Originally posted by dj2beckerA world view can't come about via careful deliberation? Do you have any evidence for this claim? In general, people don't hold worldviews that they think are not rationally credible.
Your worldview answers the following questions:
Who am I?
Where do I come from?
What is my purpose in life?
Where do I go when I die?
It is characteristic of a life view that it is also a reflection of man’s directedness, but it is far more than his directedness on the existing reality; it includes rather man’s directedness on the future, on w ...[text shortened]... hich is what we call faith. This is where education, life view and religion are inseparably one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderYou do have a worldview, whether you admit it or not.
You believe in such a thing; I don't. It is simply a way for you to reason in an irrational or nonrational manner to a conclusion you have an obvious emotional need for.
PS And "your" post is probably another unattributed cut and paste, so it's not even your irrational or nonrational reasoning.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by bbarrMaybe not in all cases. But I would say in most cases.
A world view can't come about via careful deliberation? Do you have any evidence for this claim? In general, people don't hold worldviews that they think are not rationally credible.
Do you think it takes careful deliberation to have a belief in the supernatural?
Don't you think that supernatural revelation can also be a cause?
Me thinks supernatural revelation does not always occur in a rational manner, at least to the observer.
Don't you ever think a guy has gone crazy when he suddenly has a meeting with God and suddenly changes his entire lifestyle?
Originally posted by dj2beckerA "meeting with God"? Was that a 9 AM or 18 holes at the Club?
Maybe not in all cases. But I would say in most cases.
Do you think it takes careful deliberation to have a belief in the supernatural?
Don't you think that supernatural revelation can also be a cause?
Me thinks supernatural revelation does not always occur in a rational manner, at least to the observer.
Don't you ever think a guy has gone crazy when he suddenly has a meeting with God and suddenly changes his entire lifestyle?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't care what you think. I care about evidence. If you don't have any evidence that world views are not generally informed by and susceptible to and changeable in virtue of reasoned deliberation, then there is no reason to take your posts here seriously.
Maybe not in all cases. But I would say in most cases.
Do you think it takes careful deliberation to have a belief in the supernatural?
Don't you think that supernatural revelation can also be a cause?
Me thinks supernatural revelation does not always occur in a rational manner, at least to the observer.
Don't you ever think a guy has gone crazy when he suddenly has a meeting with God and suddenly changes his entire lifestyle?
It doesn't require careful deliberation to believe anything at all. Falling down a flight of stairs could cause somebody to believe in God, as could having bad parents. My point is that you haven't established, nor even provided evidence for the claim that worldviews are never or rarely constrained by reason.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt is significant that the life view is often not focused on the useful and therefore not on the comprehensible. It is also not a conclusion at which a person can arrive after careful deliberation. The source of the life view lies much deeper than the intellect: it is seated in the dimension of faith, which is non-rational and rests upon faith and certainty, which do not depend on human circumstances.
Your worldview answers the following questions:
Who am I?
Where do I come from?
What is my purpose in life?
Where do I go when I die?
It is characteristic of a life view that it is also a reflection of man’s directedness, but it is far more than his directedness on the existing reality; it includes rather man’s directedness on the future, on w ...[text shortened]... hich is what we call faith. This is where education, life view and religion are inseparably one.
Well it is pretty clear that you didn't arrive at your world view through "careful deliberation", so that at least seems consistent. Also, if a proper world view is supposed to focus on the incomprehensible, then congratulations...because yours is a bunch of nonsense. Also, what kind of God would endow me with an abhorrence toward the type of faith you describe, and then make said faith necessary for my salvation? Your God is clearly an idiot.
You are yet another example of a mind at odds with the absurd. You resort to taking refuge in your claim of "Goddunit". It gives you a sense of security and purpose. That's about the best justification for it that you can muster. So if you state that your world view is "non-rational", then I completely agree with you.
Who am I?
Where do I come from?
What is my purpose in life?
Where do I go when I die?
These are tough questions. I better make up some "non-rational" answers right quick so that I can sleep better tonight.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderYou might think that your world view is "rational" but by doing so, you would would not be honest with yourself.
I didn't say I didn't. But I say the definition you gave of a "world view" is not something I possess. My world view is not based on irrational or nonrational factors and no one's world view exists "above reason".
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes, I would be since I know it to be a fact that my world view is based on my own efforts to understand the "world" using my reason. If you want to try and understand the world using irrational or non-rational beliefs, that's your problem.
You might think that your world view is "rational" but by doing so, you would would not be honest with yourself.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not much happier with talk of "mental representations" than sense-data.
Representationalism isn't committed to the existence of sense-data, because it is not committed to an act/object analysis of perception. Our perceptions of the world are mediated by mental representations; in that sense, there are no direct observations. Of course, you are free to call 'direct' perceptions that are so mediated. It's not that bad of a problem.
What is wrong with simply saying that we perceive objects directly through the our senses? What's your beef with direct realism?
Is representationalism still flourishing, then?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSeeing you use "reason" to understand the world, would you care to use your "reason" to enlighten me on where matter and energy, as well as the laws of phyics came from?
Yes, I would be since I know it to be a fact that my world view is based on my own efforts to understand the "world" using my reason. If you want to try and understand the world using irrational or non-rational beliefs, that's your problem.
Neither of our explanations can be deemed rational as there is no way to validate them.
Originally posted by dottewellThere's nothing wrong with saying that, but it depends on what is meant by 'direct', and what is meant by 'through'. There are all sorts of versions of representationalism and direct realism, and their details will very based upon what they take to determinative of the content of our concepts, whether this content is broad or narrow, whether psycholgical states are construed as the vehicle of direct perception or as an intermediary in perception, whether the object of perception is the object itself, or its surface, or the light reflecting from it, etc. etc.
I'm not much happier with talk of "mental representations" than sense-data.
What is wrong with simply saying that we perceive objects directly through the our senses? What's your beef with direct realism?
Is representationalism still flourishing, then?
Positions don't get refuted, they temporarily go out of fashion.
Originally posted by dj2beckerHe doesn't need to explain those things, because he never claimed that reason could explain everything! Jesus Christ, learn how to read.
Seeing you use "reason" to understand the world, would you care to use your "reason" to enlighten me on where matter and energy, as well as the laws of phyics came from?
Neither of our explanations can be deemed rational as there is no way to validate them.
Originally posted by dj2beckerWill science have to explain everything, and recreate the universe in a Bell jar before you'll conceed that we do actually know what we're talking about?
Seeing you use "reason" to understand the world, would you care to use your "reason" to enlighten me on where matter and energy, as well as the laws of phyics came from?
Neither of our explanations can be deemed rational as there is no way to validate them.
You are unsavable from your own stupidity dj, because you obstinately refuse to learn.