John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is acknowledged.Stathis PapaioannouFrom: jamikes.domain.name.hidden: everything-list.domain.name.hidden: Re: The Meaning of LifeDate: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500
Stathiws,
no question about that. What I was trying to stress was
the futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its solely
expanded "truth") against a different "truth and evidence" carrying OTHER belief
system.
BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics)
accept (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking the
professional).
IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with
our rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est
"onetrackminded"..(the 9th beatitude).
To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria
of your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical beliefs? I am
almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, fingerprint and the other
zillion characteristics are not identical to those of other animals, the mental
makeup is similarly unique.
We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized
machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?)
idem, non est idem.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38
AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own
beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said,
"those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really
seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess
everything in the Iliad and Odyssey must be true", then they would be
consistently applying the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they
don't: other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational scrutiny and
(rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are special. Stathis
Papaioannou
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500From: jamikes.domain.name.hidden:
everything-list.domain.name.hidden: Re: The Meaning of
LifeStathis:is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one
set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)?
I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an
excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two
in one mind, he answered:"I never mix the two together". Tom is an
excellent natural scientist and has brilliant arguments in it, as long
as it comes to his 'other' belief system - what he, quite inderstandably
- does not want to give up. We all have 'second belief bases' in our
multiple schizophrenia of intelligence. Some have 'Platonia', some
'primitive matter view' - it is your profession. Do you really think you
can penetrate one by arguments from another?John M
On 2/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou < stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden
> wrote:
Tom Caylor writes: > On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent
Meeker <meeke....domain.name.hidden>
wrote:> > OK. But in that case your question is just half of the
question, "Why do people have values?" If you have values then that mean
some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in
a place you don't want it. You must already know the obvious answer to
this given by Darwin. And it doesn't even take a person; even amoebas have
values. I suspect you have a set answer in mind and you're looking for the
question to elicit it.> >> > Brent Meeker>
>> Also Stathis wrote:> > Sure, logic and science are
silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a
person to come along and say "let x=good", and then you can reason
logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may predict what x a person
may deem to be good or beautiful, but this is not binding on an individual
in the way laws governing the chemistry of respiration, for example, are
binding. Unlike some scientific types, I am quite comfortable with ethics
being in this sense outside the scope of science. Unlike some religious
types, I am quite comfortable without looking for an ultimate source of
ethics in the form of a deity. Even if this conclusion made me very
unhappy, that might be reason to try self-deception, but it has no bearing
on the truth.> >> > Stathis Papaioannou>
>> > Brent and Stathis exemplify two possible answers to
meaning. Brent> reduces meaning to something based on mere
existence or survival. Thus > amoebas can have such
meaning.> Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered
(unanswerable?) mystery.> We just somehow self-generate
meaning.> > My introduction of the "Meaning Of Life" thread
asked if the > Everything perspective could provide any answers to
this question.> Looking at the contributions since then, it looks
like the answer is> apparently not. This is what I expected. Thus,
meaning is either > limited to trivial (non-normative) values or is
without basis (the> Noble Lie). If you really read the modern
philosophers seriously this> is their conclusion. Of course there
is a third possible answer to > this question: Meaning is based on
a source outside of ourselves, by> "making connections with others
based on such ideals as honour and> obligation" (a quote I read
from Dr. Laura Schlesinger off of a > Starbucks coffee cup this
morning!) Of course people can poo-poo such> ideals as simply
"sentiments", debunking them on a surface level> (which is the only
level there is without them), just as C.S. Lewis> pointed out in
his lectures on "The Abolition of Man". And indeed,> without such
ideals, man will be discretized into a trivial skeleton> of his
true self.> > TomYou seem to keep arguing that it
wouldn't be very nice if there were no ultimate meaning. Is there any
actual evidence that this alleged meaning exists? For
example, suppose a society believes that the Sky God provides
ultimate meaning and live their lives happily, whereas it could be shown
that they would all be miserable and kill each other if they believed it
were not true. On this basis there may be reason to think that belief in
the Sky God is useful, but is there any reason to think that belief
in the Sky God is true? Stathis Papaioannou
Live Search: New search found Try
it!
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows LiveT Spaces friends
list. Check it
out!
No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
Edition.Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.28/672 - Release Date:
2/6/2007 10:22 AM
_________________________________________________________________
Personalize your Live.com homepage with the news, weather, and photos you care about.
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx?icid=T001MSN30A0701
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Feb 06 2007 - 17:54:54 PST