Maid of Honor and Philosophical backup that needed to be let out
From June 1st 2008:
Okay I have a lot of things just stirring around in my head so I'm just going to start writing...
Yesterday was my mom's birthday. She's 43 now. We went and saw Maid of Honor at the theater, super awesome chick flick. Kadeem Hardison (lead guy in Cassidy Kids, the movie my brother is in) was in it and I couldn't place him until the credits. Patrick Dempsy is still looking fine for being old :) lol The movie made me really want to marry a guy who has become my best friend... and I don't think that's a false idea. They preach to you that these chick flicks give women a false reality about love (and albeit some do) but others have great themes. I recommend Maid of Honor to any girl looking for a decent chick flick :)
Last night I was contemplating a statement my friend made on the second to last day of school.
After reading my sentence I was using for my project he goes,
"That's cool. I don't believe in absolute truth. I wish I did but I just don't."
"Oh okay."
So whenever someone says they don't believe in something I believe in, I like to reexamine my belief... so as I lay in bed thinking out how I logically see absolute truth this is kind of what came to mind...
I believe that there is an absolute truth that we must find for ourselves... and there are many paths to getting there. Now I thought well what do people believe in the most generic of terms possible: either there is an afterlife (some sort of heaven) or we just die. To me, the earth being the end-all-be-all to the meaning of our existence (Atheism) seems just so limited when you really look at how amazing life itself is and how in the grand scheme of this galaxy/universe we live in, if things had been just perfect we wouldn't all be here... there's a design. That is my opinion but just like my friend I just don't see how there cannot be a creator... Random luck? Naw, I've seen karma at play too many times to believe in pure random luck.
Now if there is some higher power, then there is probably some sort of heaven or afterlife (though Agnostics might just think there is a high power but we still die and the end). As for all the other religions, I believe they are just different paths to same end: absolute truth...
The universal truth that we will all come to find when we die. There is one but it's a constant journey toward it through some sort of means of truth you believe is right. For me I'm Christian (Catholic to be specific) because for me that is the absolute truth I have found.
That doesn't mean I can judge whether or not you will go to "Heaven", nor does it mean either of our paths to truth are "wrong" (esp. to the point of needing to threaten me). It is what I believe is right and I will tell you about my beliefs, but you have the freewill to take it or leave it.
While it all is a mystery, there is a logic to it that gives my life stability. With relativity (ie. you're right and I'm right and he's right...etc) there is nothing stable to believe in... because if everyone is right we are just contradicting our own belief. That is why I believe in absolute truth.
One thing though... if you ever take a good hard look at each religion... there are underlying themes that bring peace to people's lives that are all the same. I think there is a connection to these philosophical principles that would keep us from being so divided. Another friend in the same class... his belief was that Religion divides and racism will always exist... I don't think its religion that divides i think it is ignorance (because if we were truly following a christian, hindu, muslim, or jewish... etc life then we would understand the principle of do unto others, sacrificing love... we are to judge for ourselves not for others... etc. Disrespect, hatred, causing physical harm to those who don't think or look like us... are all preached against in every faith and yet it never occurs to anyone that they are contradicting their own beliefs).
Just somethings I've been thinking about... I wouldn't mind someone playing devils advocate and giving me a good argument as to why there is no absolute truth. I'm up for philosophical, or musical, or cinematic-al or just plain random discussion any day... Ramble away (or rather Ramble on...)
EDIT: (6 Months Later)
Alright I've been reading a book called Consilience by E.O. Wilson... this is some more thoughts that pertains to this idea:
After finishing the last three chapters of Consilience, I wonder if consilience is something else. As he states toward the end, his book is focused on the “gap analysis” of his goal of unity, growing increasingly complex with each chapter on another area of integration. The gaps are huge, almost dauntingly so. But what is consilience really? Filling in the holes in science? Filling in the personal holes?
