I would think that this is true of everyone; we are governed by our interests, for better or for worse, and we have a marked tendency to cater to them.
Yes, and the higher a tower stands, the greater the shadow it casts.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Faith is belief without reason, which must be blind.
I disagree. I think faith is described much more aptly as belief without certainty. Any given belief will have a particular level of uncertainty that can be assigned to its possibility of truthfulness . . . the closer a belief comes to being certainly true, the less faith is required to except it. But beliefs based on a posteriori conclusion all have some degree of uncertainty to them, and so require at least some degree of faith to accept. In other words, with the exception of a small number of things, even extremely transparent observations require faith to accept. Reason and faith do not oppose each other.
Quote from god of cyanide »
your first point - while i don't necessarily disagree, belief in reality generally works out for people fairly well. not believing in the train coming right for you as you stand on the railroad tracks doesn't stop you from being splattered all over the place... you know? (i'm being both literal and metaphorical here, just to be clear.)
Placing trust in sensory observations has a high degree of pragmatic value, because the chance of one's senses being pronouncedly unreliable is relatively small, and the benefit gained from doing so is inarguably worthwhile. So, it's useful for us to pretend that we can absolutely trust them. This pretense is what is called a factive attitude.
Quote from Senori »
I would, firstly, argue that faith is not at all blind; as Aquinas said, "a man would not believe unless he saw the things he had to believe, either by the evidence of miracles or of something similar."
Second, the scientific method as a whole is empirical and not at all reliant on faith, but its basic tenets most certainly are.
Definitely.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Edit: My brain is smashed. I'm revving the engine to the point of overheating, but the wheels just aren't turning. I feel like a retard who knows nothing besides just how retarded he is.
Is there something in particular that's troubling you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I disagree. I think faith is described much more aptly as belief without certainty. Any given belief will have a particular level of uncertainty that can be assigned to its possibility of truthfulness . . . the closer a belief comes to being certainly true, the less faith is required to except it. But beliefs based on a posteriori conclusion all have some degree of uncertainty to them, and so require at least some degree of faith to accept. In other words, with the exception of a small number of things, even extremely transparent observations require faith to accept. Reason and faith do not oppose each other.
This is not the way "faith" is used in reference to religion; I don't see why your definition is appropriate.
Is there something in particular that's troubling you?
blargh I'm making ridiculous blunders and questioning myself and my future.
I was listening to it on C-SPAN in the background, but his voice was such a monotone that I drifted off to my other project.
I understand the major point to be sending something like 17,000 more troops to Iraq, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This is not the way "faith" is used in reference to religion; I don't see why your definition is appropriate.
Well . . . "faith" can have a number of subtle undertones. A common connotation is acceptance of an idea or premise (presumably without conclusive evidence necessitating it). However, in this case it doesn't ever become necessary for having faith to involve it being "without" reason, or eschewing reason in some way.
Another connotation is a kind of attitude that doesn't necesarily have to do with accepting an idea or something's existence . . . as Stan once put it, faith in someone or something can be thought of as a "good feeling" about that person or thing, such as putting your faith in a company or an individual. In this case, "faith" is roughly analogous to "trust."
I don't really know exactly what you mean by faith in a religious sense. No part of religious faith makes it needful that one's belief be unreasonable, rather that it, unlike rational empiricism, does not rely totally on reason.
Perhaps what you mean is that faith or faithfulness is chiefly a function of intuition rather than one of reason, which I'd say is probably correct. Nonetheless, I disagree that this means that faith is by definition blind. I think that asks too much of the word "blind." "Blind faith" implicates many things, including devotion to an ideal which one does not really comprehend, or totally groundless devotion. I argue that neither of these are necessary aspects of a working definition of faith, but distinct qualifiers.
Anyway, there was a neat thread about all of this here.
How, exactly, do you see "faith" being connoted in a religious context?
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
blargh I'm making ridiculous blunders and questioning myself and my future.
Some burdens are lighter if you share them.
Quote from ButteBlues »
So, uh, thoughts on Bush's public address on Iraq? I missed it, myself, and was hoping to get some evaluations and synopses of it.
As I don't watch TV, I don't even know what it's about. Something unfortunate, I imagine . . .
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I think his misogyny extends beyond his vocabulary . . .
Why of course, Mamelon; though, duly note that he merely conceptualized misogyny, and what-have-you, and Freud, in life, championed for women's liberties and sexual freedom (vide: Civilized Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness); however, it is also Freud who coined oh so many misogynistic terms - one such being "***** envy" - which, in rerum natura, has led to his criticism by many pundits, as these terms are perceived to have affected the course of history for the worse for women, by instigating sexist notions. Also, he is to be noted for expressing the "woman" as a "mutilated male", who was "deformed" (for lacking a certain organ), and being the "weaker sex {sic}"; this view was once socially acceptable and led to discrimination against women, thus contributing to the dissuasion, however obliquely, towards women undertaking higher education, so as to prepare women for fields which were dominated by males.
Also, as for non-misogynistic, psychoanalyst terms, they have been debunked, too; among these terms, and/or concepts include the Oedipus/Electra complex/conflict, infantile sexuality, and the ever so misconstrued anal retentiveness.
