There are 3 choices, 4 votes for Molzahn's debate

A different way of thinking (rant)

Whatever side of the fence someone is arguing from in any topic, it seems that either side claims to have phenomenal amounts of evidence to back their "truth". How convincing someone's argument is, it would seem, depends on the magnitude of the stimulus presented, and the compatibility of those stimuli to be assimilated within our present mental angle.

For example, if I continually tell you that a "kahozanola" is an extinct tropical bird kin to the doe-doe.. given enough time without anyone telling you otherwise and you might believe me.

But, anything that has no gravity in your current life-style will just be subconsciously trivialized and forgotten. So if I went up to someone desperately concerned with economics and told them that the major American banks were going to collapse in two years; right away, not only do I have their attention, but they might be polarized to my suggestive idea.

Much like the ink plots psychiatrists use, we will see what suits our current mind (and the stimuli composing it).


Randomly generated images never seem random because our mind solves the visual ambiguity internally; which will create a false sense what is actually there.


We are bombarded by all of these idea's about what is right, what is wrong; what is truth, what is misinterpretation; If God exists. All of these philosophical questions seem forever indefinite as you vainly sway to and fro along the lines of the fence, thinking, "I definitely know this for certain!"

I've watched so many people debate about God and whether or not His existence is a bona fide reality. A theist says yes, an atheist no. The theist might say that all atheists do not know absolutely if God exists or not, therefore are agnostic(without knowing). The atheist will rebut with some spiel about the theist not understanding the terms he uses....

Does anyone really know? Does God exist? What is God? Can we answer any of these questions without another question? ... [silence]


I think. A true philosopher is neither theistic nor atheistic. A true philosopher is someone who is not searching for an absolute answer, not searching to be fooled by a definite concept, a subjective interpretation, or personal intellectual choice. A true philosopher is someone who realizes the question is unanswerable and insatiably answerable, at the same time.

if you had no way of communicating an idea (like God) to one another; do you know if they believe in God or not? If no conceptual thing is constant/definite, it is more pertinent to KNOW that both elements exist in that person. I KNOW that because there is uncertainty that every answer is present. I KNOW that there is a part of you that thinks in the affirmative, and another to the negative. I also know that there are more answers than yes and no, therefore they exist as well. But no circle is perfectly round, so does the lack of awareness toward ALL possibilities disqualify this as qualitative&quantitative knowledge? Does this awareness exist more like an empty slot of knowledge?

Words would seem to be the shadow of an incomplete shape, so perhaps another form of discovering truth is to speak no words at all, to remove one's self from the frail veils of one's eyes, and the infesting milky webs of tactile perception. Or, if we proceed in reverse and release our concentration in the now to experience unfiltered reality. Is that even possible? It seems like every answer leads to not existing consciously, is that to say confusion and subjectivity is a symptom of consciousness?

***
I'll end here. I hope this wasn't torturously long for those of you who took the time to read it.
  • Eh
    "I think. A true philosopher is neither theistic nor atheistic."

    I don't think atheists or agnostics or people of different faiths are any less capable of being a philosopher as I am. But then again, I'm not elitist.
    50%  Voted for by Weydon, TeChNoWC.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • Not a rant
    it would seem, depends on the magnitude of the stimulus presented, and the compatibility of those stimuli to be assimilated within our present mental angle.


    But, anything that has no gravity in your current life-style will just be subconsciously trivialized and forgotten.


    we will see what suits our current mind (and the stimuli composing it).


    A true philosopher is someone who realizes the question is unanswerable and insatiably answerable, at the same time.

    ---------------------------------------

    No it was not torturously long and yes I did read it all. Honestly, I have nothing to add because I could not agree more Very well said!


    Voted for by Energizer Bunny.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Well written
    And thought out. While I would adhere to an absolute, this does not make the person receiving the absolute an absolute, and therefore the medium for truth gathering is faulty and open to error. So in a sense, I would definetly agree with your topic.

    It may be more beneficial in our exploration of philosophy on this site to explain the philosopher and not the philosophy, in as objective light as possible, and in that we can gain more from discussion. But I think only one person can divulge such information, and that is the self.
    Voted for by TeChNoWC.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →