philosiphy and its quierys
- Thread starter drewdunnrespect
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Emotional intelligence maybe thought of as the ability to recognise, label, use, generate and braodcast as well as receive emotional signals (or wavelenghts).
Some folk are more emotionally intelligent than others, by natural ability and learned ability.
'Getting to know' someone is about learning their individual and unique emotional, spiritual and social identity. By getting to know them and developing ones understanding of them you can begin to test your understanding by second guessing or predicting their responses.
For a simple example, if one were to do the Independant crossword one would learn how the author thinks by how they set the clues for the correct answer. The more you do his or her crossword the easier it will become.
If you then swop to the Gaurdian you will be learning a new persons mind set and will find the puzzle more challenging.
As for question of being; I have hinted at that by including the word spiritual in this post. In order for us to be sentient being we have to acknowledge that our spirit is graeter than the parts that create it. Biophysics theorise we exist in the form of strange loops, chemical signatures which exist in the brain. Both our own and those who know us.
There fore to exist sentiently there exists a number of strange loops which amounts to a total greater than our individual biophysics could create.
The happy part to this is that with all those we converse with a little peice of us exists within them.
Some folk are more emotionally intelligent than others, by natural ability and learned ability.
'Getting to know' someone is about learning their individual and unique emotional, spiritual and social identity. By getting to know them and developing ones understanding of them you can begin to test your understanding by second guessing or predicting their responses.
For a simple example, if one were to do the Independant crossword one would learn how the author thinks by how they set the clues for the correct answer. The more you do his or her crossword the easier it will become.
If you then swop to the Gaurdian you will be learning a new persons mind set and will find the puzzle more challenging.
As for question of being; I have hinted at that by including the word spiritual in this post. In order for us to be sentient being we have to acknowledge that our spirit is graeter than the parts that create it. Biophysics theorise we exist in the form of strange loops, chemical signatures which exist in the brain. Both our own and those who know us.
There fore to exist sentiently there exists a number of strange loops which amounts to a total greater than our individual biophysics could create.
The happy part to this is that with all those we converse with a little peice of us exists within them.
In my opinion the primary prerequisite of something being considered a 'being' is the ability to question. Question the way things are, ask ultimate questions (ie Why are we here?) and so on. The being thinks empirically (some more than others) and evolves. The mental and intellectual abilities of the being are in my opinion evolved, they have developed over time rather than appeared.
In differentiating person from animal, I disagree hugely that humans are just animals. Humans can love truly, create wonderful masterpieces of art from nothing other than their own imagination. Humans can imagine a better world and work towards it. The price of course being that humans feel jealousy, humans destroy, and humans can be desperately unhappy to the point where they can die due to it. Cruelty and kindness are inventions of humanity. Humans are not inherently superior to animals but we are not just animals.
I think that the soul is feeling. It is the gut instinct, the butterflies in the stomach and the sinking feeling. It is what has faith without being burdened by empirical thinking. I do think that it is something that evolved into humanity (ie I don't think that it is inherent in all living things) but I don't think that the soul has changed over time, I think that it is basically constant. The only thing that changes is how the 'being' thinks about the soul.
I think that people tend to rely on one more than the other. Someone who relies primarily on the reasoning of the being may have to accept that there is no greater plan and no shangri-la, or resort to nihilism and that is perhaps why a crisis of faith (such as the very crisis I am in the middle of) is such a crisis to mind, body and soul.
I think that the soul and being need each other. I know, though, that I would rather be lacking in empirical thought than soulless, as crushing as having a soul can be.
In differentiating person from animal, I disagree hugely that humans are just animals. Humans can love truly, create wonderful masterpieces of art from nothing other than their own imagination. Humans can imagine a better world and work towards it. The price of course being that humans feel jealousy, humans destroy, and humans can be desperately unhappy to the point where they can die due to it. Cruelty and kindness are inventions of humanity. Humans are not inherently superior to animals but we are not just animals.
