Even if you weren't properly educated, you'd know that this belief relating to a topic would have many internal and external constants. As such internal is your wants, your idealogy, your entire logic map inside your head. It would be better if you actually knew what those word meant instead of just asking for it. Does it not get through your head just by evaluating something? Then what is external? External should be external influence, external knowledge, other's beliefs- and the topic at hand.
This is sort of what I was looking for, in terms of relevance to the topic I proposed. I need to think about your answer more, I'll get back to you. (going out soon, no time to really think)
Humans are not logical. Humans don't think mathematically. Humans are potentially from start, irrational. Thats because they don't think like that. They think based on their motives, their wants, their beliefs, and based on societal influence, environment, and all those other factors are based in our thoughts. But we aren't logical. Hes telling you to drop all that- and base yourself logically and on topic. Its not simply more efficient. Without dropping those, It renders a serious discussion impossible.
I would like this justified. "Humans are irrational" is a very broad absolute.
Additionally, I did not know the person who posted the original quote I used in this topic, so I really have no idea what he's "telling" me except for what is in the quote. With that said, I apologize for any confusion about that, but if possible I would prefer you restrict your commentary to the actual quote and refrain from using any metadata about the person who made the quote.
You cannot base everything on tradition. But it is true that tradition is quite in you- and it can get out anytime even if you didnt mean to. But if you're obviously purposefully relying on simply tradition to validate your argument, then that argument is solid unacceptable.
I agree in certain cases. The reason I brought it up, was because the quote in question excludes tradition entirely from authority. Perhaps it was meant to be interpreted in this manner for cases in which tradition is useful: The reasons for which the tradition is useful is the basis for the authority allocated, and not simply the title. However, I think it almost synonymous with granting authority on the basis of a useful tradition, it's simply adding an extra step in the process from situation to authority.
I like the current one way better.
Any particular reason?
It's not a common belief.
I hope you find wiki answers credible. If not, make note of it and I will find a secondary source.
2.1 Billion Christians (give or take):
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Christians_are_there_worldwideI call that common.
It's a sad reminder of the irrationality of humankind when the definition of the word "critical thinking" causes some manner of controversy.
I find it to the contrary. What can be better than thinking about thinking?
Reason must supercede belief in all cases, and there is no way to get around that without simply being wrong.
Why?
I agree reason must supercede belief in certain cases.
Here's a fun fact, if you tell someone that you actually know whether or not god exists or doesn't exist, you're lying.
So after thousands of years of debate in human history on the subject, you are the definitive answer? This requires additional reasoning, citation, justification, ect,
However, I would ask you to refrain for the purposes of not turning this topic into another god/no god topic. If you really feel the need to prove yourself to me about this, PM me.
Authority is not being discussed insomuch as real life terms, but as terms of the right to be believed.
Isn't the right to be believed something that has to do with real life? I'm not talking about metaphysics here.
The latter is a leap in logic, the former uses a quote from a person of reputable philosophical origions to provide a point and suggest a school of thought.
Good stuffs.
don't even mention commonality unless you're talking about human nature.
Why not?
You totally misinterpreted what AntiSleep said. He said: 'Be willing to admit and correct errors, and never respect a belief, nor grant authority on the basis of tradition or conviction.' In your 2nd point, you just took out the phrase 'never respect a belief' and made an argument against it. You totally ignored the rest of his original sentance that said not to respect a belief just because it is based on tradition.
I copied the quote in my first post, I obviously didn't ignore it. I mentioned this above, but I didn't know the guy so my interpretation is based on what he said, and he happened to use the word "never." Secondly, he didn't use the words "just because." You are talking about a separate action, granting respect blindly without any analysis whatsoever into the nature of tradition. That is not what he said. Additionally, he separated his clauses by a comma and a conjunction, indicating two separate thoughts. "never respect a belief" is separate from "nor grant authority on the basis of tradition or conviction" It's like saying "don't do this and don't do that," two separate things. I made the argument against a single thought, which if reworded would stand alone as the sentence "Never respect a belief."
I think it would be nice to replace the word 'belief' with 'idea'. It is more general.
Replacing 'belief' with 'idea' would completely change the meaning of the quote.
You made it seem as if he said that all traditions are illogical.
Terribly sorry. "all traditions have no solid-ness to them" does have a bit of an ambiguous character. What he said was "nor grant authority on the basis of tradition," which is a statement about how things should be meaning traditions should not be given authority.
He said you must question everything.
No he didn't, at least not in the quote I lifted.
However, if he did say that then he and I would obviously agree on that point, since I'm questioning him.
None.