed to reference to their belief. I don't think there's a simple answer to your question Prince, as belief is so intrinsic to our existence that to a large extent we operate based on, to coin the great Mr. Bertrand Russell 'justified belief'. For example, I believe there will be a minute after this one; I believe that this comment will be read by another sentient individual, or infact many (let's hope!); I believe that you exist, I believe there is a planet called Neptune, I believe we live on a planet called Earth which is in a solar system, etc,etc ad nauseum. If you examine any of these beliefs they can only be 'justified belief' because if I was to analyse them in detail eventually I would track them back to either an assumption based on experience, or a fact which I have taken to be true because it comes from what I believe to be a reliable source - but in fact I have no 'proof'. In fact one of the only things that comes close to defying this rule is the example quoted earlier by Sweets America as follows:



Mother: 'What do you have to do to solve this mathematical problem?'
Me: 'I have to multiply this number by this number'
Mother: 'Yes, that's it. So, just do it'
Me: 'I know what I have to do, but I won't do it if I don't know how the rule was found, and who found the concept of multiplication, and how they found it'
Mother: 'You don't care how it was found!!! Just do your homework!!!'
Me: 'No, I want an explanation. If I don't know how they found the rule, why would I apply it? What if it was a false rule? They gave me no proof.'

And in the end, my mother lost her temper and I always made my homework, but that gave me bad feelings. Then I had a bad relationship with mathematics, but I'm sorry for the mathematics because this was not their fault. I think my reasoning is quite strange, in a way, because I was asking for 'proofs', and now I say I don't care about the truth, I just like questionning things. That's a little contradictory. One truth is that I might be nuts.


Given that mathematics proves itself.

So, I suppose my view would be that we don't consciously choose our beliefs; but we do consciously choose, and are influenced by others, opinions and faiths. And that is my opinion, or my justified belief, whichever!

[PrinceMyshkin]

It's quite informative that the majority of people have answered this question in reference to their faith, as opposed to reference to their belief. I don't think there's a simple answer to your question Prince, as belief is so intrinsic to our existence that to a large extent we operate based on, to coin the great Mr. Bertrand Russell 'justified belief'. For example, I believe there will be a minute after this one; I believe that this comment will be read by another sentient individual, or infact many (let's hope!); I believe that you exist, I believe there is a planet called Neptune, I believe we live on a planet called Earth which is in a solar system, etc,etc ad nauseum. If you examine any of these beliefs they can only be 'justified belief' because if I was to analyse them in detail eventually I would track them back to either an assumption based on experience, or a fact which I have taken to be true because it comes from what I believe to be a reliable source - but in fact I have no 'proof'. In fact one of the only things that comes close to defying this rule is the example quoted earlier by Sweets America as follows:




Given that mathematics proves itself.

So, I suppose my view would be that we don't consciously choose our beliefs; but we do consciously choose, and are influenced by others, opinions and faiths. And that is my opinion, or my justified belief, whichever!

Despite the thoughtfulness of your answer, it does not really address the question as I meant it, which I will go back and try to change to your moral beliefs and choices.

Off-topic, though, may I say how fortunate you and your very young children are to have each other.

[Bii]

Despite the thoughtfulness of your answer, it does not really address the question as I meant it, which I will go back and try to change to your moral beliefs and choices.

I think the same rules apply. Before you could decide to change your beliefs and choices you would have to understand where they were generated from, and also address your more fundamental beliefs because you apply your morality and choices to those. So, for example:

I believe you exist
I believe you are a sentient being in the same way that I am
I believe it is immoral to cause to cease to exist a being that is sentient in the way that I am.
therefore I won't kill you

Take away the first two points and the morality or otherwise is irrelevant, because my moral choice is applied to my core belief. And this is all before getting into the realms of why I think it's immoral to cause you to cease to exist which are so complex that it would be near on impossible to identify.


Off-topic, though, may I say how fortunate you and your very young children are to have each other.

I'm very confused by this remark.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm very confused by this remark.

As I am by your confusion! I meant a) that I understand from messages we've exchanged that you love your children, and that we are very fortunate in having those who insire our love; and b) that while they are yet too young to know precisely, your children are fortunate to have someone so intelligent and emotionally poised, from which they cannot help but benefit.