Quote from Mamelon »
That's fine. I share my real name with people as kind of an act of confidence . . . I don't think I've ever revealed it using these boards or PMs as a medium.
I'm probably never going to post in the First Name thread, or whatever it is called.
No matter, Mamelon; I understand you and your motives in doing so.
I have yet to post in said "First Name" thread, but I feel that I have already disclosed far too much, far too suddenly, far too prematurely.
Actually, now that I think of it, not such a surprise. You did say you like all things involving edification and enculturation. The surprise probably arises from the realization that this clan has only recently resurfaced.
This quote is rather aptly used in describing this clique of sages, "this is the greatest collection of intelligence in one place since Thomas Jefferson sat in this room."
Like all things? Well, I tend to have a greater interest in the natural sciences, applied sciences, and all that it pertains; psychology, philosophy and ethics, ethnology, social sciences, literature, the fine arts, and what this clan is for are among the interest me, but I have yet to develop a great understanding of such fields.
I hope to learn a substantial amount of knowledge and wisdom from this clan.
Physics is sligthly over my head, I think. I'm better at all that soft stuff, like literature and psychology and so on.
A lot of my edification is self-edification. So I'm a bit of a bumpkin when it comes to academics.
Self-edification is also known as autodidacticism; it's quite effective, in my opinion, but I have yet to ever try this mode of learning, save in my studies in music. I am far from being an automath, but, again, autodidacticism can be defined simply as self-studying.
Quote from Mamelon »
Quote from MM »
Maybe we should converse over another channel, Mamelon.
Like . . telepathy?
Preternatural acquisition of thoughts; a form of ESP; passé-thought-transference? By all means, go ahead, but I doubt that this parapsychological phenomenon effects.
Quote from ButteBlues »
So, uh, thoughts on Bush's public address on Iraq? I missed it, myself, and was hoping to get some evaluations and synopses of it.
Hey BB.
If I can find the transcript on the Net, I'll try to probe into it; otherwise, I shan't be able to fashion a précis from it, as I, unfortunately, do not live in the great States.
I shall do my best.
Quote from Mamelon »
Anyway, there was a neat thread about all of this here.
Well, brilliant; finally, I can make some sense of Mr. Bush's communiqué.
Thank you, Mamelon.
I don't disagree that belief in reality is essential to functioning society; I simply deny that it can be proven, and therefore requires a measure of faith.
understood; however, that measure of faith, you must admit, is pretty infinitesimal...
There is a certain argument that belief in God is a miracle in itself, of course.
yeah, some of it comes sarcastically from cynical atheists such as myself
I disagree. I think faith is described much more aptly as belief without certainty. Any given belief will have a particular level of uncertainty that can be assigned to its possibility of truthfulness . . . the closer a belief comes to being certainly true, the less faith is required to except it. But beliefs based on a posteriori conclusion all have some degree of uncertainty to them, and so require at least some degree of faith to accept. In other words, with the exception of a small number of things, even extremely transparent observations require faith to accept. Reason and faith do not oppose each other.
some interpretations of faith can be a profound opponent of reason.
Placing trust in sensory observations has a high degree of pragmatic value, because the chance of one's senses being pronouncedly unreliable is relatively small, and the benefit gained from doing so is inarguably worthwhile. So, it's useful for us to pretend that we can absolutely trust them. This pretense is what is called a factive attitude.
if a person cannot trust his own senses, he will not be long for this world. it is crucial to survival to be able to trust what you sense, in any sense (hmm...) of the word.
So, uh, thoughts on Bush's public address on Iraq? I missed it, myself, and was hoping to get some evaluations and synopses of it.
i missed it as well; i was working with a student. his parents saw it, and thought it was more of the same bush hyperbole. i'm certain to be analyzing it for my show tomorrow night, so i'll have more to say at that point.
the media spin, though, so far intrigues me. bush admits mistakes? i'm sort of eager to read it and see if it's true.
understood; however, that measure of faith, you must admit, is pretty infinitesimal...
It could be next to nothing and still be relevant to the initial point.
yeah, some of it comes sarcastically from cynical atheists such as myself
The mysteries know no bounds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
How, exactly, do you see "faith" being connoted in a religious context?
As I said, belief which is not grounded in reason.
At this moment I feel sick, and don't particularly feel like typing much more.
Some burdens are lighter if you share them.
Trying to impress a teacher and screwing something basic up, for one. Feeling like a Watson in stark contrast to Holmes, or like Eddie Willers left behind to die in the middle of the desert, for another.
Oh. I wonder why they decided to call it "Magic Realism"?
Oh, well, that's where it's all leading. There's a progression through Gothic to the Fantastic to the Neo-Fantastic to Fantasy to Magic Realism. It's a notoriously difficult genre to pin down, as it covers so much and is fluid. I'd say more ink has been spilled over the subject in the 20th century than on any other genre of literature.
For a second I almost believed that you were being taught actual magic. As in, spells (not sleight of hand).
No such luck, I'm afraid.
