Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may not be unproductive, but I'm not sure it's going to help us come to any broad-based conclusions.
In ways related to my career in education, I've been rather dedicated to civil rights. Enough so that I got to sit down one evening and be one of three or four people having a personal conversation with Julian Bond.
In other such conversations about race relations I have occasionally asked the question to a Black man: "Do you see yourself as a Black man, or a man who is Black?" Interestingly, about half the time the response has been, "What the hell are you talking about it", while the other half of the time the answer has been, "Ah, you sort of get it". The problem is, that those two disparate answers don't help me come to any conclusions about race. (And, btw, it's exactly why Barack Obama was successful in his quest for the presidency).
I think we can relate that general concept to religion as well, and it's why we so often see christian posters on here telling us who is a "real christian". They can only see one type -- their type -- as being a "real christian".
I'm hoping you knew these black men very well. Otherwise, that doesn't seem like a question a normal person would ask.
Are you asking these men in person or are you yelling your question out your car window at a traffic light?
Interesting. Hadn't heard that definition before. I'm more familiar with this one from the dictionary...
white noise noun
Definition of white noise
1a: a heterogeneous mixture of sound waves extending over a wide frequency range
— compare PINK NOISE
b: a constant background noise
especially : one that drowns out other sounds
2: meaningless or distracting commotion, hubbub, or chatter
Per the discussion about so many of these comments and threads and no doubt the addition of your definition fits too, ala the many "styles" I was referring to...
Still, just take what you wish, focus on what you will and leave the rest. Simple as that for me anyway...
White noise for me is when a post doesn't have paragraphs or has endless scripture. Lecturing bothers me but I know I do it as well. I don't think most of the posts here are white noise. The main take away for me is different point of views, which helps with my patience, because, as you said, there are different types of "styles". Some styles are challenging
I'm hoping you knew these black men very well. Otherwise, that doesn't seem like a question a normal person would ask.
Are you asking these men in person or are you yelling your question out your car window at a traffic light?
For the most part, these were meetings specifically designed to discuss race relations. And believe me, just as tough and tougher questions were asked of the Whites. That was the purpose...to understand the different ways that race was being looked at by the other group.
For the most part, these were meetings specifically designed to discuss race relations. And believe me, just as tough and tougher questions were asked of the Whites. That was the purpose...to understand the different ways that race was being looked at by the other group.
That actually sounds like a very interesting but possibly uncomfortable experience. Was it uncomfortable?
Why is something considered "personal" somehow to be viewed as unproductive?
How do you distinguish so much these threads are about from what we happen to share as our personal beliefs, opinions and perspectives?
In any case, I think along with much that goes into this sort of dynamic, it is interesting to note what makes a person "tick," when for some it's God and for others it's cars. How we tend to "define" ourselves in these regards and live our life accordingly. Interact with others accordingly. Fascinating differences between us for all variety of very interesting reasons. All that tends to fuel much if not all these threads tend to be about...
Hi LearnMe. Sounds very interesting to me. Count me in. All the topics suggested so far are interesting to me. A discussion like that will stand a much better chance of success if it takes place on a forum that's outside the "sphere" of religion or spirituality. R&S threads routinely go off-topic and become combative.
-----
This seems like this is an appropriate time to mention some of my other topics of interest, in case there are others here who have overlapping interests.
That actually sounds like a very interesting but possibly uncomfortable experience. Was it uncomfortable?
Sometimes it was. But the purpose was to stop saying "We need to have a dialogue" and actually have the dialogue. And incidentally, over 5 meetings we heard not only about the racial concerns of Blacks, but also Muslims and Latinos.
A person can have a personal preference and that can be a fact about that one person. Outside of that one person, of course there are facts that are independent of preferences. But we speculate their meaning, their intentions, their implications until we gather more information.
BTW, I am in agreement with you if that was not clear in this post.
Correct. That comes under the 'Unknown -as yet' category. or at the least the reasonably arguable. Personal preference is, as you say, an empirical fact, but just as art or books are, what they put forward as ideas or viewpoints may reflect personal preferences. And perhaps valid references to empirical truths, given that some still argue a solipsitic universe in which everything seems to be someone's personal opinion, though who that person is is never made clear. It certainly isn't me.I can hardly remember where I put me pipe half the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
You really do have the "patience of a saint" and a true faith in the impossible, but after what I think is about attempt #97 at this point, comes a time...
