Fnord, you were right on something

Post Reply New Topic

One thing about a free and critical thinker is he not only should be able to dissect other people's arguments but he has to be able to dissect his own arguments and check his own premises and assertions. I did not believe it was possible to be able to derive how society functioned at all.

Fnord, I have to commend for something. I gave you the metaphor about changing a flat tire. You were right I can go look it up. I decided to try it and see what happens. I did this when I programmed and decided to take this concept to medical insurance.


This is what I found. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehealth ... tible.html

Part of my argument is wrong and I was able to counter part of my own argument. I know the basics of how medical insurance works now. I did this with tying a tie as well. The internet and google has made some of this easier actually.

Now I have an idea as to what everyone is talking about. It's so simple. You were right in this case. I can look some of this stuff up with google.

If one member of my set of arguments is faulty then I have to wonder how many members are faulty as well. I think I am going to go outside of the haven and see what I can dig up.

This is good, but take care and don't go nuts over it. I used to date a girl, almost married her, who somehow seemed to bring everything wrong with the world, to include hers, right down on me. I don't exactly have the most positive self-image, so I didn't challenge this idea that I'm the world's worst screw-up. It's when you get sick and tired of something that you decide to act to turn things around, and I figured out that there was no possible way i could be wrong about EVERYTHING. One of my worst fears is being miserable and alone, hence why I tend to cling tightly to the few relationships that I've had. I came the realization that being alone I wouldn't be nearly as miserable as I was staying in the relationship.

In practice, I've figured out I'm right about a great many things, and it's a feeling that comes mostly instinctively. It's just that if I get stuck trying to explain why I'm right, I just haven't really given it that much thought. There's usually a simple reason if you take a little time to examine it and figure it out.

Of course, we aren't all right about everything, either. Taking time to reflect on that can sometimes reveal that we are wrong, and there's nothing "wrong" about coming to terms with that, either. I just think we have a tougher time admitting to it when we are wrong. Perhaps the most liberating part of argumentation is having the honesty to admit our own flaws. You learn a lot that way.

My main flaw is that I overthink and I am an overthinker. I have a tendency to overanalyze things to the point of paralysis. I have always been this way as long as I could remember. Because of this it comes across to some psychiatrists as though I have a touch of schitzoaffective disorder. Maybe I do. I really believe that this may be a seperate disorder from aspergers and may be a mental illness of some kind. I have done some research on this and it is common with NTs as well.

One of the results from overthinking that I have noticed that I do is I tend to make things mutually exclusive and see them as mutually exclusive when they are not. I believe this is why I see contradictions everywhere.

I have to train my mind to put things together in an interrelated whole. Let's think of a fan blade and a fan. When a fan blade is not attached to a fan how many different ways can one rotate it and move it. When it is attached to the fan the functionality of the indivdual fan blade is limited but it works with the fan to produce cool air.

I have to apply this to the abstract realm as well. For example, our rights are inalienable as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. This is where my logic was wrong on the liberty and inalienable thread.

What compounded all of this for me was when I was told in order to get to God one must read the bible and in order to understand the bible one must get to God. I've been wracking my brains on this for 3-4 years and its like a trogan horse I can't understand or get rid of. It is so circular.

It sounds like you are a linear thinker and want to put things in sequence. So thinking of this as a circle is driving you nuts because you want a linear sequence.

Try it this way: two lines. One line is getting to God. The other line is reading the bible. You have spent 3-4 years trying to put those two lines end to end so they form a sequence like this. ----> ----->

But that just won't work and you end up with a maddening circle instead of the linear sequence you want. Since you are (most likely) a linear thinker, imagine the two lines next to each other and converging., like this / \

The line leaning right is getting to God (directions chosen arbitrarily). The line leaning left is reading th bible. If you extend those lines, they eventually converge at understanding the bible and getting to God. You get to God while simultaneously reading the bible. You work on both linear things at the same time and like two convergent lines, they eventually converge.

That's a linear way of looking at it (which it seems you prefer) rather than the maddening circular way.

Last edited by Janissy on 13 Nov 2012, 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It sounds like the futile pursuit of utter balderdash and nonsense.

ruveyn

Well, I pursued the futile pursuit of utter balderdash and nonsense because:

1. love
2. Just because something seems like it is balderdash and nonsense does not mean it is balderdash and nonsense. It could be that one could be looking at this utter balderdash and nonsense wrong. If one looks at it from a different point of view it may not be utter balderdash adnd nonsense.

Indeed, I do.



I would never have thought of it this way. I was looking at it as though there was one underlying axiom when there are two that work together like a well oiled machine. Everything stems from this interrelatedness.




Thank you Janisy. I really appreciate this. I will see if I can apply this model you came up with in other areas. This might help me to understand society a lot better and why I see many supposed contradictions.

Why couldn't my wife explain this to me in depth like you did?