*gasp* That sounds exactly like my sort of thing. Beautiful? Thought-provoking? Delicate? Don't exist? All of my favorite descriptors for a thing or person!
I think one reason I have an affinity for graphic novels is because I get this sensory satisfaction from looking at hand-drawn art . . . especially of human beings, faces and hands and so on. Have you ever found something that was just unusually fulfilling and relaxing in an almost sensual way?
Grace Kelly.
I am not joking. Also, John Singer Sargent's Triumph of Religion, and virtually anything by Caravaggio, Bernini or Dore.
I just respond that way to images. And anything written or drawn by hand . . . for instance, I consider a note written by hand (as opposed to typed) to be quite intimate and personal . . . In addition, I typically think in images or colors rather than sentences, so maybe it's more "my language," despite my general love of writing.
I know people like you. My father, actually, is one of them. He was surprised recently to learn that not everyone was like this, in fact, so he has since become more sympathetic with those who don't follow his meaning as quickly as he might like them to.
Being able to imbue a simple blotch of mental colour with relevant meaning and memory is a wonderful ability to have.
For my own part, I think in tropes, if you can imagine such a thing. I guess more accurately it could be described in phrases or concepts. I remember lines from poems or books or songs and relate them to things that are important. Yeats' majestic phrase, "a terrible beauty is born" has always had great significance to me for reasons I can not adequately express, and Tennyson has been a gold mine of mnemonic emotionalizers. "Then once by man and angels to be seen, in roaring he shall rise and on the surface die." Just thinking that line - just thinking it to myself - makes me feel better when things are rough. Or Browning's conclusion to "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came."
I often find myself running over these lines in my head, over and over again, as a sort of unconscious background to thinking about other things. It's like white noise.
Well you pose some material already . . . I've been trying to get myself back into fictional prose, because that is what I like to write, but I like non-fantastic ("mundane") work as well . . .
Here are ten books you should look into (that is, into which you should look; why lower the tone, right?):
1. Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory
2. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Demons
3. Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary
4. G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday
5. C.S. Forester's Brown on Resolution and/or Death to the French
6. Francois Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel
7. Samuel Johnson's Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia
8. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto
9. Max Beerbohm's Zuleika Dobson
10. Robertson Davies' The Rebel Angels
I could also recommend at least ten collections of essays on all topics under the sun, but I think this will start you off well.
Well, see, I think it's a pretty admirable goal. My mother used to always tell me I should be a professor, and I always assumed she was teasing. However, it sounds like it'd a killer job.
Oh, for sure. In some regards it would be like a scam. I'd be getting paid, basically, to do paperwork. Everything else is stuff I'd do for free.
I don't know much about you in depth, but I know a few things about both English and about instruction, and you seem to be just the sort of fellow who'd thrive at that. Not that you didn't already realize this.
Why thank you. I sure hope the inevitable batch of horrified first-year students feels the same way. I actually alternate between pitying my future students and wishing I was them.
If you had to make a distinction, would you say that you are predominantly a "thinker" (your chief style of processing ideas is rationalistic) or "feeler" (style is oriented toward values and interpersonal experience)? I couldn't tell.
I imagine making use of both such faculties would be good for teaching.
I honestly don't know. While I am pretty adamant that how I feel about things has no bearing on their reality, I am certainly not going to exalt reason to heights she can't bear. I try to synthesize the two as best I can, but as to which of them dominates, I just couldn't say.
I especially like the sound of Flannery O'Connor . . . I have a roommate who might love that.
Well, be sure to check her out. She's one of the grand dames of Southern Gothic, along with Eudora Welty, among others. I may have misspelled Welty, but I don't care.
I object to mornings a lot less than I once did . . . usually it the first few hours of work during which I am most uncomfortable with being alive. My favorite time of day, conversely, is when I am lying in bed and waiting for sleep to take me. Sometimes it takes a while, but I know it will come and in the meantime, I am perfectly safe. To me, that's peace.
The runner-up would probably be the moment I get home from work.
Those are good times too, though I really hate coming home late and realizing that I have little to no time for idleness.
Tea. All kinds of tea.
That's the spirit! I'm a Darjeeling man myself.
I sit amongst about a dozen people nearby me at work . . . we often sit and chat during the idle times of day. I will usually listen to the ladies around me talking about their lives, including their children, their financial problems, their grievances and their pleasures, and I feel strangely as if it's all worth it. It's maybe a little inappropriate, because many times they don't talk about positive things, and smiling at that seems uncondign . . . but I like knowing things about other people. Not dirt or secrets, really, but simple, ordinary things.
It grants the feeling of understanding them, if only slightly and superficially, and it's a pretty thorough way to sort of "live through them," though not in any malicious sense. However, I often worry that, when I do the sort of thing you describe, I'm essentially treating those around me as walking fictions.
I've also come to appreciate sunlight. Being of fair complexion I used to avoid it, but now I find it very welcome. Plus, when it's out the sky becomes my favorite shade of blue.
I'm beginning to appreciate more things I typically take for granted, such as the family members I see every day. Cooking (and act which I love). Various scents, of which I have wide access thanks to this little website that sells scented oils. And the sensations of blankets, sheets, and new clothes.
