The ClayTaurus
Senior Member
- Sep 19, 2005
- 7,062
- 333
- 48
Due to the length of post we've reached, and my own time constraints, I'm going to need to subdivide my response. Feel free to either wait for all parts and respond to the whole, or respond in part to each. I, however, will withold any responses to further response until I've concluded this.. response. And stuff. I apologize if this is inconvenient for you.
I believe you have much more faith in the human race than I when it comes to the potential for dealing with reality. Perhaps personal experiences have lead us to a difference of opinion? I'm not yet convinced that everyone is capable of living sugar-coating-free. (Besides, sugar coating tastes so good!)
As I said, more as I find time later.
I apologize. Lack of clarity on my part as well. (We can just keep taking turns being unclear: tag you're it)Of course actual reality is not subjective. But as we agree, the perception of reality is. And to judge someone dealing with reality or not requires application of perception, which is subjective. But this is now completely unrelated as you've revised your original statement.LOki said:Apologies. Mixed synonyms. Allow me to reword for clarity:<blockquote>Some people are unable to function without a dose of heroin either. I really do not wish to take faith to the "opiate of the masses" conclusion if better conclusions can be made that defy the notions that human beings can't function within reality without perceptual barriers between them and reality--that human beings are incapable of interacting effectively with reality withour it being sugar-coated.</blockquote>Failing to deal with reality is NOT subjective. Not at all. The ultimate indication of failure to deal with reality is death. Step out into speeding traffic and die. Jump from a bridge and die. This not to dismiss lesser penalties, but those penalties have objective effects, even if our judgment of those effects is subjective. Reality is objective. What we do in reality is real, and therefore it too is objective--what we percieve may not be objective, and our motives may not be objective, but the reality of our perceptions, and our motives are objective--they are real things that can be compared to other parts of reality, confirmed and validated by reality. They don't have to be, and IMO, ought not be, judged by the caprices derived out of fear of our imperfections. Those imperfections are real too, and the limitations they impose upon us can be taken into account.
I believe you have much more faith in the human race than I when it comes to the potential for dealing with reality. Perhaps personal experiences have lead us to a difference of opinion? I'm not yet convinced that everyone is capable of living sugar-coating-free. (Besides, sugar coating tastes so good!)
Sure I can! I'll do it again with your last sentence:!)LOki said:You cannot just dismiss what I said, and replace it with what you'd wished I'd said, and then tell me I can't have my conclusion.
Well, hey thanks! Go ahead: you try it!LOki (as wished by The ClayTaurus said:You're my hero.
I think your practical definition of faith may be much more limited than I. You and I both employ the same set of criteria in our relationships. I'm rather shocked by your insistance that faith plays no role in connecting verification of the past, current, and future situations. In my eyes, to be truly faith free, you would need to approach each day as though you had just met the person, as as soon as you begin to predict future behaivor based on past I submit you are employing what I would consider faith. Faith that is constantly being confirmed and re-implements. Disposable faith, I suppose, although disposable may be a more choice of word.LOki said:My relationships (the close ones) are not based upon the value of what is unknown to me in other people--rather, it is based upon what I know. The character, qualities, and values that I can verify to exist, have verified exist, and continue to verify exist are the sole critera. I demand that those who love and care for me do so for me on the same terms. This is not to devalue humanity, but it is to say that humanity is a rather common commodity amongst humans--that humanity includes frailties and imperfections, strength and virtues certainly, but the certainty of those are NOT reasons, or the measures, by which my relationships are established, and the "unknown" where the potentiality those frailties and imperfections of those I love might harm me is cetainly not considered. It is the exceptional difference, verifiable and verified constantly, that I weigh. I just don't judge others, or the nature of my relationship to them, on unknown variables.
We'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll chalk it up to you having more faith in humanity than I.LOki said:It's imminently practical and practicable.
You could get a Reality-Man avatar and have epic battles with RWA's red, white, and blue-clad superhero.LOki said:X=X; fire burns; the unexpected is unexpected; and the unexplained is unexplained. Completely sensible, and not projecting. But I am enjoying the image of possessing the super-hero power of aknowledging that reality is pretty much just the way it seems to be.
Preferrable is an excellent choice of word. We are in agreement.LOki said:Good. Then how about this: Is it preferrable to apply impeccably, one's rational faculty to find an explaination, rather than summon one out of ones kindnesses, joys, contentments, loves, fears, hatreds, resentments, cruelties, or other irrationalities?
If validation results in affirmation of faith, than no, if anything the value of the relationship is increased. However, if validation results in the opposite, than absolutely the value of the relationship is diminished. Is not your relationship less meaningful after it's been discovered that your trust has been abused?LOki said:The question asked is "Does confirmation, in evidence or valid logic, of the fidelity of your GF/wife destroy the faith in fidelity?
I believe your answer was "yes."
Then, does such confirmation in her fidelity diminish the value of her fidelity; does it diminish the value of the relationship? I sincerely hoped not.
I believe your answer was "yes" again, but I believe you misunderstood the questions, so please revise if necessary.
The relationship ultimately will validate the faith, but I contend that success of the relationship is highly dependent on the responsible application of faith.LOki said:I predict that you will reassert that fidelity cannot be validated by evidence (and I'll disagree) but it's beside the point, which is: Is it the faith that makes the relationship valid, or does the relationship validate the faith?
I'm not sure faith makes anything real. But it certainly can make things manageable, practical, and reasonable. All subjective terms, of course.LOki said:Does the faith make the relationship real and valuable, or is the verifiable elements of the relationship, and your relationship's value to you, and most importantly, the value you hold in the relationship and the verifiable elements of the relationship that validate the parts that you don't know about but believe are true--those parts that you placed the term "faith" in?
I suppose that would be subjective based on the individual. On an absolute level? Conclusive evidence, as discussed prior.LOki said:I can assume, for now, that the drive for Truth is equal with or without, but I'll ask: When one "knows" without requiring evidence or logic to validate said "knowledge", at what point, and upon what criteria, does one establish that evidence or valid logic can refute OR confirm such knowledge?
Fair enough. But allow me to take a parting pot shot toward validation of fidelity before we bury it for another day. Without constant monitoring of an individual, affirmation of fidelity is impossible. It's quite simple. If a car is parked outside your house, and you go to sleep and in the morning the car is in EXACTLY the same condition outside your house, that doesn't conclusively validate that it did not move while you were sleeping.LOki said:So you say. I'll wait for your resposes to the above.
Also, I'm not speaking of the "things" that require faith--separate issue, and maybe we'll discuss our differences about validating fidelity when we get to it. First I'd like to nail down validating "faith."
But if the evidence is completely ignored because of conviction in faith alone, my contention is that is misuse (and dangerous misuse at that) of faith.LOki said:Nonsense. I can question the evidence. If the validity of the evidence is in contention, then room exists for faith (if, of course evidence can invalidate faith).
No no. I like a good, all-encompassing definition. Getting too specific limits things unfairly.LOki said:Do you wish to alter our definition of faith to exclude denial of evidence? If so, I'd like to be sure of the grounds for this alteration.
As I said, more as I find time later.