I think that the soul is feeling. It is the gut instinct, the butterflies in the stomach and the sinking feeling. It is what has faith without being burdened by empirical thinking. I do think that it is something that evolved into humanity (ie I don't think that it is inherent in all living things) but I don't think that the soul has changed over time, I think that it is basically constant. The only thing that changes is how the 'being' thinks about the soul.
I think that people tend to rely on one more than the other. Someone who relies primarily on the reasoning of the being may have to accept that there is no greater plan and no shangri-la, or resort to nihilism and that is perhaps why a crisis of faith (such as the very crisis I am in the middle of) is such a crisis to mind, body and soul.
I think that the soul and being need each other. I know, though, that I would rather be lacking in empirical thought than soulless, as crushing as having a soul can be.
Internal conflict?
"Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy."
Joseph Campbell
oops, right guy, wrong thread.
''Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning. "
I can't recall the relevant quote but there's one in his work somewhere.
bravo4 well yes i agree internal conflict but if thats the case define the difference cos yes if she is in denile there would be internal conflict or would there?
2nd wow drew, what a queastion. Denial is there to mask internal conflict... I really don't know.
I can not provide you with a coherent answer because I really doubt there could be such a thing (certainly not from me on a postcard). I do know that thinking too much will eventually make my head pop. I could sit around a fire and have a chat but trying to write about this kind of thing, it would take me a year and still not come out right. And by then I might have changed my mind.
"Ya gotta stay flexible, men"
SFC J.T.H.
wise man
I do think there is a difference between soul and being and I also think they are just words that fall well short of whatever is really going on. Red isn't a color, it's a word we use to relate to and describe what our senses observe. Being and soul have alot to relate and describe as words. And since I think there is a difference, I believe that gets me out of answering any of the following questions from your OP.
and boy am I sorry I stepped into this one
where's that wine...
my browser is no longer supported, sweet.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A6C5B25CD0D32C1C
It's been a long time since I've seen this program but I really think it of possible interest to you, ddr.
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive..."
Joseph Campell
who will give you better answers than I
http://www.qcc.mass.edu/pconnell/joec.html
I can not provide you with a coherent answer because I really doubt there could be such a thing (certainly not from me on a postcard). I do know that thinking too much will eventually make my head pop. I could sit around a fire and have a chat but trying to write about this kind of thing, it would take me a year and still not come out right. And by then I might have changed my mind.
"Ya gotta stay flexible, men"
SFC J.T.H.
wise man
I do think there is a difference between soul and being and I also think they are just words that fall well short of whatever is really going on. Red isn't a color, it's a word we use to relate to and describe what our senses observe. Being and soul have alot to relate and describe as words. And since I think there is a difference, I believe that gets me out of answering any of the following questions from your OP.
and boy am I sorry I stepped into this one
where's that wine...
my browser is no longer supported, sweet.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A6C5B25CD0D32C1C
It's been a long time since I've seen this program but I really think it of possible interest to you, ddr.
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive..."
Joseph Campell
who will give you better answers than I
http://www.qcc.mass.edu/pconnell/joec.html
bravo 4 thanks for being honest with it and respect to the fact you cant answer it and also thanks for the links i will have a look as soon as i am sober/not recovering from a heavy night on the jack daniels
To me, what you call "soul" is the name given to the feelings engendered in us by our endocrine system. All of us, religious or atheist, feel the same responses to our experiences but we assign different causations to those feelings.
Crises of faith are no laughing matter, stick with it, I hope you find the answer that suits you.
