Who are you to say that? (School of Life take)

Yes... It's another school of life lesson.
I thought however that this was meaningful enough to put outside the thread dedicated to those little lessons (- http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Philosophy/108061-school-of-life-short-lessons?start=10#184930 )
and indeed have it's own thread.

As to why I think the above- this idea,

who are you to say that

, seems to come up fairly regularly on the temple in a manner of speaking. We are, subtly and probably not with these precise words, asking one another this question when in some argument or debate (heated or otherwise). Rather than try and explain the video myself I'll let it talk for itself so voila!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpwehCoYc

Enjoy the video, and if you so feel like doing so, be free to comment with your thoughts (disagreements or otherwise)

I often keep my mouth shut because of such responses. I some times feel I can't say anything on a lot of topics because I am not an expert or can not remember all the significant factors. This can lead to lower sense of self worth.

i feel like this applies to the conversations about reaching a consensus on what it means to be jedi

rugadd wrote: I often keep my mouth shut because of such responses. I some times feel I can't say anything on a lot of topics because I am not an expert or can not remember all the significant factors. This can lead to lower sense of self worth.

i dont know if you can use this or not but something that helps me is to be able to ask and answer: OB1, do you have specific principles that you belive are valuable?

yes

do you make sincere effort to live by them?

yes

do you encourage others to honestly develop their own valuation system and to live by the values which result?

yes

do you make effort to acknowledge other peoples value and to express gratitude and encouragement to those who deserve or need it?

yes

THEN YOURE DOING SOMETHING WORTHWHILE! lol

it makes a difference for me in moments where my self worth becomes an issue and i bet it can help others too

Hmm, it would apply, except that the question he uses that fall outside what he says science can explain, are not the types of conversations done here.

I would say the conversations here are even more vague and ambiguous, and the real problem is that a conclusion is not even tried to be reached, more, everyone is all about there point of view, and each one being valid.

So take the question.

What is a jedi?

You could say it will fall outside science to say, and that its worth trying to reach a conclusion, but instead, no one says you should reach a conclusion( even if it is highly impossible) and that its whatever you say it is, making it the same as "Who are you to say that?" but in a much more damaging sense, because you have removed any attempt at collaboration, hence fruitful communication in getting anywhere in any discussion because anyone can simple agree to disagree, which is an avoidance of collaboration, or conclusion in lieu of being able to keep selfishly, your own point of view.

I'll be watching this later, but I had a quick response to Khaos...

By trying to define 'what a jedi is' we remove 'what a jedi is not'...

And thus, the splintering begins... Look at the Christians...

Someone adamant that martial arts is a requirement will consider anyone not a practicing martial artist 'not a jedi'...

So we begin splintering...

Whereas by not limiting 'what a jedi is', we instead realize a "a jedi is anyone who wants to be"... Thus understand ing that the best dessert ever is subjective, but agreeing that dessert is good...

You call it "vague and ambiguous", we call in 'inclusive'...

This is probably why you should have watched the video first, as it not only gives context to my response, but it would also to your response.

As I was responding to an example in the video, and while splintering is one thing that can happen, its certainly not the only thing.

Again, it all depends on if a conclucion is trying to be reached, and a collaboration is sincere.

Its funny, because the "Look at the Christians" example was given in such a way in regards to what would by my response in the video.

:laugh:

Define irony

Khaos wrote: Hmm, it would apply, except that the question he uses that fall outside what he says science can explain, are not the types of conversations done here.

I would say the conversations here are even more vague and ambiguous, and the real problem is that a conclusion is not even tried to be reached, more, everyone is all about there point of view, and each one being valid.

So take the question.

What is a jedi?

You could say it will fall outside science to say, and that its worth trying to reach a conclusion, but instead, no one says you should reach a conclusion( even if it is highly impossible) and that its whatever you say it is, making it the same as "Who are you to say that?" but in a much more damaging sense, because you have removed any attempt at collaboration, hence fruitful communication in getting anywhere in any discussion because anyone can simple agree to disagree, which is an avoidance of collaboration, or conclusion in lieu of being able to keep selfishly, your own point of view.

Huh!? That particular question you've picked as an example is well established here to be a deliberate answer of individual development and effort, which is explored and guided rather then being 'defined' in some authoritative manner - hardly a realistic example of "conversations here" which are "are even more vague and ambiguous, and the real problem is that a conclusion is not even tried to be reached, more, everyone is all about there point of view, and each one being valid." if your point is to reply to the OP.

Otherwise I tend to agree, most of the discussion's here are about exploring opinions and beliefs so people can benefit from their own capacity to focus on them, hopefully helped by others doing the same thing ...... which tends not to really lead to 'who are you to say that'. Everyone should feel free to talk about their opinions and beliefs even if they are technically incorrect IMO, but I'd say to make an effort to point them out as such - because a few folks (incl me) like to engage and dissect peoples views. I think that is ok too, so long as the intent is the same ie exploring opinions and beliefs so people can benefit from their own capacity to focus on them, hopefully helped by others doing the same thing and NOT trying to tell people what is right or wrong from any particular standpoint (unless its one they are actually incorrect in attributing with).