[Sweets America]

Prince,
Thanks for your response. I see what you mean about wondering what is worth questionning and what isn't. Well, I think everything is worth questionning, lol. This world is so bizarre. I've always felt quite aloof, isolated from the world, looking at it with an external view, and wondering about people's behaviors and about the 'rules' of the world I live in. I had trouble to fit in with the others because their behaviors sometimes puzzled me. As an example, when I was in middle school, it was like a rule that girls had to have a boyfriend to be 'cool'. It puzzled me because the girls where mostly having a boyfriend just to say they had one and to brag. I was searching the love in that and didn't find any. So those kinds of relationships didn't interest me. And there again I was eyed a strange way because I did not do what the others did. Love was too important for me to waste it and disrespect it that way. I didn't want to insult Love. I wanted to take my time to find the person I would consider as being my soulmate, while the others didn't care about the concept of soulmate. Anyway, I'm getting carried away. :lol:
There are some other stupid 'rules' like that. Like, about sport. If you live in a city where there is a football team and you like football, you HAVE to support the team of the city you live in. If you say you perfer another, people open their eyes widely. It is that way in France anyway. Oh, I could care less, since I greatly dislike sport. But then another problem appears. People open their eyes widely again and tell me that I SHOULD like sport. And that I should leave my damn books alone. :sick:

I like what you said about the attitude of German people during the war, that's very interesting. I understand what you wrote, that is true that sometimes we mistakenly consider things from an external view. At first sight, it could seem normal to blame them. But then we have to remember that the main feeling they had must have been fear, and when fear controls us, we can't always think logically. We don't know what we would have done at their place. It's a very tough matter. And it is also once again a question of the Nazis wanting to force their beliefs on the others. Beliefs can make people do the most awful things.
I like the question you raise, about the Germans risking their lives to save the lives of others. We can wonder how a life could be more valuable than another. That reminds me of the question of people who are starving in some countries. Here in France, there are also people who starve. And I've noticed that French people prefer that we help the French first. It seems so strange to me. I mean, if we save one people's life, I don't care if the person is French or a foreigner. A human being is a human being. And I wil go farther in saying that some people don't care about seeing animals dying, because 'animals are just animals, human beings are more important'. It has always puzzled me that the life of a human being should be more important than one of an animal. I'm sorry if I am shocking you by saying this, as I know it sometimes shocks people. Maybe I have this view on things because some of my best friends are dogs. Now I might be shocking you again, lol.

Last thing I wanted to add, I understand what Bii said about the justified beliefs. There are things that we are told to accept, like science for instance. Though I have always viewed science as a belief among others. It was only a tool created by human beings to measure the world they live in. I find it weird that everything has to be measured according to science, as if we were absolutely certain of scientific assertions, as if they had not been created by men, but had always existed by themselves. Men have decided that 2 and 2 make four, but if they had said that it made five, everything would have been measured according to that and we would not have seen the difference. Now when people say 'Ghosts don't exist because science hasn't proved it', I answer 'maybe science is just not the right tool to prove the existence of ghosts? Maybe science is limited? Maybe there is another tool to prove the existence of ghosts and we just haven't found it yet? Why would everything be brought back to science?'. Then I get flamed again, because people get very anxious when we question the basis of the world, people like stability.

Oh, one last thing: Prince, I will try not to put myself down. I can't promise, though. But yes, I hear you. You sound like a dad. :)

[Bii]

Men have decided that 2 and 2 make four, but if they had said that it made five, everything would have been measured according to that and we would not have seen the difference.

This is where I think you're perhaps getting a bit mixed up. Men haven't decided that 2 and 2 make 4, 2 and 2 just make 4, and they always do. You can demonstrate this by putting two things and two things together. They never make five.

What causes confusion here is language rather than the actual mathematics, all that has been decided by Man is to give specific names to the 'numbers', but the numbers themselves are constant. So you're right in thinking that instead of calling 4 'four', it was called 'five' then two plus two would equal five, but the underlying mathematics, the observable rule, would be exactly the same. It's a difficult concept to get across so my apologies if this is a bit confusing! Imagine that the quantities which we refer to as one, two, three, four and five we called something else, for example:

one = cat
two = tree
three = satellite
four = air
five = ear

then mathematically:

cat + cat = tree
satellite + cat = air

and so on and so forth, and cat + cat would always equal tree, and satellite + cat would always equal air.

You can evidence this by your own experiment. Try putting two objects and two objects together. Do this 100 times, 1000 times. Do you ever have 5 objects?