I like a good granite sky, myself, with a most fulsome menace bearing down. It's beautiful.
And - this may strike you as perverse - the pain of everyday life. Sometimes one witnesses oneself as if from outside, and you see all the links you have between all those others that pass by quite vividly . . . at least at first, we see others as objects, as things that float around before our senses but that don't touch us. On occasion, one connects subject and object. You might see a poor soul whom you pity or someone grand whom you admire . . . it always feels, to me, like it eventually goes deeper than that. Without making qualifying judgments, there's just something simple and entrancing about these imperfect, small, ugly, and beautiful people. Maybe they're closer than it looks? Maybe not? Sometimes I see myself as I see them, or I see them as I see myself, and everything makes sense for a while.
That's not perverse. The man of genius as far back as Plato has recognized the value of the tragic, and the tragic of the mundane can often be the most powerful thing of all. I am myself grossly addicted to epic tragedy, however, and most any and all cathartic experience. I often wonder if this is morbid, in some way, to delight so in seeing heroes die, but then I think to myself that, were I such a man as I had seen go down in a hail of bullets or beneath a traitor's sword or at the heart of an atom bomb (or whatever), the very least I would have wanted in return would be for someone to look on with tears in their eyes and say, "that was freaking awesome."
I'm not sure what I'm really saying anymore. I think I get a little incoherent as the night deepens . . . hopefully you get the idea.
What about you?
I do get the idea, and I also get incoherent as the night deepens, though in my case this means it's time to start writing rather than stop, at least if I'm working creatively. I tend to "go nuts," at that point, and take stuff in directions I might otherwise have neglected.
Oh, I agree. To me, I often feel like like if I were to admit that suicide were appropriate for me, in an oblique way I'd be approving of others ending their lives because they'll never be just right. That's slightly . . . political, I guess, but that's how it feels. I dislike that. I think everyone both deserves and needs to make use of the lives they have, and appreciate themselves for real (as oposed to appreciating simple self-image). Including me.
I think that's a pretty fair way to look at it. Life is nothing else if not an extravagant present, and it does not do to be such a selfish bastard as to toss it away because it does not suit every one of your minute fancies. Chesterton once suggested that we should not look a gift universe in the mouth, and it would seem to be useful advice.
I often feel that when I am angry, it's like I'm wearing a shade over my eyes, and when I start to see the person again, my anger weakens. It's hard to explain. It's gotten harder and harder to hold any kind of grudge as time goes on. I'm not complaining, to be sure.
When others are angry at me . . . I find it difficult not to take that extremely seriously. Maybe it frightens me in a way. Maybe I don't want to be seen through a shade?
It's hard to say, or, at least, hard for me to say. Real, manifested anger is not something with which I have much experience beyond a few isolated occasions. I often worry that I care too little about things that ought, rather, to enrage me, in fact. I don't get angry with people so much as I get very tired, and when I get very tired I just don't want to deal with them. This happens so rarely, however, that I never know how to deal with it usefully when it crops up, and find myself wallowing in indecision and frustration. I'd like to say that things are different when the tables are turned, but I can not recall any examples of people being angry at me in recent memory. This, too, worries me, for I feel as though I'm not being "real" enough. I've never gotten into a fight with anyone, either, though not for a lack of fortitude. It's just never come up. This unsettles me, somehow.
You know, that's a really good way of putting it. I can relate to this so well I almost want to laugh. It seems like discovering this should be a simple matter. Apparently, it isn't, because I'm still sitting here, too.
What has been easier for me has been to decide what I need. In other words, what's good for me. What's pressing. External stress forces action, I suppose. There's still that big, overhanging ambiguity . . . I often feel like I'm just taking the paths of least resistance.
I worry about that too, in fact, and the "unqualified success" that my endeavours have met scares the crap out of me. What if I'm destined to follow this path all the way up to the door of what I want, but no further? What if there is no pot of gold for me? What if I'm forced to retreat forever, unskilled, unneeded, unfocused? That's a terrifying thought. I would surely die.
I remember one guy said it's like learning to swim. You have to give up some control.
Incidentally, swimming isn't quite so scary once you get the feel for it. Maybe life is similar.
Oh, very likely. I vacillate between wanting it in its own right, and being scared away from the alternative by the examples of people like Nietzsche and Sartre.
Well. I can understand your ealier comment, then. That ought to be one hell of a thesis.
Well, maybe. I have to focus on something smaller, so I'm demonstrating the manner in which Chesterton predates and is sympathetic to both post-colonial theory and certain aspects of cultural theory by a matter of over fifty years. Should be popular, if it's plausible. I think it is, but we'll see.
See, I've always believed that writers can make a big imprint in others' lives. Maybe this is why I have so long wanted to be one?
It's possible. I certainly think they make a bigger imprint in people's lives than painters, for example, who occasionally explode with majesty but are often just mundane. This sad state of affairs is not true of everyone (like Caravaggio, who brought a monstrous glory to everything he touched), but it's true enough of most of them. Nothing sticks in the craw like a good turn of phrase, though.
