|
Post by moonshadow on Oct 2, 2005 13:55:38 GMT -5
Is it possible to have faith, and calculate???
Assumedly faith removes the need for calculation in life.
Yet calculation removes the need for faith in life.
So, is there a compromise available?
-originally posted by sinrebirth, moved from the main Debate Hall thread
|
|
|
Post by moonshadow on Oct 2, 2005 13:57:24 GMT -5
I would say that it is possible to have faith and to calculate both.
For when you calculate you are in a sense putting faith into your ability to do so.
And when you have faith in someting, you have to be cautious about it and take things the right way.
- originally posted by rev, moved from the main Debate Hall thread
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 3, 2005 5:53:58 GMT -5
Hmm. Are any of us strong enough to know what we have faith in will carry the day? I'm confidant, but not that confidant.
Additionally, some things can't be left to chance. IMO, of course. My necessities I'll be sure to arrange, rather than trust that something will be provided.
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Oct 3, 2005 8:43:19 GMT -5
Thank you, Moonshadow.
Rev, if you have faith and caution, are you not calculating your faith, and in turn calculating??
Very true Fred, though some say "Religion is only the truth that is popular" - What we have faith in was popular, thus it survived. Now with declining religions....we will have to see.
So Fred, would you call yourself faithful, or calculating? Ditto to Reva?
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 3, 2005 12:07:33 GMT -5
I think it's clear that I am both, Sin. I am analytical and calculating, but I have the ability to trust in the ability of others, too.
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Oct 3, 2005 14:30:45 GMT -5
So you contain to unconcilable natures?
Useful, if not a little difficult
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 3, 2005 18:40:51 GMT -5
Well I find that I trust in others too much sometimes. I believe that I am both calculating and faithful, but more to the calculating side of things.
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Oct 4, 2005 4:48:52 GMT -5
Ditto with me, Rev. Faith does not come as easily as calculation - but I suppose that is a side effect of our education and thinking-polarised society...
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 4, 2005 10:37:41 GMT -5
Yes, I mean if that is the way you were brought up, it will be much harder to see the other side of things or society for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Oct 4, 2005 13:02:29 GMT -5
Exactly. But is this a fault of society, or a good thing?
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 4, 2005 17:19:40 GMT -5
It is not a good thing nor a bad thing. A little of both if you ask me. However, I do not think it is a fault of society because society is always changing.
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 4, 2005 18:00:36 GMT -5
Society is always changing? The faces perhaps, but the overall view remains much the same, to me.
I was raised in a very closed and guarded way. Yet I am able to see the perspective of others without great difficulty. As much as nurture plays a part, it's clear that nature is very strong, too.
Faith can come easily, to some. Or not at all, to others. Just like other abilities and talents.
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 4, 2005 19:02:54 GMT -5
Yes, society does remain the same overall. But the views of society change each day no matter what.
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 7, 2005 16:04:53 GMT -5
Uh, explanation please? From the briefness, it looks like you contradict yourself.
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 7, 2005 17:06:31 GMT -5
I did not mean it to look that way. I meant that all societies in general have basic properties that infact make them a society in the first place. However, since most if not all societies are different and since the world is constantly changing, so then must society.
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 8, 2005 19:46:46 GMT -5
What is society, to you? Individualized to countries or regions?
To me, it's humanity. And while we grow up, and perhaps learn new things, it's the same. Exploitation and self first. Values like Murder, theft, and personal attacks are the same, if enforced differently.
|
|
rev
New Member
You know you are supposed to kneel
*The Dark One*
Posts: 454
|
Post by rev on Oct 8, 2005 21:56:41 GMT -5
I view society as humanity in general.
|
|
celestia
New Member
Fred's favorite pet
Posts: 73
|
Post by celestia on Oct 10, 2005 8:13:13 GMT -5
i think people are generally good, but exceptions are easy to see especially because we tend to look for them. your comment was a bit cynical, fred. too much machiavelli perhaps? for my taste anyway. i won't disagree that there are people like that, but i do tend to think they are more frequently the minority with power, rather than majority of people or society in general. and to the overall question, i suppose by definition it's one or the other, but for me personally i feel it is very important to have both. everything in life cannot always be explained by math and science, but to ignore reason for faith completely seems a bad idea as well. it makes people very easy to control.
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 10, 2005 18:57:48 GMT -5
cynical? perhaps. I see plenty of people focused solely on their personal situation, and how they can better themselves. To me, that is just more of the same.
|
|
celestia
New Member
Fred's favorite pet
Posts: 73
|
Post by celestia on Oct 11, 2005 8:16:14 GMT -5
perhaps i'm unrealistic, but i like to think that there are a lot of people out there who are concerned about the well-being of others... and that i just don't see them when i become frustrated with humanity.
yes, people have to take care of themselves, but that isn't a bad thing. i think the people willing to step on anyone to get their way regardless of the consequences of their actions are a minority. but a very visible one. you know? it's easy to see that kind of thing, but it doesn't mean the majority of people are like that. but the fabulous people who demonstrate genuine concern for those around them don't get the recognition they deserve.. and they don't ask for it either, so sometimes it's a bit too easy to miss how many of them are out there.
|
|
|
Post by Imperial Hammer on Oct 19, 2005 17:40:17 GMT -5
[glow=green,2,300]*Appears*
So this is what has happened to my debate hall hmmm?
I, of course, am of the Calculation disposition. I craft my own destiny...
The funny thing about Faith of course is that the fundamental pinnings we use to Calculate things hinge on Faith itself. Science, the most empirical of all disciplines is build solely on the faith that the matter you are observing exists. If that is not there, then the whole thing falls apart.
And the funny thing is, its very very very hard to prove that things exist....
-I_H[/glow]
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Oct 20, 2005 15:12:19 GMT -5
I've missed your confusing rants, Imp, good to see you are still here to baffle and redirect.
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Jan 19, 2006 18:26:05 GMT -5
Not so confusing. Empiricists aren't too bad.
But yes, in principal, it is very hard to prove their is say, a table under a tablecloth, by just looking and hearing and sensing. Just because it was there does not mean it will be there.
Empiricists and Rationalists. Ah, the good ole days.
|
|
fred
Knight
Posts: 346
|
Post by fred on Jan 23, 2006 2:48:42 GMT -5
To give this a shot, my recent reading for my Philosophy class compared the views of Kant and Mill. One for 'Respect for persons' and one for Utilitarianism. The first viewpoint views each person as more than just a means to an end. I'd go into detail, but I honestly don't know if I follow it all just yet. The second, is a belief that the choice should be made based on which choice results in the greater or greatest happiness of all involved.
Which is more important, being right in our own eyes...or being right for more of us?
|
|
|
Post by sinrebirth on Jan 24, 2006 0:01:47 GMT -5
*shrugs*
Which truly matters?
A single person can create or destroy a world, with a little work, but a person is nothing without others anyway.
Unfortunately, the logic of 'best for all' is what is usually the aim, rather than the reality, studying our captalist-dog-eat-dog society. The only time the 'best for all' logic is accepted is during warfare, where sacrifices of the few are accepted to safeguard the many.
And Fred, philosophy can require a large amount of lateral thinking, but it makes sense, in its own way. lol.
|
|