I’m going to define consilience as something personal. Personal consilience is at its core synthesis. We gather all this knowledge from all different realms to what end? We don’t need to flippantly disregard any knowledge gained by non-scientific means. Sure people might give hierarchy to the knowledge base they indentify and understand the most (in regard to our modes of inquiry for the world: practical, scientific, spiritual/ethical, and aesthetic), but consilience can still succeed in our lives even if I am an aesthetic and spiritual viewer. When Wilson gave his interpretation of a transcendentalist’s account, I found myself agreeing. When Wilson gave his own Empiricist view I found myself questioning. His broad rationalizations left me wanting. I am not a zombie; emotional relationships with the world and within the world are defining.
In a three-hour conversation with my friend, feeling depressed, we discussed religion and life, coming to the idea that if you listen long enough you realize everyone is arguing the same thing. War, which Wilson makes as his first point for dispelling religion, is an irrational construct of man, not of religion. Since if people rationally synthesized all the views they are presented, we would see encompassing similarities. With religion and race, I don’t know if it’s natural or artificial, but man seeks out (and often focuses negatively) differences rather than fully embracing similarities. Christianity, although painfully divided in denominations, has a set of pretty much the same beliefs, Judaism very close, and so on. Even in Eastern traditions I see overarching beliefs that are all leading to personal fulfillment and understanding. Returning to consilience, even if religion and spirituality have some biological basis, we can use both elements to better understand the faith, fulfillment and morality found there.
The other thing that bothers me about religion becoming purely biological firings in our brains as Wilson states is that we become godlike in status, a power not meant for fragile humanity. This idea follows Heidegger; man is god. That understanding may or may not fundamentally alter how we see, interact, and support each other. Unfortunately I feel it will affect us negatively. If there is one thing religion does (in hopes of gaining science’s support) is humbling man into a gratitude and altruism for this world. Global climate change can be helped through man’s efforts, but if man thinks he’s godlike and has this power to overcome anything thrown at him, he will wait until it is most convenient for him to do so. And where does that leave man if he finds out he waited in vain? In a sort of hell, hoping that we survive it.
To sum this up, in a personal sense, consilience is attainable within my transcendentalist view of the world. It’s how I synthesize the knowledge I gain from all facets of my life that brings those views together into a unified wisdom of my being. Humanity is not merely the sum of its infinite parts, but the whole as found through consilience.
Okay I have a lot of things just stirring around in my head so I'm just going to start writing...
Yesterday was my mom's birthday. She's 43 now. We went and saw Maid of Honor at the theater, super awesome chick flick. Kadeem Hardison (lead guy in Cassidy Kids, the movie my brother is in) was in it and I couldn't place him until the credits. Patrick Dempsy is still looking fine for being old :) lol The movie made me really want to marry a guy who has become my best friend... and I don't think that's a false idea. They preach to you that these chick flicks give women a false reality about love (and albeit some do) but others have great themes. I recommend Maid of Honor to any girl looking for a decent chick flick :)
Last night I was contemplating a statement my friend made on the second to last day of school.
After reading my sentence I was using for my project he goes,
"That's cool. I don't believe in absolute truth. I wish I did but I just don't."
"Oh okay."
So whenever someone says they don't believe in something I believe in, I like to reexamine my belief... so as I lay in bed thinking out how I logically see absolute truth this is kind of what came to mind...
I believe that there is an absolute truth that we must find for ourselves... and there are many paths to getting there. Now I thought well what do people believe in the most generic of terms possible: either there is an afterlife (some sort of heaven) or we just die. To me, the earth being the end-all-be-all to the meaning of our existence (Atheism) seems just so limited when you really look at how amazing life itself is and how in the grand scheme of this galaxy/universe we live in, if things had been just perfect we wouldn't all be here... there's a design. That is my opinion but just like my friend I just don't see how there cannot be a creator... Random luck? Naw, I've seen karma at play too many times to believe in pure random luck.
Now if there is some higher power, then there is probably some sort of heaven or afterlife (though Agnostics might just think there is a high power but we still die and the end). As for all the other religions, I believe they are just different paths to same end: absolute truth...
The universal truth that we will all come to find when we die. There is one but it's a constant journey toward it through some sort of means of truth you believe is right. For me I'm Christian (Catholic to be specific) because for me that is the absolute truth I have found.
