-Removed-Yes, my view of the world has quite a huge allowance for error. Also , it has the capacity for introducing new ideas and even complete upheaval, if necessary.
But the longer I go on (over ten years now), the more the "guides" in my life seem to reaffirm that I'm on the right path. It seems that now I have the original edifice in place, I just need to fine tune some ideas and incorporate new ones with the already established ones.
It would take me a lot of words to explain my tenets of my philosophy of life as I reckon we would have many linguistical difficulties. All that being said, I dont see where you are coming from. I dont see how I am not open.
I guess one could ask "open to what? " , as I am certainly not open to changing my stance on say the death penalty (strongly disagree), or being open to deal with some problem I have through violent means.
But as far as philosophy/spirituality/religion are concerned, I can say that I will genuinely sit and listen to what someone has to say about their views on this stuff, and if the arguments are compelling enough, even to change my view about a certain matter.
2 edits
-Removed-I am not sure I see the difference. I am also not sure that I hold any beliefs purely because they are beneficial, nor would I want to pass on false, but beneficial beliefs.
So maybe we can start there. I believe it is harmful to hold irrational beliefs especially when said beliefs are held for selfish or supposedly beneficial reasons. I believe that although the motive may be good, the end result is bad. One irrational belief generally leads to other irrational beliefs. Over time, the believer looses sight of why they believe (benefits) and ends up so whole heartedly invested in the false belief that it starts to harm them (or others). They also encourage others to hold irrational beliefs (largely because people don't like to be alone in their beliefs).
Any questions, objections so far?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes. But it is a broad definition of "conviction", with all that doubt, skepticism and curiosity. Anyway the latter should lead, imo. Being too convinced or becoming too much of a follower can close off to the new and different that arises. A "holding pattern" for the moment, based on 'light' convincing is a base from which to work, a most effective one, I think.
Regularly reassessed conviction in a box made of healthy doubt/skepticism and curiosity. I think it could work.
It's finally an attitudinal stance. Often "convinced" stances arise with discomfort or fear in the face of ambiguity.