It is. It's something like a . . . well, I don't know how to describe it. I have known many people who have been profoundly intelligent, sensitive, and insightful, and yet have in many ways also been quite oblivious about some things because they are strongly pulled in some direction or another. I consider myself to be likewise oblivious (and strongly pulled, I guess), except maybe now my interests are beginning to broaden somewhat.
Perhaps I should say it this way: someone who sees a great depth into one or some thing also sacrifices some overall breadth.
That is ever and always the case, tragically. For my own part, I am basically useless at all sorts of important things. Unlike you, I can not cook, and take no joy in doing it when I have to. I can not drive, and neve will, for I have neither the desire nor the attention. I can barely do math, even of the most rudimentary sort. Addition and multiplication I can handle, but subtraction sometimes gives me trouble and I am simply unable to divide, anything, ever, unless the answer is abundantly obvious. Beyond this basic level, there is nothing for me in mathematics. I simply can not comprehend it. This is a nightmare world.
Other areas that are utterly foreign and uninteresting to me include plants, oriental countries, automobiles, essentially all of sports, how technology works, science in general, "native" cultures, and so on.
Yes, anymore I feel less "privileged" because I am reaching that point in my life at which I really have to employ more effort than I ever had to before . . .
I don't typically see myself to be nearly as smart or savvy as others make me out to be. Apparently some people think I'm good at debating, but I know someone else deserved that recognition better than I did. It never occured to me to cede, probably because I liked the idea of public appreciation (positive attention). Selfish, to be sure. Generally, I see myself as naïve, awkward, diffident, and rambling. And yet I get positive attention for it anyway.
Still, I like making friends, even if it's "only" online, so I keep at it.
Some frauds are better to maintain, though it sounds like a remarkable unChristian thing to say. In any event, to demolish such as you describe profits no one, ever. The rationalization I have for this, if indeed it is a rationalization and not just a reason, is that I can do more good for people as the man they think I am than as the man that, perhaps, I really am. In much the same way I have decided to forever forgo missionary work. What can I bring to some Guatemalan tribe that could not be brought by a functional illiterate with a better soul than I? If I go there, who will stay to fire the hearts of the men and women of my own culture? Who could do it?
It is at this point that the rationalization becomes excessively prideful and I attempt to adjust it accordingly, but it doesn't always work. My point is that I can do more for people who know and admire me than I can for people who think nothing whatever of me at all. There you go. I think you can do that too, and, for that reason, you should play to whatever strengths the world seems to think you have
Wow, well congratulations. That is a lot of work, but . . . you have that hope to ease the way, yes? I pray you do well.
As a side note, I think we're roughly the same age.
It is not polite to ask a lady her age, so I will simply take your word for it.
Ah, well . . . I see your point there. Is it possible that you judge yourself more sternly than is appropriate?
It's possible. But then, it's better to be safe than sorry. I wouldn't want someone who really should work hard to think it would be okay to just hide under some coats and that, somehow, everything would work out. Maybe it worked for me; that's no excuse.
Quote from Bardo »
Greetings all. I just wanted to say "hi!"
BAAAAAAAAARDOOOOOOOOOO
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
This is not the way "faith" is used in reference to religion;
[. . .]
As I said, belief which is not grounded in reason.
Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises. Blind faith? Not in the least! It is faith grounded in reality.
We have a term for this; it's called "being rational".
If the theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith, but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against.
Alas no. Where is a linguist when you need him? You're equating faith and rationality. Reread my last quote.
I guess what I'm saying is that the reason you're having a problem with this is because your definition of faith is (still) not the Christian definition of faith, and is, as such, useless in the context of trying to prove the Christian faith wrong. The definition to which I directed you, by contrast, is indeed such a definition, and is not in any way useless. The point of it is that "faith" is not some mystic nonsense. It's a pretty plain and everyday sort of thing, closely related to the necessary approach we take to almost anything.
Additionally, your treatment of this issue still assumes an implicit "blindness" that simply isn't there. Please stop.
Stan once explained this with one of his awesome graphics, but I don't have it on me, unfortunately.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
I guess what I'm saying is that the reason you're having a problem with this is because your definition of faith is (still) not the Christian definition of faith, and is, as such, useless in the context of trying to prove the Christian faith wrong. The definition to which I directed you, by contrast, is indeed such a definition, and is not in any way useless. The point of it is that "faith" is not some mystic nonsense. It's a pretty plain and everyday sort of thing, closely related to the necessary approach we take to almost anything.
Additionally, your treatment of this issue still assumes an implicit "blindness" that simply isn't there. Please stop.
I'll be fine abandoning use of the word "faith" and simply dealing with the concept, which is the important thing.
You're leading me to think that a given Christian believes that the evidence for Christianity is greater than the evidence against; is this what you mean, or am I misconstruing you?
You're leading me to think that a given Christian believes that the evidence for Christianity is greater than the evidence against; is this what you mean, or am I misconstruing you?
I'm not trying to lead you to think anything beyond that faith isn't some simultaneously blind and doe-eyed sense of conviction. The usefulness of faith, as it actually exists as a real Christian concept and not as whatever non-Christians foolishly persist in saying it is, is a matter for you to decide upon for yourself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
You're defining faith so as to make it what I call reason, I think; again, the name itself doesn't particularly matter. To clarify the concept, can you answer my question?