That doesn't mean I can judge whether or not you will go to "Heaven", nor does it mean either of our paths to truth are "wrong" (esp. to the point of needing to threaten me). It is what I believe is right and I will tell you about my beliefs, but you have the freewill to take it or leave it.
While it all is a mystery, there is a logic to it that gives my life stability. With relativity (ie. you're right and I'm right and he's right...etc) there is nothing stable to believe in... because if everyone is right we are just contradicting our own belief. That is why I believe in absolute truth.
One thing though... if you ever take a good hard look at each religion... there are underlying themes that bring peace to people's lives that are all the same. I think there is a connection to these philosophical principles that would keep us from being so divided. Another friend in the same class... his belief was that Religion divides and racism will always exist... I don't think its religion that divides i think it is ignorance (because if we were truly following a christian, hindu, muslim, or jewish... etc life then we would understand the principle of do unto others, sacrificing love... we are to judge for ourselves not for others... etc. Disrespect, hatred, causing physical harm to those who don't think or look like us... are all preached against in every faith and yet it never occurs to anyone that they are contradicting their own beliefs).
Just somethings I've been thinking about... I wouldn't mind someone playing devils advocate and giving me a good argument as to why there is no absolute truth. I'm up for philosophical, or musical, or cinematic-al or just plain random discussion any day... Ramble away (or rather Ramble on...)
EDIT: (6 Months Later)
Alright I've been reading a book called Consilience by E.O. Wilson... this is some more thoughts that pertains to this idea:
After finishing the last three chapters of Consilience, I wonder if consilience is something else. As he states toward the end, his book is focused on the “gap analysis” of his goal of unity, growing increasingly complex with each chapter on another area of integration. The gaps are huge, almost dauntingly so. But what is consilience really? Filling in the holes in science? Filling in the personal holes?
I’m going to define consilience as something personal. Personal consilience is at its core synthesis. We gather all this knowledge from all different realms to what end? We don’t need to flippantly disregard any knowledge gained by non-scientific means. Sure people might give hierarchy to the knowledge base they indentify and understand the most (in regard to our modes of inquiry for the world: practical, scientific, spiritual/ethical, and aesthetic), but consilience can still succeed in our lives even if I am an aesthetic and spiritual viewer. When Wilson gave his interpretation of a transcendentalist’s account, I found myself agreeing. When Wilson gave his own Empiricist view I found myself questioning. His broad rationalizations left me wanting. I am not a zombie; emotional relationships with the world and within the world are defining.
In a three-hour conversation with my friend, feeling depressed, we discussed religion and life, coming to the idea that if you listen long enough you realize everyone is arguing the same thing. War, which Wilson makes as his first point for dispelling religion, is an irrational construct of man, not of religion. Since if people rationally synthesized all the views they are presented, we would see encompassing similarities. With religion and race, I don’t know if it’s natural or artificial, but man seeks out (and often focuses negatively) differences rather than fully embracing similarities. Christianity, although painfully divided in denominations, has a set of pretty much the same beliefs, Judaism very close, and so on. Even in Eastern traditions I see overarching beliefs that are all leading to personal fulfillment and understanding. Returning to consilience, even if religion and spirituality have some biological basis, we can use both elements to better understand the faith, fulfillment and morality found there.
The other thing that bothers me about religion becoming purely biological firings in our brains as Wilson states is that we become godlike in status, a power not meant for fragile humanity. This idea follows Heidegger; man is god. That understanding may or may not fundamentally alter how we see, interact, and support each other. Unfortunately I feel it will affect us negatively. If there is one thing religion does (in hopes of gaining science’s support) is humbling man into a gratitude and altruism for this world. Global climate change can be helped through man’s efforts, but if man thinks he’s godlike and has this power to overcome anything thrown at him, he will wait until it is most convenient for him to do so. And where does that leave man if he finds out he waited in vain? In a sort of hell, hoping that we survive it.
To sum this up, in a personal sense, consilience is attainable within my transcendentalist view of the world. It’s how I synthesize the knowledge I gain from all facets of my life that brings those views together into a unified wisdom of my being. Humanity is not merely the sum of its infinite parts, but the whole as found through consilience.
posted by cinemadolce at
6:39 AM
9 Comments
