I am not a christian at the present time. I would like to study apologetics to learn whether I should become one again.
Several questions must be asked at this point:
1 Should I seek this knowledge at all?
2 How can I keep from fooling myself?
3 What is the standard by which evidence should be interpreted?
4 Is this the primary concern of my life?
There are two schools of thought on the first queston:
Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_1
Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_2
The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_1
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/creators.html#order_1
AND
If we could renounce our sageness and discard our wisdom, it
would be better for the people a hundredfold
When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?
www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm vs 19-20
Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and limpid;3 little words are shrill and quarrelsome. In sleep, men's spirits go visiting; in waking hours, their bodies hustle. With everything they meet they become entangled. Day after day they use their minds in strife, sometimes grandiose, sometimes sly, sometimes petty. Their little fears are mean and trembly; their great fears are stunned and overwhelming. They bound off like an arrow or a crossbow pellet, certain that they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They cling to their position as though they had sworn before the gods, sure that they are holding on to victory. They fade like fall and winter - such is the way they dwindle day by day. They drown in what they do - you cannot make them turn back. They grow dark, as though sealed with seals - such are the excesses of their old age. And when their minds draw near to death, nothing can restore them to the light.
Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.
YOUR LIFE HAS A LIMIT but knowledge has none. If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger. If you understand this and still strive for knowledge, you will be in danger for certain! If you do good, stay away from fame. If you do evil, stay away from punishments. Follow the middle; go by what is constant, and you can stay in one piece, keep yourself alive, look after your parents, and live out your years.
terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html Section 2 para 8 and Section 3 para 1
Zhuang Zi's point in talking about "this" and "that" has to do with the concept of contraries, which is based on the idea that objects and perspectives are mutually defined. His "clarity," my refer to the idea that the sage recognizes the limits of human knowledge and harmonizes all things through the use of "heaven" which might be understood as the mind, interpreting the phrase according to New Thought Principles. James Legge discusses this concept in his commentary on verse 2 of the Tao Te Ching / Dao De Jing. Responding enlessly may refer to the potential of all things to be good or evil and the unintended consequences of trying to promote good or evil. Wu-Wei comes into play here, the concept of natural action. By that Natural action one can understand how to make it through this world.
"...does not proceed in such a way,"
He does not proceed in the method of labeling things as right or as wrong. He knows that the unintended consequences of such an act, and he also realizes the Way's power to harmonize all things.
In speaking of "Great Understanding" Zhuang is contrasting the view of the sage or of the Way with the view of the common person. The common person does not understand the way, and so the people injure themselves by arguing and assuming standards which may be good in one situation but not in another. They waste energy "Become(ing) entangled" with the people and ideas that they come across. They don't know how to harmonize these, and so they are left broken and shattered, clinging to positions that they don't truly understand how they acquired. One of Zhuang Zi's major premises is that life may not be completely comprehensible. "The understanding of the small does not reach to that which is great," he tells us.
The central point that Zhuang makes resonates with me. Just because you have a lot of knowledge, doesn't mean you are correct, and doesn't mean you are happy. Accumulating more and more doesn't always get you closer to truth...or does it? Maybe his point is not that having knowledge is wrong but that making it the focus of your life is wrong?
Zhuang Zi's relativism goes back to his view of the Way, and is heavily integrated with one part of the mind.
Rand's Objectivism goes back to her view of objective reality, and is heavily integrated with another part of the mind, the consciousness.
Both philosophies agree that altruism is immoral, and both see as a false dichotomy the sacrifice of self to others or of others to self. They both believe in following one's nature, but what they disagree on is what that nature is, and whether objective reality can be known through reason or through intuition. One would say do not pursue knowledge while the other would say pursue knowledge but with skepticism. One would say that reasoning people cannot disagree while the other would say that intuitive people don't argue in the first place.
I do not know which of them is right, but only that both seem to contain truths.
One way to keep from fooling yourself is to apply the standard that Rand gave, which is that the arbitrary should be dismissed out of hand and that people ought to take a position based on their reason and knowledge instead of being on both sides of every fence.
One other way is to recognize what Zhuang Zi said which is to be careful about knowledge and thinking you are right based on whether you win or loose the argument, and to refrain from arguing all together when you can. To roll all things into one and follow two paths. That maybe the only way to keep from fooling yourself.
What seems reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another. That will depend on the assumptions they have accepted and the engrams that they possess. When the conscious reasoning mind, the Analyzer, is bypassed, then another part of the mind is open to suggestion. These suggestions may not be available to the person's waking state. Thus the person may think they are deciding on an issue for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. People are very good at inventing reasons for their behavior. To ignore this is to ignore human nature.
I am in a severe amount of pain most of the time. Any action I take may result in punishment for myself and others. I am constantly lying to myself. This pain is me and I want nothing else.
This is one way to deal with this problem, but it is a difficult road and may not ultimately solve what is hurting me, and perhaps what is hurting me doesn't need to be solved.
Several questions must be asked at this point:
1 Should I seek this knowledge at all?
2 How can I keep from fooling myself?
3 What is the standard by which evidence should be interpreted?
4 Is this the primary concern of my life?
There are two schools of thought on the first queston:
Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_1
Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_2
The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ob...y.html#order_1
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/creators.html#order_1
AND
If we could renounce our sageness and discard our wisdom, it
would be better for the people a hundredfold
When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?
www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm vs 19-20
Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and limpid;3 little words are shrill and quarrelsome. In sleep, men's spirits go visiting; in waking hours, their bodies hustle. With everything they meet they become entangled. Day after day they use their minds in strife, sometimes grandiose, sometimes sly, sometimes petty. Their little fears are mean and trembly; their great fears are stunned and overwhelming. They bound off like an arrow or a crossbow pellet, certain that they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They cling to their position as though they had sworn before the gods, sure that they are holding on to victory. They fade like fall and winter - such is the way they dwindle day by day. They drown in what they do - you cannot make them turn back. They grow dark, as though sealed with seals - such are the excesses of their old age. And when their minds draw near to death, nothing can restore them to the light.
Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.
YOUR LIFE HAS A LIMIT but knowledge has none. If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger. If you understand this and still strive for knowledge, you will be in danger for certain! If you do good, stay away from fame. If you do evil, stay away from punishments. Follow the middle; go by what is constant, and you can stay in one piece, keep yourself alive, look after your parents, and live out your years.
terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html Section 2 para 8 and Section 3 para 1
Zhuang Zi's point in talking about "this" and "that" has to do with the concept of contraries, which is based on the idea that objects and perspectives are mutually defined. His "clarity," my refer to the idea that the sage recognizes the limits of human knowledge and harmonizes all things through the use of "heaven" which might be understood as the mind, interpreting the phrase according to New Thought Principles. James Legge discusses this concept in his commentary on verse 2 of the Tao Te Ching / Dao De Jing. Responding enlessly may refer to the potential of all things to be good or evil and the unintended consequences of trying to promote good or evil. Wu-Wei comes into play here, the concept of natural action. By that Natural action one can understand how to make it through this world.
"...does not proceed in such a way,"
He does not proceed in the method of labeling things as right or as wrong. He knows that the unintended consequences of such an act, and he also realizes the Way's power to harmonize all things.
In speaking of "Great Understanding" Zhuang is contrasting the view of the sage or of the Way with the view of the common person. The common person does not understand the way, and so the people injure themselves by arguing and assuming standards which may be good in one situation but not in another. They waste energy "Become(ing) entangled" with the people and ideas that they come across. They don't know how to harmonize these, and so they are left broken and shattered, clinging to positions that they don't truly understand how they acquired. One of Zhuang Zi's major premises is that life may not be completely comprehensible. "The understanding of the small does not reach to that which is great," he tells us.
The central point that Zhuang makes resonates with me. Just because you have a lot of knowledge, doesn't mean you are correct, and doesn't mean you are happy. Accumulating more and more doesn't always get you closer to truth...or does it? Maybe his point is not that having knowledge is wrong but that making it the focus of your life is wrong?
Zhuang Zi's relativism goes back to his view of the Way, and is heavily integrated with one part of the mind.
Rand's Objectivism goes back to her view of objective reality, and is heavily integrated with another part of the mind, the consciousness.
Both philosophies agree that altruism is immoral, and both see as a false dichotomy the sacrifice of self to others or of others to self. They both believe in following one's nature, but what they disagree on is what that nature is, and whether objective reality can be known through reason or through intuition. One would say do not pursue knowledge while the other would say pursue knowledge but with skepticism. One would say that reasoning people cannot disagree while the other would say that intuitive people don't argue in the first place.
I do not know which of them is right, but only that both seem to contain truths.
One way to keep from fooling yourself is to apply the standard that Rand gave, which is that the arbitrary should be dismissed out of hand and that people ought to take a position based on their reason and knowledge instead of being on both sides of every fence.
One other way is to recognize what Zhuang Zi said which is to be careful about knowledge and thinking you are right based on whether you win or loose the argument, and to refrain from arguing all together when you can. To roll all things into one and follow two paths. That maybe the only way to keep from fooling yourself.
What seems reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another. That will depend on the assumptions they have accepted and the engrams that they possess. When the conscious reasoning mind, the Analyzer, is bypassed, then another part of the mind is open to suggestion. These suggestions may not be available to the person's waking state. Thus the person may think they are deciding on an issue for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. People are very good at inventing reasons for their behavior. To ignore this is to ignore human nature.
I am in a severe amount of pain most of the time. Any action I take may result in punishment for myself and others. I am constantly lying to myself. This pain is me and I want nothing else.
This is one way to deal with this problem, but it is a difficult road and may not ultimately solve what is hurting me, and perhaps what is hurting me doesn't need to be solved.
Comment