I think what he's getting at is that faith is based in reason, but is not reducible to it. Faith and reason, in other words, are not synonymous, but they certainly are not dichotomous.
The atheist takes faith as meaning a sort of blind acceptance of a doctrine. That is a fine definition of faith, but not of Christian faith.
Seeing as we are having a theological discussion I have always been a little curious where people find their beliefs from, particularly those who have as much conviction as many of you do. Were they "inherited" from your parents? Did you find them on your own? Did you switch beliefs as some point?
This is by means meant to factor into the discussion going on right now. I am merely curious.
I was raised Catholic by my parents, but was more or less forced into the religion. I quickly got away from it as soon as I could, and I started talking to a distant grandfather. We talked a lot about his set of beliefs, which is derived from Native American culture. I could connect with a lot of his ideals, and I adopted many of them for my own. I am currently practicing a mix of those customs, and my Christian background.
Yukora: What, pray tell, is "a mixture of Native American customs and Christian background?" It sounds somewhat, um, contradictory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, and the higher a tower stands, the greater the shadow it casts.
I disagree. I think faith is described much more aptly as belief without certainty. Any given belief will have a particular level of uncertainty that can be assigned to its possibility of truthfulness . . . the closer a belief comes to being certainly true, the less faith is required to except it. But beliefs based on a posteriori conclusion all have some degree of uncertainty to them, and so require at least some degree of faith to accept. In other words, with the exception of a small number of things, even extremely transparent observations require faith to accept. Reason and faith do not oppose each other.
Placing trust in sensory observations has a high degree of pragmatic value, because the chance of one's senses being pronouncedly unreliable is relatively small, and the benefit gained from doing so is inarguably worthwhile. So, it's useful for us to pretend that we can absolutely trust them. This pretense is what is called a factive attitude.
Definitely.
Is there something in particular that's troubling you?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This is not the way "faith" is used in reference to religion; I don't see why your definition is appropriate.
blargh I'm making ridiculous blunders and questioning myself and my future.
So, uh, thoughts on Bush's public address on Iraq? I missed it, myself, and was hoping to get some evaluations and synopses of it.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
I understand the major point to be sending something like 17,000 more troops to Iraq, though.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Well . . . "faith" can have a number of subtle undertones. A common connotation is acceptance of an idea or premise (presumably without conclusive evidence necessitating it). However, in this case it doesn't ever become necessary for having faith to involve it being "without" reason, or eschewing reason in some way.
Another connotation is a kind of attitude that doesn't necesarily have to do with accepting an idea or something's existence . . . as Stan once put it, faith in someone or something can be thought of as a "good feeling" about that person or thing, such as putting your faith in a company or an individual. In this case, "faith" is roughly analogous to "trust."
I don't really know exactly what you mean by faith in a religious sense. No part of religious faith makes it needful that one's belief be unreasonable, rather that it, unlike rational empiricism, does not rely totally on reason.
Perhaps what you mean is that faith or faithfulness is chiefly a function of intuition rather than one of reason, which I'd say is probably correct. Nonetheless, I disagree that this means that faith is by definition blind. I think that asks too much of the word "blind." "Blind faith" implicates many things, including devotion to an ideal which one does not really comprehend, or totally groundless devotion. I argue that neither of these are necessary aspects of a working definition of faith, but distinct qualifiers.
Anyway, there was a neat thread about all of this here.
How, exactly, do you see "faith" being connoted in a religious context?
Some burdens are lighter if you share them.
As I don't watch TV, I don't even know what it's about. Something unfortunate, I imagine . . .
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Also, as for non-misogynistic, psychoanalyst terms, they have been debunked, too; among these terms, and/or concepts include the Oedipus/Electra complex/conflict, infantile sexuality, and the ever so misconstrued anal retentiveness.
No matter, Mamelon; I understand you and your motives in doing so.
I have yet to post in said "First Name" thread, but I feel that I have already disclosed far too much, far too suddenly, far too prematurely.
This quote is rather aptly used in describing this clique of sages, "this is the greatest collection of intelligence in one place since Thomas Jefferson sat in this room."
Like all things? Well, I tend to have a greater interest in the natural sciences, applied sciences, and all that it pertains; psychology, philosophy and ethics, ethnology, social sciences, literature, the fine arts, and what this clan is for are among the interest me, but I have yet to develop a great understanding of such fields.
I hope to learn a substantial amount of knowledge and wisdom from this clan.
Self-edification is also known as autodidacticism; it's quite effective, in my opinion, but I have yet to ever try this mode of learning, save in my studies in music. I am far from being an automath, but, again, autodidacticism can be defined simply as self-studying.
Preternatural acquisition of thoughts; a form of ESP; passé-thought-transference? By all means, go ahead, but I doubt that this parapsychological phenomenon effects.
Hey BB.
If I can find the transcript on the Net, I'll try to probe into it; otherwise, I shan't be able to fashion a précis from it, as I, unfortunately, do not live in the great States.
I shall do my best.
