Why do people always assume that "the other side" is being brainwashed ?
Have you ever considered the possibility that the one in the mirror is also being brainwashed ?
I know the media, politics, "religion" and "science" are trying to brainwash you ànd me ......
What kind of spiritual "fire wall" do we need to protect us from being brainwashed ? Some say religion is brainwashing. Is it ? Is ALL religion brainwashing ? Even that kind of religion that opposes and fights brainwashing and keeps searching for the Truth ?
Some say "Reason" or science can serve as a "fire wall". Well, if I look around and look at Singer & friends, the "rational" ideologues of the Bio-Industrial Complex and if I look at the Military Industrial Complex and its ideologues I hope you don't mind me having a lot of doubts about that.
What are your thoughts on this ? Is only the "Other Side" being brainwashed ?
What is the purpose of brainwashing people ?
What is your "fire wall", preventing you from being brainwashed from whatever side ?
Should we prevent our brainwashing if it makes people, us, happy and contented ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe1) i don't and i make no such a priori assumptions. Leads nowhere at an amazing clip.
Why do people always assume that "the other side" is being brainwashed ?
What is the purpose of brainwashing people ?
What is your "fire wall", preventing you from being brainwashed from whatever side ?
2) Better question: What is brainwashing and what are the results?
3) i don't watch television nor do i prefer to let the Talking Heads do my thinking for me. For shame!
Why do people always assume that "the other side" is being brainwashed ?
They don't. My wife and I disagree on the timing of a child. Sometimes we even fall into the "me vs. you" mentality that gives rise to concepts like the "the other side." However I do not think my wife has been "brain-washed" for desiring another child at this time.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the one in the mirror is also being brainwashed ?
Yes. It's part of a liberal arts education. It's was also a step in my rejecting evagelical xtianity.
What kind of spiritual "fire wall" do we need to protect us from being brainwashed?
Nothing spiritual about it. Never accept something as infallible based solely on authority. Read. Question. Challenge. Reflect.
P.S. Don't try this in church. You'll get kicked out.
Some say religion is brainwashing ?
Is this a question or a declaration?
Is it ?
To the extent that it asks you to abandon reason and accept things on faith, it sure is.
Is ALL religion brainwashing ?
I include every religion in my statement above.
Even that kind of religion that opposes and fights brainwashing and keeps searching for the Truth ?
Again see above.
Some say "Reason" or science can serve as a "fire wall".
Yep.
Well, if I look around and look at Singer & friends, the "rational" ideologues of the Bio-Industrial Complex and if I look at the Military Industrial Complex and its ideologues I hope you don't mind me having a lot of doubts about that.
First, what little I've read of Peter Singer (I assume you mean the philosopher.), I find interesting.
Second, of course I don't mind you having doubts about it.
What are your thoughts on this ?
See above.
Is only the "Other Side" being brainwashed ?
Sometimes, depends on which "Other Side." There are many.
What is the purpose of brainwashing people ?
Many purposes, but most are linked to power or a fear of uncertainty (still slightly linked to power).
What is your "fire wall", preventing you from being brainwashed from whatever side ?
Reason. See above.
Should we prevent our brainwashing if it makes people, us, happy and contented ?
Oh Brave New World! Yes, we should.
Originally posted by telerion"First, what little I've read of Peter Singer (I assume you mean the philosopher.), I find interesting. ... "
[b]Why do people always assume that "the other side" is being brainwashed ?
They don't. My wife and I disagree on the timing of a child. Sometimes we even fall into the "me vs. you" mentality that gives rise to concepts like ...[text shortened]... nted ?[/b]
Oh Brave New World! Yes, we should.
[/b]
You should read about his ideas about infanticide and killing mentally ill, handicapped people. Very interesting thoughts, but I hope you will find them unacceptable.
"To the extent that it asks you to abandon reason and accept things on faith, it sure is."
Please read, "Reason and Faith" (Fides et Ratio) an encyclical by John Paul II. It enlightens you on the relation between the two, seen from the perspective of the RC Church. Roman Catholicism certainly does not ask people to abondon reason. On the contrary.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Well I read the introdution. Maybe sometime I'll find the time and patience to read the entirety of the document. Until then, I cannot give a fully coherent criticism. In the reading of the introduction however, I got a sense of the context in which John Paul II views reason. While an obviously intelligent and well-educated man, I was struck at cognitive dissonance apparent in his writing.
[O]ften enough in history this has brought with it the temptation to identify one single stream with the whole of philosophy. In such cases, we are clearly dealing with a “philosophical pride” which seeks to present its own partial and imperfect view as the complete reading of all reality. In effect, every philosophical system, while it should always be respected in its wholeness, without any instrumentalization, must still recognize the primacy of philosophical enquiry, from which it stems and which it ought loyally to serve.
So philosophy should be careful not to proclaim certain knowledge of all of reality, remembering always to question and critically examine. Fair enough.
[O]n the other hand [the diakonia of the truth] obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God.
In reading this passage, one notices that the "diakonia of the truth" (Diakonia means "ministry" in Greek.) arises from "the gift of the ultimate truth about human life." Now why should a philosopher who "recognize(s) the primacy of philosophical enquiry" not subject the "diakonia of the truth," and more importantly its claim to groundings in "ultimate truth," to vigorous inquiry? John Paul II, at least through his introduction, fails to recognize this obvious flaw.
In fact, he goes to some length to engrain presuppositionalism into his reader.
Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all . . . [A]ll feel that they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective way. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different philosophical schools.
Non-contradiction makes sense because logic deteriorates without it. Causality and finality may or may not make sense. I would have to appeal to minds more familiar with the subject. Even still I feel comfortable pointing out that the remaining proposed "reference-point[s]" are shaky. If we first accept causality, then shouldn't we question that a human is "free subject"? How can we immediately accept that a man can know "God," without first accepting that this "God" (It is left undefined at this point.) actually exists. We are asked to consider the "fundamental norms which are shared by all," but what are these norms? Why should they be the base for further reasoning, rather than subject to inquiry themselves?
John Paul may provide the answer here:
[Skepticism of ultimate truth] has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain.
Ah ha. It sounds like John Paul has an axe to grind against non-Catholic intellectuals. Some things just shouldn't be questioned because it might tarnish the "gift of the ultimate truth about human life." But there is also another reason as well.
There is a further reason why I write these reflections. . . .For it is undeniable that this time of rapid and complex change can leave especially the younger generation, to whom the future belongs and on whom it depends, with a sense that they have no valid points of reference. . . . This is why I have felt both the need and the duty to address this theme so that, on the threshold of the third millennium of the Christian era, humanity may come to a clearer sense of the great resources with which it has been endowed and may commit itself with renewed courage to implement the plan of salvation of which its history is part.
Hmm . . . sounds like John Paul is worried about losing good Catholic kids, so he wants to work even harder to engrain doctrine. The evangelicals have been using this tactic for a while now. It's called Christian Presuppositionalism. Rather than defend their views rationally, they posit that their veiws must be accepted outright as a basis for further reason.
I did enjoy what I read. I honestly would like to finish it sometime.