Yes, thank you so much!! !! You are very wonderful. I like to get to A to B to C. What you're telling me is that A consists of {a1, a2}. The members a1 and a2 work together to make up A which leads to B to C. If we didn't group it like this a1 would be on the left and a2 would be on the right and they converge and lead to B to C. Thank you!! ! Thank You!! ! Thank You!! !! !

Using your model with the concept of inalienable rights in which I had problems with seeing contradictions we have the properties of inalienable, liberty and infringement. When it comes to our constitution we have three things that converge. They are inalienable, liberty and non-infringement.

This means we have an inalienable right to liberty as long as we do not infringe upon anyone else's rights. These three concepts are not contradictory but converge together and work together like a well oiled machine am I correct?

Whoa, stop right there...

I don't think God created us to be logical beings if He meant for us to shut our brains down and stop thinking. Consider this: The Bible didn't exist in the Garden of Eden. It didn't exist between the fall of man and the flood. It didn't exist from the flood to Abraham. It didn't exist from Abraham to Joseph and his brother in Egypt, and it didn't exist from the Egyptian captivity until Moses. It was only when God instructed Moses to codify His instruction that Torah was born and it became necessary for a written record to be preserved to sustain a fledgling nation to carry them back to Canaan.

What is the lesson here? Before God instructed His chosen prophet to write down His instructions, God revealed Himself directly to those He knew would carry out His will.

Don't start with the Bible. Start with God. Is there a God? If God exists, what attributes does it make sense that God possesses? What does creation reveal about God? Does it make sense that God is responsible for at least an initial creative act that resulted in what we now know and understand?

If you can establish in your own mind that there even IS a God and the created world reflects its Creator, you're off to a good start. Now you have to get into specifics. If creation and mankind are testaments to God, it follows that someone out there can tell you about God at least in terms of how THEY understand God. I believe that everyone in most every culture at least has some clue about God, something that transcends all religion, faith, and spirituality. We all start from a common tradition. So even though Buddha doesn't have much if anything to do with Jesus, I believe Buddha was still capable of figuring out remarkably similar wisdom. In fact, the ideas of reincarnation of Hinduism/Buddhism, transformational rebirth of the Greeks, and spiritual rebirth leading to divine reconciliation as taught by Jesus all make sense and are reflective of a Divine desire for all mankind to achieve spiritual unity with each other and with a Divine center--even if we all disagree with the extent to which this happens and which god is responsible for it (and Buddhism doesn't assert that there even is such an entity, so basically Man is God). The point is you don't even need the Bible to get here.

The next step is taking what little you can figure out about what people say about God, and narrow it down. What specific claims are being made? What makes the most sense? Classic reincarnation, in my view, is among the least sensible (how do you guarantee that all souls will reach enlightenment? Condemnation of the good to an endless cycle of life/death is cruelty. If you can't figure it out in one lifetime, you forget it, and the next go-round might be actually worse than the one you're in). Plurality doesn't make sense either because gods can disagree and humans are nothing but pawns in a game. If there truly is hope for humanity, it makes sense to follow the will of a single God who can rescue from the weary, sorrowful circle of life and reconcile Himself with humanity when humanity proves unable to reach up to God.

So you have Yahweh of the Jews and Christians, Jesus of the Christians, and Allah/Mohammed of Islam. Personally, Yahweh makes more sense for all people, BUT Judaism only holds out hope for what God WILL do. Christianity places faith in what God has already done. Islam rejects Jesus as Messiah but otherwise approves of Hebrew and Christian basic teachings, BUT paints a picture of Allah as relatively unconcerned with the human creation. So, in my view, the religion of the ancient Israelites is the first choice for how to relate to God, but because of the destruction of the Temple and subsequent displacement of the Jews (throughout their history), it is an impossible religion to follow. Judaism, which grew out of that religion, is for Jews only and a select few dedicated outsiders. So that's not an option for me. Christianity deemphasizes the need for ritual sacrifices and cultural identity and emphasizes the singular sacrifice of the Messiah as sufficient for the salvation of all humanity (not just the Jews).

If, as an example, you can establish that Christianity is worth checking out, THEN you need to start studying the Bible. Note that I said "study" and not just "read." Some concepts can seem really confusing and some acts of God appear to be at odds with God's nature at time. You may find you need help understanding the context of various acts to understand how they fit together, but there might be ONE difficulty in the whole Bible I've ever struggled with...and that ONE difficulty had to do with the identity of one of the Hebrew kings and bears no theological significance whatsoever. I've never been unwilling to discuss things like that that non-Christians don't understand.

Now, in response to it all being "circular..." All reasoning at some point is circular. You can go on and on day after day with logical proofs for God's existence against stubborn counterarguments. Neither side will solve anything, no well-informed person is going to get converted, and there is no magic bullet that's going to reveal God in all His glory or destroy Him. And even if there was, it won't force the closed-minded to start believing or cause the believer to suspend belief. Maybe doubt a little, but not give up on faith. The reason why this happens is because the believer has already established in his mind that God exists, and nothing can change that. The non-believing atheist (as an example) has already made up his mind God does not exist--and despite all his calls for evidence, no amount of evidence even if produced will ever be convincing.