Well, brilliant; finally, I can make some sense of Mr. Bush's communiqué.
Thank you, Mamelon.
understood; however, that measure of faith, you must admit, is pretty infinitesimal...
yeah, some of it comes sarcastically from cynical atheists such as myself
some interpretations of faith can be a profound opponent of reason.
if a person cannot trust his own senses, he will not be long for this world. it is crucial to survival to be able to trust what you sense, in any sense (hmm...) of the word.
i missed it as well; i was working with a student. his parents saw it, and thought it was more of the same bush hyperbole. i'm certain to be analyzing it for my show tomorrow night, so i'll have more to say at that point.
the media spin, though, so far intrigues me. bush admits mistakes? i'm sort of eager to read it and see if it's true.
my senses, though, tell me to doubt it...
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
It could be next to nothing and still be relevant to the initial point.
The mysteries know no bounds.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
As I said, belief which is not grounded in reason.
At this moment I feel sick, and don't particularly feel like typing much more.
Trying to impress a teacher and screwing something basic up, for one. Feeling like a Watson in stark contrast to Holmes, or like Eddie Willers left behind to die in the middle of the desert, for another.
Oh, well, that's where it's all leading. There's a progression through Gothic to the Fantastic to the Neo-Fantastic to Fantasy to Magic Realism. It's a notoriously difficult genre to pin down, as it covers so much and is fluid. I'd say more ink has been spilled over the subject in the 20th century than on any other genre of literature.
No such luck, I'm afraid.
Grace Kelly.
I am not joking. Also, John Singer Sargent's Triumph of Religion, and virtually anything by Caravaggio, Bernini or Dore.
I know people like you. My father, actually, is one of them. He was surprised recently to learn that not everyone was like this, in fact, so he has since become more sympathetic with those who don't follow his meaning as quickly as he might like them to.
Being able to imbue a simple blotch of mental colour with relevant meaning and memory is a wonderful ability to have.
For my own part, I think in tropes, if you can imagine such a thing. I guess more accurately it could be described in phrases or concepts. I remember lines from poems or books or songs and relate them to things that are important. Yeats' majestic phrase, "a terrible beauty is born" has always had great significance to me for reasons I can not adequately express, and Tennyson has been a gold mine of mnemonic emotionalizers. "Then once by man and angels to be seen, in roaring he shall rise and on the surface die." Just thinking that line - just thinking it to myself - makes me feel better when things are rough. Or Browning's conclusion to "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came."
I often find myself running over these lines in my head, over and over again, as a sort of unconscious background to thinking about other things. It's like white noise.
Here are ten books you should look into (that is, into which you should look; why lower the tone, right?):
1. Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory
2. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Demons
3. Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary
4. G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday
5. C.S. Forester's Brown on Resolution and/or Death to the French
6. Francois Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel
7. Samuel Johnson's Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia
8. Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto
9. Max Beerbohm's Zuleika Dobson
10. Robertson Davies' The Rebel Angels
I could also recommend at least ten collections of essays on all topics under the sun, but I think this will start you off well.
Oh, for sure. In some regards it would be like a scam. I'd be getting paid, basically, to do paperwork. Everything else is stuff I'd do for free.
Why thank you. I sure hope the inevitable batch of horrified first-year students feels the same way. I actually alternate between pitying my future students and wishing I was them.
I honestly don't know. While I am pretty adamant that how I feel about things has no bearing on their reality, I am certainly not going to exalt reason to heights she can't bear. I try to synthesize the two as best I can, but as to which of them dominates, I just couldn't say.
Well, be sure to check her out. She's one of the grand dames of Southern Gothic, along with Eudora Welty, among others. I may have misspelled Welty, but I don't care.
Those are good times too, though I really hate coming home late and realizing that I have little to no time for idleness.
That's the spirit! I'm a Darjeeling man myself.
It grants the feeling of understanding them, if only slightly and superficially, and it's a pretty thorough way to sort of "live through them," though not in any malicious sense. However, I often worry that, when I do the sort of thing you describe, I'm essentially treating those around me as walking fictions.
I like a good granite sky, myself, with a most fulsome menace bearing down. It's beautiful.
That's not perverse. The man of genius as far back as Plato has recognized the value of the tragic, and the tragic of the mundane can often be the most powerful thing of all. I am myself grossly addicted to epic tragedy, however, and most any and all cathartic experience. I often wonder if this is morbid, in some way, to delight so in seeing heroes die, but then I think to myself that, were I such a man as I had seen go down in a hail of bullets or beneath a traitor's sword or at the heart of an atom bomb (or whatever), the very least I would have wanted in return would be for someone to look on with tears in their eyes and say, "that was freaking awesome."
I do get the idea, and I also get incoherent as the night deepens, though in my case this means it's time to start writing rather than stop, at least if I'm working creatively. I tend to "go nuts," at that point, and take stuff in directions I might otherwise have neglected.
I think that's a pretty fair way to look at it. Life is nothing else if not an extravagant present, and it does not do to be such a selfish bastard as to toss it away because it does not suit every one of your minute fancies. Chesterton once suggested that we should not look a gift universe in the mouth, and it would seem to be useful advice.
