How religion can harm young minds...

[ReliStuPhD]

Ned comes along and says something, anything, as if it's necessarily definitive...

He does do this a lot, doesn't he? Ah well, he's slowly moved away from substantive discussions here and started to sound more and more like religionists: "It's true because I said so." Just one more proof that the clear thinking necessary for the hard sciences doesn't always carry over to philosophy.

[Ned]

Ned comes along and says something, anything, as if it's necessarily definitive...

He does do this a lot, doesn't he? Ah well, he's slowly moved away from substantive discussions here and started to sound more and more like religionists: "It's true because I said so." Just one more proof that the clear thinking necessary for the hard sciences doesn't always carry over to philosophy.

Look at my thread: "options in a mental institution".

Finally, option #5 starts working for me.

On heaven and hell:

Heaven:

The engineers are German
The lovers are Italian
The cooks are French
The policemen are English
And it is all organized by the Swiss

Hell:

The enginers are French
The cooks are English
The policemen are German
The lovers are Swiss
And it is organized by the Italian

And if I insulted anyone, it was not intentional -- I thought the joke was funny, and a highly needed relief from this depressing topic: religion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ned comes along and says something, anything, as if it's necessarily definitive...

He does do this a lot, doesn't he? Ah well, he's slowly moved away from substantive discussions here and started to sound more and more like religionists: "It's true because I said so." Just one more proof that the clear thinking necessary for the hard sciences doesn't always carry over to philosophy.

Look at my thread: "options in a mental institution".

Finally, option #5 starts working for me.

On heaven and hell:

Heaven:

The engineers are German
The lovers are Italian
The cooks are French
The policemen are English
And it is all organized by the Swiss

Hell:

The enginers are French
The cooks are English
The policemen are German
The lovers are Swiss
And it is organized by the Italian

And if I insulted anyone, it was not intentional -- I thought the joke was funny, and a highly needed relief from this depressing topic: religion.

I'm beginning to think, aka Blaggard!

[Ned]

A corollary to the drunk man and the priest joke:

The priest yells at the drunk: "put it away, immediately!"

The drunk complies, but starts laughing.

The priest yells at him again: "What's so funny?!"

The drunk says, grinning from ear to ear: "You think I stopped???"

The priest replies: "That's all right, I won't stop either!"

[Ned]

started to sound more and more like religionists: "It's true because I said so."

Actually, I sound more and more like the laughing father in Rigoletto.

Courtiers: What is new Rigoletto?
Rigoletto: "that today you are even stupider than yesterday!"

(quoted from memory)

[Ned]

PS. For those who are not familiar with the opera: Rigoletto's daughter had been abducted and he was heartbroken, fearing for her life, but pretended that he knew nothing about the abduction.

The moral of the quote is: If you are in too much pain, laughter is the best way to deal with it, if you want to hang on to your sanity in an insane world.

[thedoc]

A drunk man is pissing at the wall on a public street.

A priest, coming along, starts scolding a drunk: “Are you not ashamed of yourself?” he cries.

The drunk thinks about it for a minute and then replies: “Yes, it is true – but by tomorrow I will be sober and you will still be a priest!”

There's nothing like a good joke, and that was nothing like a good joke. FYI, I believe it was first attributed to Winston Churchill, but I could be wrong, but in any case it's just a retread of an old joke, and not a very good one at that.

[thedoc]

Ned comes along and says something, anything, as if it's necessarily definitive...

He does do this a lot, doesn't he? Ah well, he's slowly moved away from substantive discussions here and started to sound more and more like religionists: "It's true because I said so." Just one more proof that the clear thinking necessary for the hard sciences doesn't always carry over to philosophy.

But to be able to think clearly in either discipline, one must be able to think clearly in the first place.

[thedoc]

Ned walks into a bar,


And says, "ouch".

[ReliStuPhD]

But to be able to think clearly in either discipline, one must be able to think clearly in the first place.

Thou speakest the truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

But to be able to think clearly in either discipline, one must be able to think clearly in the first place.

Thou speakest the truth.

Yes!!

To think clearly one has to remove their self interests as far away from the crux of the matter as possible. Only then does the problem become clear, unadulterated. Of course this is very difficult for most people, including myself at times.

[thedoc]

But to be able to think clearly in either discipline, one must be able to think clearly in the first place.

Thou speakest the truth.

Yes!!

To think clearly one has to remove their self interests as far away from the crux of the matter as possible. Only then does the problem become clear, unadulterated. Of course this is very difficult for most people, including myself at times.

Do you know that you are practically asking the impossible of people? Most people are wherever they are in self interest, I am here to learn something, I am here to teach others what I know, I am here to impress others with how much I know, and the list goes on all centered around the "I". Does anyone honestly participate on a forum, just to be helpful and informative, without any interest in stroking their own ego? That is probably why clear thinking is so little in evidence, anywhere.

[SpheresOfBalance]

But to be able to think clearly in either discipline, one must be able to think clearly in the first place.

Thou speakest the truth.

Yes!!

To think clearly one has to remove their self interests as far away from the crux of the matter as possible. Only then does the problem become clear, unadulterated. Of course this is very difficult for most people, including myself at times.

Do you know that you are practically asking the impossible of people?
Yep, I know.
However difficult it may be for some, I'm just telling it like it is, or should be. Something for the truest of philosopher wanna be's to consider, whatever it's worth to them.

Sure truly selfless acts are rare indeed, assuming they can be pure to any real degree. Of course I'm thinking of the lessor degree of self interest as sort of qualifying.

Most people are wherever they are in self interest, I am here to learn something, I am here to teach others what I know, I am here to impress others with how much I know, and the list goes on all centered around the "I". Does anyone honestly participate on a forum, just to be helpful and informative, without any interest in stroking their own ego?
How about, "I'm here to learn, enlighten, and fight for the side of right." After all I have literally saved someones life, there was not any self interest in the decision to execute the attempt. She almost drown me in the process, and yes I had been made aware of the fact that in most situations the drowning victim does indeed tend to do that in the process of attempting to save themselves, above all others. And no, being a hero was the farthest thing from my mind. As a matter of fact I was initially quite bothered with the fact that the person had done something so stupid as to go into the water when they could not swim, causing me to have to get wet, fully clothed, to try and save a drunk, making bad decisions. In that instant, I just immediately knew that I was her only chance. Now of course she's become a real pain in my family's rear. Of course I'd like to think that knowing this, I'd still do it again.

Nobody's perfect, but there are lessor degrees of selfishness.

That is probably why clear thinking is so little in evidence, anywhere.

[thedoc]

I would suggest that many altruistic acts are not the result of rational thought, but a situation comes up and a certain action is what is needed at the time, no matter how irrational it might be, you do it, and think about it later. Been there, done that, I've done a lot of irrational things and I don't have any regrets for doing something helpful, and not thinking about what I might get out of it. At the time you just do the right thing, and that's the end of it. If you go into it expecting a reward, you're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

[ReliStuPhD]

If you go into it expecting a reward, you're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

Yep. In fact, by definition, that would mean the act was not altruistic, so you're definitely on to something about altruistic acts often having a spontaneous (or anonymous, etc) element. The more you think it through, the less it may be altruistic (unless, of course, you think yourself into an altruistic act).