No offense, but...

Why is believing in religious and moral pluralism condescending? Why is it not compassionate understanding?

I "believe" in the "truth" of Jediism. But that in no way means that I cannot also respect someone's belief in Christianity or Buddhism, in fact I respect them to such an extent that I am studying both of those religions!

Would one rather live in a society where everyone was a fundamentalist and refused to consider the thoughts and opinions of others? Just thinking that others were plain "wrong"? Or would one rather live in a society where everyone did their best to try and get along with their neighbours?

Trying to understand and accept other people can be an extension of one's morals, not a compromise of one's morals.

I think its important to

1. Try to not offend...

And...

2. Try to not be offended....

It is a balancing act...

Some folks call it was "freedom of speech" issue (I can say what I want, its your fault you are offended...)

And the other side claims that an arrant word, or an insult in one place is an insult in others (fag for cigarette)

When, like every thing else, its a balancing act, somewhere in the middle....

It's a rusty razor's edge, Jestor ... Trying not to offend or be offended is like "trying" not to want something, or "trying" not to be sad, or happy for that matter ...

We have a measure of control over the thoughts that we pay attention to, though not necessarily the thoughts - or any mental activity - themselves.

In other words, 'trying not to offend/be offended' would be a little useless. What we must do is not hold the intention to offend (saying something that one knows full well will be taken badly) and when we are offended, to accept it - let it be, without reaction - and observe why ...

With Gisteron, we had a long and detailed conversation about the difference between belief and knowledge. It was a very good conversation.

As I see it, to be clear about it, we should take away the words "true" and/or "truth". We're not getting rid of them permanently, just for now. And, for as much as we like to take the mickey out of the 'science-lovers' about their faithful-ness to the Scientific Method - we tend to use that too for most of our Knowledge (whether we know that is what we're doing or not). We like to have 'proof' of things we think we know and we like to be reasonably certain about things ...

Yet, there are some things we feel are so - that just feel right - whether we can prove them or not. We can't really know them, not in any epistemic way and most of our heuristic strategies fall way short. But we still feel that it is so (we can't know that it is true - no matter what we say).

... and just like being offended, we don't really have much control over that feeling. We feel it or we don't. Thus, we don't decide what we believe, just like we don't decide to want something or to be offended. Sometimes we can reason that feeling away, most often not at all.

We come to believe in something (which is a little different, though connexe, to "believing that something is true") and we come to disbelieve that same thing according to the so-ness of the feeling. It is intuition, it is likely an aspect of our humanitude*, but it is immeasurable, un-testable and only reliable to oneself.

Thus, we cannot "expect" another to share our beliefs any more than we can expect someone else to feel sadness or happiness or like asparagus just because we ourselves do. And I shouldn't want to berate or torture someone simply because that person finds Mascarpone delicious and I find it disgusting ... Religions beliefs are like this too, UNLESS the motive for following a particular doctrine is loyalty to a tradition or of any other mental (reasonable) anchorage.

This would constitute a category error.


*humanitude - a term coined by Albert Jacquard to refer to the non-physical characteristics coming down to us through all of human evolution ; very similar to the effects of the Collective Unconscious chez Jung and the Myth basis chez Joseph Campbell.

Alex you seem to be assuming that all beliefs are based in a "feeling" one has, but I doubt every belief we have is based in a feeling alone. Some of our beliefs might be - a belief in God for example - but many of our economic/moral/political beliefs almost undoubtedly have some basis in reason.

We might have an a priori belief in "fairness" which is a feeling we feel deep down, but how exactly does one translate the feeling of fairness to society? Reason is then needed to try and justify the decisions we make in the interests of fairness. Does fairness result in communism? Marxism? Socialism? Capitalism? etc

Alan Watts presents some compelling ideas in The Book, for me he is convincing, but he is convincing only so much as he is able to use his reasoning to convince me. Without reason his book would just be him stating lots of stuff he believes in while offering no explanation or argument to back it up. Based on the reason he uses however I have changed my beliefs, that has become my new "feeling".

Another example is perhaps animal testing. A belief in compassion to other humans can be extended (as I believe Peter Singer does) through reason and argument to a belief in compassion for many different species, thus resulting in the new feeling of opposing animal testing.

Reason and Feeling are not as separate as you seem to be making them out. Our feelings are tempered by reason just as our reason is tempered by our feelings.

Yes, M ... that is true ... hence the distinction between 'believing in ...' and 'believing that ...'

I probably should have been more exact about that.

I agree with Jestor.

In my opinion, for a successful conversation (ie one which is worth having at all, not just an egotistical desire for validation of what one believes is "right", or one's special-little-butterfly unique brilliance), one must aim not to offend, and where one has offended, should apologise sincerely and try not to repeat it, whether one feels the offense reasonable or otherwise. If you go out with the intention NOT to offend, and someone gets offended, then it will virtually never seem reasonable from an intellectual perspective, but that's where basic empathy comes in. And where one has taken offence, and another has apologised sincerely, or explained a misunderstanding, the "offendee" should accept the intention was not to offend with grace. Both sides recognise offense was not the intention, no-one needs get defensive and both might actually learn something.

This is pretty basic stuff... it allows people to talk across the obvious, unavoidable subjective reactions and variance of understanding language creates, and to foster mutual communication without unnecessary aggression or defensiveness. It stifles intellectual debate far less than one or two people loudly shouting the rest down. Join any seminar at any university and see who learns the most, the overly aggressive/defensive, or those who conduct themselves with a little decorum as described above. Brick walls and immovable objects generally don't grow a great deal.

We all already do what I describe in our day to day interactions, from the grocery store to the dinner table and the workplace. Even those most frequently offending/offended at the Temple have conformed to the schema above before here, I can think of examples for almost all frequent posters (though it would no doubt pain several of them to admit it). If all can do it, and indeed all do do it sometimes/elsewhere, the obvious conclusion is some are here to offend/get offended, rather than to engage in a decent conversation. They think that's OK here. It's just the internet, right? These aren't real people? A few have even declared this as their intention. That, to me, seems not only wholly misguided but exceptionally egotistical.

Not everyone learns best by fighting, especially in the fields of philosophy, spirituality and the subjective nature of reality - in my experience, a few very vocal (both aggressive and defensive) people prefer this style and consider anyone who doesn't a "wimp", causing the rest to simply disengage. The truth is the "victory" focused Type A ones like to feel superior by "testing" their entrenched ideas/beliefs on others, but most people arrive here to learn and grow and are, quite reasonably, not prepared (nor inclined) to fight tooth and nail for beliefs they are only just forming. The loud ones get their hollow "victory", empty "superiority", and most of the rest just don't feel like posting anymore.

trying not to offend/be offended' would be a little useless.

Well, this is what I took out of your post Alex...

And by itself, its pretty, uh, jacked up... But, I know you went on to further explain the "how" and "why"....

I think you went too deep philosophical, and not enough practical...

:huh:

:blush:

tzb wrote: in my experience, a few very vocal (both aggressive and defensive) people prefer this style and consider anyone who doesn't a "wimp", causing the rest to simply disengage.

...ouch.

What a wuss