It's hard to say, or, at least, hard for me to say. Real, manifested anger is not something with which I have much experience beyond a few isolated occasions. I often worry that I care too little about things that ought, rather, to enrage me, in fact. I don't get angry with people so much as I get very tired, and when I get very tired I just don't want to deal with them. This happens so rarely, however, that I never know how to deal with it usefully when it crops up, and find myself wallowing in indecision and frustration. I'd like to say that things are different when the tables are turned, but I can not recall any examples of people being angry at me in recent memory. This, too, worries me, for I feel as though I'm not being "real" enough. I've never gotten into a fight with anyone, either, though not for a lack of fortitude. It's just never come up. This unsettles me, somehow.
I worry about that too, in fact, and the "unqualified success" that my endeavours have met scares the crap out of me. What if I'm destined to follow this path all the way up to the door of what I want, but no further? What if there is no pot of gold for me? What if I'm forced to retreat forever, unskilled, unneeded, unfocused? That's a terrifying thought. I would surely die.
Oh, very likely. I vacillate between wanting it in its own right, and being scared away from the alternative by the examples of people like Nietzsche and Sartre.
Well, maybe. I have to focus on something smaller, so I'm demonstrating the manner in which Chesterton predates and is sympathetic to both post-colonial theory and certain aspects of cultural theory by a matter of over fifty years. Should be popular, if it's plausible. I think it is, but we'll see.
It's possible. I certainly think they make a bigger imprint in people's lives than painters, for example, who occasionally explode with majesty but are often just mundane. This sad state of affairs is not true of everyone (like Caravaggio, who brought a monstrous glory to everything he touched), but it's true enough of most of them. Nothing sticks in the craw like a good turn of phrase, though.
That is ever and always the case, tragically. For my own part, I am basically useless at all sorts of important things. Unlike you, I can not cook, and take no joy in doing it when I have to. I can not drive, and neve will, for I have neither the desire nor the attention. I can barely do math, even of the most rudimentary sort. Addition and multiplication I can handle, but subtraction sometimes gives me trouble and I am simply unable to divide, anything, ever, unless the answer is abundantly obvious. Beyond this basic level, there is nothing for me in mathematics. I simply can not comprehend it. This is a nightmare world.
Other areas that are utterly foreign and uninteresting to me include plants, oriental countries, automobiles, essentially all of sports, how technology works, science in general, "native" cultures, and so on.
Some frauds are better to maintain, though it sounds like a remarkable unChristian thing to say. In any event, to demolish such as you describe profits no one, ever. The rationalization I have for this, if indeed it is a rationalization and not just a reason, is that I can do more good for people as the man they think I am than as the man that, perhaps, I really am. In much the same way I have decided to forever forgo missionary work. What can I bring to some Guatemalan tribe that could not be brought by a functional illiterate with a better soul than I? If I go there, who will stay to fire the hearts of the men and women of my own culture? Who could do it?
It is at this point that the rationalization becomes excessively prideful and I attempt to adjust it accordingly, but it doesn't always work. My point is that I can do more for people who know and admire me than I can for people who think nothing whatever of me at all. There you go. I think you can do that too, and, for that reason, you should play to whatever strengths the world seems to think you have
It is not polite to ask a lady her age, so I will simply take your word for it.
It's possible. But then, it's better to be safe than sorry. I wouldn't want someone who really should work hard to think it would be okay to just hide under some coats and that, somehow, everything would work out. Maybe it worked for me; that's no excuse.
BAAAAAAAAARDOOOOOOOOOO
o rly.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
ya rly. (Who wasn't expecting that?)
We have a term for this; it's called "being rational".
Well, I'm glad you and I can both agree that faith is rational.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
I guess what I'm saying is that the reason you're having a problem with this is because your definition of faith is (still) not the Christian definition of faith, and is, as such, useless in the context of trying to prove the Christian faith wrong. The definition to which I directed you, by contrast, is indeed such a definition, and is not in any way useless. The point of it is that "faith" is not some mystic nonsense. It's a pretty plain and everyday sort of thing, closely related to the necessary approach we take to almost anything.
Additionally, your treatment of this issue still assumes an implicit "blindness" that simply isn't there. Please stop.
Stan once explained this with one of his awesome graphics, but I don't have it on me, unfortunately.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
I'll be fine abandoning use of the word "faith" and simply dealing with the concept, which is the important thing.
You're leading me to think that a given Christian believes that the evidence for Christianity is greater than the evidence against; is this what you mean, or am I misconstruing you?
I'm not trying to lead you to think anything beyond that faith isn't some simultaneously blind and doe-eyed sense of conviction. The usefulness of faith, as it actually exists as a real Christian concept and not as whatever non-Christians foolishly persist in saying it is, is a matter for you to decide upon for yourself.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
The atheist takes faith as meaning a sort of blind acceptance of a doctrine. That is a fine definition of faith, but not of Christian faith.
This is by means meant to factor into the discussion going on right now. I am merely curious.
Yukora: What, pray tell, is "a mixture of Native American customs and Christian background?" It sounds somewhat, um, contradictory.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.