Mathematics is the closest thing we have to 'truth' because the rules appear to remain constant, regardless of the terminology you use. A triangle is always a triangle, a square is always a square. There is always the possibility that if you continued to follow the rules ad infinitum then you could end up putting two and two objects together and find you have five objects, but sufficient 'proofs' have occurred that this appears extremely unlikely. The problem a lot of people have with mathematics is that it is purely logical, not emotional, it is correct or incorrect, true or false. Maths doesn't care if you feel that two plus two should sometimes equal five, it just equals four, and that's the way it is, and you can't reason an equally valid but different answer (much as we'd all like to!).


As I am by your confusion! I meant a) that I understand from messages we've exchanged that you love your children, and that we are very fortunate in having those who insire our love; and b) that while they are yet too young to know precisely, your children are fortunate to have someone so intelligent and emotionally poised, from which they cannot help but benefit.

I'm confused because the comment seems to bear no relation to the thread under discussion, which makes me curious as to what prompted you to make it. Having entered into a debate concerning the nature of belief this comment seems to me to be a little out of context. So I'm thrown. Rather like if you were having a discussion about the scientific principles of quantum mechanics, put forth your theory, delivered your conclusion, to have your debating partner say 'hmm, that's an interesting mole you've got on your arm there...'

[Sweets America]

Bii,

I think you might be right in your statement. I understand what you mean, that is true that it is rather a matter of language than one of maths. Your explanation sounds accurate. Thank you for sharing it.

It is strange that I feel kind of ill at ease now, because I think you're right in what you say, and in a way it disturbs me that maths are just logical, and that we can't really question it. I don't know why I feel that way. It kind of makes me suffocate inside to think that something just is and that there is nothing to question about it. Stability and immutability scare me, it seems.
There is something that disturbs me when I think that two and two will always make four. I think it might be due to what you say, that is that maths do not involve emotions. Maybe that is what bugs me. Remember also what I was saying about people who are anxious to have their beliefs questionned? Well, I am feeling like them now, because I have always thought that maths could be questionned like everything else, and now after reading your post I think I might have been wrong. What I said about maths not existing before human beings invented them, that might be false because in the way you put it, two and two already made four before, it is just that there were no human beings to say it, to name it, to understand it.

Despite the dizziness it conveyed to me, I found your post very interesting because it re-equilibrates things and helps me to see 'the other side'. I like being enlightened. So thank you.:)

PS: I guess Prince, with his comment, just wished to bring some emotions into the logical aspect of this thread.

[Bii]

It is strange that I feel kind of ill at ease now, because I think you're right in what you say, and in a way it disturbs me that maths are just logical, and that we can't really question it. I don't know why I feel that way. It kind of makes me suffocate inside to think that something just is and that there is nothing to question about it. Stability and immutability scare me, it seems.
There is something that disturbs me when I think that two and two will always make four. I think it might be due to what you say, that is that maths do not involve emotions. Maybe that is what bugs me. Remember also what I was saying about people who are anxious to have their beliefs questionned? Well, I am feeling like them now, because I have always thought that maths could be questionned like everything else, and now after reading your post I think I might have been wrong.

Well, I hope I haven't disturbed you too much - this is very much my interpretation on things, and there's always the possibility that I've got it wrong!

I understand why you would be uncomfortable with pure logic. It's so unbending, and following it can take you places you don't want to go, for example evil is as logical as good. No one wants to live in a world like that.

Perhaps maths is evil? That's certainly how I felt about it when I was in school!

[Sweets America]

Bii,

That's ok, you did not disturb me too much, lol. And anyway, I'm already disturbed by nature, so being a little more disturbed won't be that much of a problem.
I think it is quite normal to feel that way when we get enlightened, when we get aware of another view. Yes, you might be wrong, that is true, but I feel that you are right.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm confused because the comment seems to bear no relation to the thread under discussion, which makes me curious as to what prompted you to make it. Having entered into a debate concerning the nature of belief this comment seems to me to be a little out of context. So I'm thrown. Rather like if you were having a discussion about the scientific principles of quantum mechanics, put forth your theory, delivered your conclusion, to have your debating partner say 'hmm, that's an interesting mole you've got on your arm there...'

PRECISELY, my dear Watson! As Neil Bohr said about Quantum Mechanics: "Anybody who thinks about it without getting dizzy probably doesn't understand it at all!" so the mole on my arm might indeed be a logical observation to make.