Thank you but while I think that Tzaph. is a worth debator, I am always thinking of a wider audience, who, taking a break from throwing peanuts and stuffing popcorn, might be seeing an argument for the first time.
I very much enjoy discussions with Trans, and that holds true for many many years over dozens of different threads. I find his discourse to be intelligent, thoughtful, practical, and thorough. He is genuinely interested in the topics and there is a depth to his exploration, posts, and thought process. He really listens. He actually engages in conversation and discussion in more than a superficial or drive-by manner.
Also there are gems that surface with regards to his poetic prose which are just delightful. I particularly like his allusion to quatrains and have been smiling about that for weeks now, and his imagery of a Tolkien Elf bounding up a crumbling staircase (he says it much better) was another recent favorite of mine. I would say he is one of my favorite writers. Even on threads I don't contribute to, i look forward to reading his posts. In a newspaper i would turn to his column first. He's like a favorite columnist you just look forward to what they have to say. about anything really.
he is someone i can honestly say i would enjoy having a cup of tea together. if he lived nearby i would suggest it. if he said no way are you out of your mind, that too would make me smile and i would enjoy his writing just as much. some people you just like hearing how they express themselves, what they think about things, you just take pleasure in their company. I appreciate his thoughtful contributions and engaging conversation over many many years.
and i would spring for the tea. and a scone too. I'm partial to scones.
Thank you I am glad that you like the way I write, even if you may disagree with what i write. I try to be entertaining. I also try to be readable, but that doesn't always work so well, especially if I miss reviewing the typos. I enjoy writing the stuff, too. If I didn't, I probably would have run screaming from the forum, smack out of my mind, long ago.
The point is you use "merely faith" and "faith claim" as a pejorative. When the more accurate terms (and by your own admission just above less confusing) are "views, opinions, beliefs, stance, position, personal preference, interpretation"
and if you are going to use a pejorative for how someone interprets a book then it also applies to how someone interprets a piece of music.
When you say "The things (or experiences) may be real, but the conclusions about them are faith." Again convoluted wording. The conclusions are just that, conclusions, interpretations, opinions, beliefs, views.
For instance let's apply that to a view expressed earlier of that "unless something is a fact then it is not true." Let's say the experience of "facts are true" exists. We agree on that. According to you, the conclusion drawn from "facts are true" that "if it's not a fact then it is not true," that conclusion is according to you faith or merely a faith claim.
it sounds like you are saying any interpretation of personal experience is faith.
if that is the case then it applies to all personal experiences as well including yours
according to you, when someone says their "intuition is unreliable" that is faith.
when phet experienced what the reader told him about the chef in his life, according to you that is faith.
in that example, it is a fact that what the reader told phet was true.
he is the only one who can validate that. you are calling it faith
Faith -claim is certainly not complimentary but a pejorative is (as i recall) undeserved. faith -claims make those claims without adequate or valid evidence.
You are touching on the validity of science and even the 'how do we know what we know?' apologetic. That just has the best track and is the touchstone for what can be credited as the best models for what is True, where Truth exists outside individual preference or beliefs.
You are also touching on a point (covered in the excellent vid on critical thinking '(quaiiasoup - closed mindedness) that we do not require verified evidence before accepting commonplace claims like "I own a dog"(1), or 'my sister's birthday was last week'; it is Extraordinary claims' that require the Extraordinary evidence.
(1) and whether one really owns a dog or whether the dog is free but merely elects to stay around, I'll leave to the philosophers.
Another way to look at it is that facts (things that are external to you) can be tested, opinions and certain types of subjective experiences (stuff that's internal to you/is "in your mind") cannot be.
It seems to me that they can be. At least sometimes. Or at least given degrees of credibility. Someone who claims to have napoleon's chamber pot can be asked to produce it and experts can at least tell whether the claim is credible. Someone who claims that he Was Napoleon in a former life may be asked for evidence like who commanded the artillery at Borodino.
"I forget"
"Napoleon's memory was excellent"
"That was in a former life" (one already sniffs excuses)
"Well then, who commanded the cavalry?"
"Ney". (He did Some research at least)
"Ok we'll try this one.."
Truth will out or at least credibility, in due course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am glad that you like the way I write, even if you may disagree with what i write. I try to be entertaining. I also try to be readable, but that doesn't always work so well, especially if I miss reviewing the typos.
I enjoy writing the stuff, too. If I didn't, I probably would have run screaming from the forum, smack out of my mind, long ago.
