dharmaraj02
Member
Awaiting_the_fifth said:Remember, what I said was that you should believe what is in your heart AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE
I think you're missing my point. You seemed to suggest that simply following someone else's lead is wrong, but this is inconsistent with the above statement since it is entirely possible, even common, that people _feel_ led to place their trust in other people.
Also, I don't understand where this comes from. Why do you think this is a true statement? Maybe you think it is true because it feels true, but that's circular reasoning. I'm not asking to prove it, just motivate it. Why should anyone who disagrees with the statement change their mind?
I can think of a number of circumstances when people's hearts lead them in the wrong direction. Suicides are driven by the heart, organized hate is driven by the heart, nonsensical policy measures are driven by the heart, Elvis still living is driven by the heart. What suggests to you that the heart is a reliable guide?
ok, maybe I've totally misunderstood you. Maybe, you mean that feeling=believing. The heart is the faculty of the mind that consider something true. In that case, you statement is a truism. You are literally saying: You should believe what you believe. This is a true statement for sure, but it has no philosophical content.What they feel is right? Isn't that what belief is? How can you possibly believe anything else?
Applying some intellectual criticism to beliefs does NOT mean proof. After all, it is probably intellectual examination that tells you that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Intellectual criticism tells me that I shouldn't have contradictory beliefs, or that I shouldn't pick and choose arbitrarily. It tells me my beliefs should reconcilewith reliable personal experience and the reliable experiences of others. It tells me certainty in many things is impossible, but reason should still be pursued.If we did, then none of us would have religion. We have already ascertained in another thread that it is impossible to prove the existence of any God.
Again, I grant that anyone can believe what they want, and they shouldn't be compelled. But the idea that you can't tell a Nazi that he is wrong, or that you should defend his believing that Jews should burn if it feels true to him is absurd.No, I do not believe that the nazi is right, but I do not believe that Christians or Hindus or Wiccans etc are right either. I do however respect their right to believe whatever they believe.
Ok, I'm confused again. Are you saying it's possible to not believe what you feel? If so, then you're saying that feelings and beliefs are not identical, and I think a description of what 'feel' means is needed. If they are identical, then disbelieving what you feel is impossible and nonsensical.I could not possibly disagree more. If you refuse to believe what you feel, why would you believe what someone else feels.
It sounds like you don't like when people sacrifice their own inclinations for the beliefs of others. But there are conceivably plenty of good reasons why someone might do this. It's easier not to attack every moral question but rather delegate the responsibility to a trustworthy source. I might think it's horrible that Israelites are being pulled out of Gaza, and I might feel inclined to go over there and fight the Israeli military, but then my professor father might say, "Son, it's not that simple." I hope I take his cue. Most/all of us CANNOT solve every moral problem. People often jump to conclusions or choose the prettiest picture or believe in whom they trust. It is not at all obvious which is the best choice, though of the 3, the last sounds the best at a glance.
Look, this just isn't that informative. A person has all sorts of inclinations within himself, some good, some bad. It sounds like you are suggesting that down 'deep', people are basically purely good, and if we listen to the 'deepest' part of ourselves, it will always give us the right answer. But it's impossible to determine which inclinations are 'deep,' which ones are not so deep. I don't even know what 'deep' means or 'core' means. How do you discriminate good inclinations from the 'heart' from bad inclinations? Why is this inferior to judging things first intellectually?By heart, I mean mind, soul, spirit, your conscience, your subconscious whatever you want to call it. That central core of your being, the essence of you.
I'm very interested to hear your response, Awaiting. Take it easy.