Apart from that there is a phenomenon known on this side of the Atlantic, called spontaneity. I.e., one might be reading someone's comments, attending carefully to the thread of it, and be struck by the tone, and tone tells one something. So, instead of responding to the argument per se, one feels a rush of something - e.g. affection - for the person behind the argument, the mind, the personality, that informs the argument, and one burts out rashly, non-sequiturly, Oh, Ms Bii - what a beautiful soul you are!

So, sue me.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Prince,
Thanks for your response. I see what you mean about wondering what is worth questionning and what isn't. Well, I think everything is worth questionning, lol. This world is so bizarre. I've always felt quite aloof, isolated from the world, looking at it with an external view, and wondering about people's behaviors and about the 'rules' of the world I live in. I had trouble to fit in with the others because their behaviors sometimes puzzled me. As an example, when I was in middle school, it was like a rule that girls had to have a boyfriend to be 'cool'. It puzzled me because the girls where mostly having a boyfriend just to say they had one and to brag. I was searching the love in that and didn't find any. So those kinds of relationships didn't interest me. And there again I was eyed a strange way because I did not do what the others did. Love was too important for me to waste it and disrespect it that way. I didn't want to insult Love. I wanted to take my time to find the person I would consider as being my soulmate, while the others didn't care about the concept of soulmate. Anyway, I'm getting carried away. :lol:

There is a certain something that rather quickly comes into play when I am reading one of your posts, and though I would not hesitate to say here what it is, I would rather tantalize you a bit by challenging you to guess what it is!


There are some other stupid 'rules' like that. Like, about sport. If you live in a city where there is a football team and you like football, you HAVE to support the team of the city you live in. If you say you perfer another, people open their eyes widely. It is that way in France anyway. Oh, I could care less, since I greatly dislike sport. But then another problem appears. People open their eyes widely again and tell me that I SHOULD like sport. And that I should leave my damn books alone. :sick:

Have you ever heard the saying "50,000,000 Frenchman can't be wrong," usually spoken in defense of some new play, movie, book or fad. Well, I have revised it as: "50,000,000 Frenchman MUST be wrong." (Of course you can substitute 50,000,000 Englishman, Americans or Russians, if you like, but not 50,000,000 Canadians because there are only 33,390,141 of us [unless my neighbour up the street has finally given birth!])


I like the question you raise, about the Germans risking their lives to save the lives of others. We can wonder how a life could be more valuable than another. That reminds me of the question of people who are starving in some countries. Here in France, there are also people who starve. And I've noticed that French people prefer that we help the French first. It seems so strange to me. I mean, if we save one people's life, I don't care if the person is French or a foreigner. A human being is a human being.

There is a Jewish saying: "He who has saved a life it is as if he had saved a universe." I like to think that something similar applies when we truly get to know someone new: "He or she who makes a new friend, it is as if they had discovered a new universe."


It has always puzzled me that the life of a human being should be more important than one of an animal. I'm sorry if I am shocking you by saying this, as I know it sometimes shocks people. Maybe I have this view on things because some of my best friends are dogs. Now I might be shocking you again, lol."

We never had a pet while I was growing up and until I began my relationship with C. who has 3 Llasa Apsos I thought animals were just these things at the end of a leash or that slunk around in the street or that people rode on, but I know now that they are as precious as we are. Please give us the name of your dog.

[Bii]

So, instead of responding to the argument per se, one feels a rush of something - e.g. affection - for the person behind the argument, the mind, the personality, that informs the argument, and one burts out rashly, non-sequiturly, Oh, Ms Bii - what a beautiful soul you are!

So, sue me.


You know, I'm not sure I didn't prefer it when you thought I was a man.

[Sweets America]

Jerry,

I felt some hints in your post... ;)

I like what you said about "50,000,000 Frenchman MUST be wrong." It sounds like my way of thinking.
I also like your sentence: "He or she who makes a new friend, it is as if they had discovered a new universe." That's true. With new friends, new things sometimes open up to you and that can sometimes be confusing, eh?

I am happy that you realized how animals are not inferior to us.
Well now about my dear dogs, those whom I've referred to as being my best friends are called Mabrouck and California.
I have another dog that I don't see that often, his name is Max. Well, I actually seem him once a day lately, as we meet at lunch hour.
And finally, I've met another dog some years ago and his name is Azur. We clicked at first sight, I knew this dog was the embodiment of kindness. Each time I meet him, he regenerates my soul. I love him dearly.
I also had a great relationship with Lola before she died. She was my brother's dog. We had a lot in common, as she was very shy and afraid to come to people. It was such a pleasure for me to gain her confidence so that she would let me approach her. Great memories.