Quite. We are evolved to the same degree as any other living animal. There is no peak to which we aspire or goal whose attainment we must achieve. Survival and proliferation of the genes is the name of the game. We are machines used to this end. All organisms employ different methods. Some remain static and let food and mates come to them we are mobile and can secure resources and mates that way. In fact, there are many other organisms which outnumber us and could therefore claim to be more highly evolved and successful. Most people think they understand evolution via natural selection and random mutation however in reality most do not. It is a beautifully simple theory (in the scientific sense, not the colloquial) however it has extremely complicated repercussions. Love, art, altruism etc are all facets of our evolution and have been necessary to the survival of our species. I am a materialist and determinist and yet am capable of appreciating music and loving my son etc. You may say that this is because I have a soul though I deny it. I say that evidence is key and that anything I can't explain in material terms benefits nothing from being ascribed to soul. There is no evidence or even coherent theory of what a soul might be or where it might be located. It also hints at the idea that we are special (WE ARE ABSOLUTELY "JUST ANIMALS" Draven (sorry, was I shouting?)) and the religious nonsense that follows. Soul, religion and faith. They explain nothing anymore. We can answer properly all the things they claimed to and were wrong about (and without persecuting and torturing people who point out our inconsistencies). It all belongs to the fearful infancy of our species when we didn't understand the thunder and lightning etc. The only way to answer those questions to which we have no answers (and there are more everyday) is to use empirical evaluation and rationalism. Science is about falsifiability and not dogma. A theory is only true so far as it has not yet been proven false however the time may come when it will be and so nothing in science is certain forever. Ascribing to spiritual that which we do not understand simply says don't bother investigating as it's ineffable/holy etc. Phew, breathe.
Oh, p.s. Front Room Woodlander, are you talking about memes? Whether you are or not I cannot follow your logic. I wonder whether you could expand those ideas. You seem to be asserting that lots of theorised loops (I'm assuming at the quantum level) equals a soul being more than the sum of it's parts? This makes no sense to me. A body is made of atoms yet no more or less than it needs to make it and still call it a body (leaving aside entirely any critique of the loops idea).
Fun topic this.
Well, no. There is a considerable difference between humans and other animals. I don't disagree that humans are animals, but I certainly disagree that humans are the same as other animals. If you can't recognize the difference in our society, culture, arts, sciences, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, politics, et cetera (not quite ad infinitum but for a while at least) then I think that you're not paying attention! Whether you think these things make us better or worse than animals is ultimately irrelevant; we are still not 'just animals'. We have a planet, biological functions and some instincts in common but very little more. It doesn't mean that we have a divine gift, nor does it mean that nothing in the universe will ever compare to our blinding brilliance. Just means we're different.
I think you're more 'being' orientated by my definition yes?
Interestingly I wrote not that long ago a short essay/article regarding the differences between Atheism, Agnostic Atheism, Agnostic Theism and Theism. Religion isn't inherently bad and science isn't inherently good; dogmas of course do exist in science and you'll find quite a few scientists these days who set out to prove or justify X rather than find the truth. Insisting that religion is nonsense/there is no possibility of a deity/etc is no more logical or empirical than insisting that there is.
Science doesn't answer everything, and really I don't see why it should. That's why questions such as "Why are we here?" "Is there a god?" and "What happens when we die?" are ultimate questions rather than stupid questions.
For the record, I am not that religious and the conclusion to which the aforementioned article came is that Atheism is the Religion of Postmodernism.
Thank you!BorderReiver said:
I agree to a point. Perhaps I didn't explain myself particularly well; I agree that we all feel the same basic things, and I don't think that empirical/logical thinkers are without feeling. But the reactions/solutions/post-feeling-feelings do tend to depend more on what you hold in greater regard. For example my girlfriend left me the week before last; my friend, a particularly empirical thinker, says that nothing lasts forever/I just have to move on/etc. I, on the other hand, had more faith in that relationship than anything else; hence the only thing that provided me with any solace was the thought that it was salvageable. Naturally if I thought like her I would still be devastated, though I think I would have been better prepared for it. I'm not really oozing luculence at the moment, so if that makes no sense, just ignore me!
PS: I should have also mentioned that I think people are effectively on a sliding scale between soul and being, rather than one or the other. Does that explain my thoughts any better?
Pete
Last edited:
Science seeks for the truth as best it can.
"Why are we here?" We are here, there does not have to be a "reason".
"Is there a god?" We don't and can't know but due to the total lack of any evidence for a god, the safe assumption is no.
"What happens when we die?" We decay and are recycled.
Atheism cannot be regarded as a religion. There is no central dogma, no handbook, no faith, no belief. Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
Similar threads