This is because any belief system, whether it involves the existence or absence of God, depends on axiomatic articles of faith. You cannot have science without logic, for instance. But at the same time, you cannot use science to prove logic. Scientists ASSUME logical thinking works to aid them in achieving their goals. Therefore, logic is axiomatic to scientific reasoning. Likewise, the existence of God is axiomatic to the spiritual or religious. To accept that God exists, one must understand God as a transcendent entity. It then becomes the non-believer's burden of proof to convince the faithful that there is no God and provide evidence to that effect. If God is a transcendent, spiritual being, it is physically impossible to do this. Any perfectly logical argument that a believer makes that starts with "no God" and attempts to prove "God" is doomed to fail. Why? Because non-believers will drag believers down to their level and beat them with experience. However, that too is a weak argument because it is based on circular reasoning, i.e. assuming what one is trying to prove--that is, "no God." The success/failure, strength/weakness of any argument depends on its presuppositions. So while Christianity depends on faith (that God exists, that God did what He said He'd do), so does science (faith in the scientific method, logic, etc.) despite the fact many don't like to admit it. It all reduces to circular reasoning, and what you ultimately put your faith in will depend on the level of circularity you can accept, and THAT will be determined by your presuppositions.

Hope that helps!

A Gift, A Curse
There is no gift in life that cannot also be a curse. Even Good health can go to ruin if you don't know what to do with it. Even a very brilliant mind can be a curse. The thing with being an overthinker is knowing its advantages and disadvantages. Once you know that, go hard and enjoy in full the advantages, and just try to curtail or minimize its disadvantages to a manageable or tolerable level.


Context Blindness.
I think what you might suffer from is context blindness. You have pristine logic that requires everything to fit logically together. What you need now are various context's that are presented to you by various bright minds. Entertain them, suspend your logic for a moment and just pretend for fun that the world as they describe is just so, and does not need any proofs. If that exercise is too looney, try to find the intentions of the authors, and understand the intended purposes of what it is you are trying to understand. Also, if it has evolved into something different today then it was at its inception, understand why people's views changed over time, and be prepared to change your perception as the data comes in.


To get to God, you can take two ways:

Become well versed in the Book Of God's Words
Become well versed in the Book Of God's Works

You can become well versed in the book of Gods words by studying first the old testament, and if your heart desires, the new testament, the additions from mormonism, and what Islam has lent to the conversation as well. By studying the book of Gods words, it leads to an understanding of the nature of God, and gives you an instructional manuel on how to live as God intends you to. So it helps to appeal to a class of interpreters who can and have interpreted those words so that you understand them in the light that they were intended to be seen in. Commentary on the text can help you with that. If you wish to understand the old testament, I highly suggest you get the JPS commentaries on the various books of the Torah. Genesis is a great place to start, and Nahum Sarna is one of the premier experts on the subject and writes a very powerful explanation of the text.

You can become well versed in the book of Gods works by studying nature. Specifically something that'll allow you deconstruct the natural world, and the intelligence built into it. So it helps to appeal to a class of interpreters who can and have interpreted these works so that you understand them deeper. The universe is scripted in numbers, so, physicists and chemists who can speak about the advances and discoveries of the natural world can shed some light on the issue.

I would suggest first the first one. The second one takes way longer and requires so much extra work in philosophy that it may be something you arrive at later in your life.

Are you sure you're not a Southern Baptist? We could use more people like you!

Anyway...mostly agree here. Good advice. I'm somewhat incredulous on the writers of the Koran and the LDS writings, so I'm not sure I could honestly and wholeheartedly recommend those for the purposes we're talking about here. To examine the claims of those religions, yes, but I'm skeptical in terms of seeking spiritual truth. But rather than go on and on about it, it might be best for cubedemon to investigate the caveats for himself. It's good to be open-minded. I just don't think we need to be so open-minded that our heads explode!

Well I appreciate that a lot. There is no greater compliment that a religious person can get then someone else possibly mistaking them for one of their own. It is also proof that you and I share the same God despite our differences, and that I don't share the same God with fellow Jews who are progressively on the reform end, despite my theological similarities with them. The question that determines the whether we worship the same God is: What does this God demand of you, and I have a hunch we both have a very similar position(s) on what that is.

I entertain every line of thought, I wouldn't know the strength of my arguments or what Judaism has to offer the world if I had nothing to contrast it with. And as Jews, we are to remain open minded to intellectual arguments that may come from any source, as we believe that we are not the only people who God might have spoken to, and, non-Jews have just as much to add to the conversation, irrespective of their religion, or the lack thereof. The old testament is my spiritual anchor, so I am free to entertain logically everything in life. I don't have to find fullfillment in any of them because the purpose in life as Judaism sees it is to enjoy it, and many of these eastern religions think its a mitzvah to put up with suffering. We Jews don't. It's probably why we founded marxism and every other ism, but that's another discussion.