# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  A Question for Philosphers

## Fire Haired14

My whole life I was in the background and later front line of discussions about philosophy and theology among my Dad and one of my brothers. My Dad has a phd in theology and my brother just starting working on his phd. I've always been a bit anti-philosophy and anti-objectivity/open-mindedness, and now that I'm older I can finally articulate why I don't think it is the be all and end all. Sorry my grammar won't be perfect and it might be hard to understand what I'm writing, but this is a forum not school so who cares. 

*Philosophy and objectivity is mostly good*
First of all I want to say the vast majority of the time they are good ways of thinking. Except once they reach a point I'll describe below.....

*Why Philosophy and Objectivity aren't the be all and end all*
We don't ever think about it, but all of us have believes and behaviors we love and would never give up. Atheist see theists as close-minded, yet all atheists also have believes they to would never give up. All Atheists are close-minded. Atheists have the faiths and restrictions to, they're just differnt faiths and restrictions. 

Would if lets say hypothetically(I know this is illogical, but ignore that and just put yourself in the hypothetical), basic human behaviors and believes that you take for granted defied logic. Some of you here claim anything is ok as long as no one is harmed and everything that harms people is wrong. 

Ok, would if being competitive is somehow(in ways we didn't know) very harmful to society, would if laughing was somehow very harmful, would if loving people people was very harmful. I know this is crazy, but like I said put yourself in the hypothetical. Lets say hypothetically society really would be better if you gave these things up, despite how hard that is to believe. 

It's difficult to produce a hypothetical situation. My point is we do all have believes and behaviors we would never give up. None of us are willing to be completely objective. I don't know about you, but I care more about doing what I love than being objective. Human behavior is contradictory and illogical in many ways, so many of my hypotheticals are actually realities. People are happy to be objective as long as it doesn't go against their sacred believes. You might not be aware of this because your sacred believes, like theism used to be, is an assumed truth no one even thinks to question. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think philosophy and objectivity are the most important things in the world like some here might think. It's sometimes a waste of time to philosophy about life and ideas in my opinion, you should just live life and not think about it. It can be nerdy and unhealthy behavior to. Philosophers have a limit of how much they will philosophy, yet philosophy has the assumption they can be completely objective. I'd rather live in the Stone age than in a communist "objective" society which is bare of humanism. 

I know Angela and Lebork are probably ready to call me anti-logic and anti-reason. I'm not. All I'm doing is pointing out that we all have faith. We all have believes we would never give up no matter how illogical they were. IMO, this is important to know. There's nothing more annoying than a smartass who thinks he's the most objective guy on the planet and looks down on everyone else.

----------


## LeBrok

> My whole life I was in the background and later front line of discussions about philosophy and theology among my Dad and one of my brothers. My Dad has a phd in theology and my brother just starting working on his phd. I've always been a bit anti-philosophy and anti-objectivity/open-mindedness, and now that I'm older I can finally articulate why I don't think it is the be all and end all. Sorry my grammar won't be perfect and it might be hard to understand what I'm writing, but this is a forum not school so who cares. 
> 
> *Philosophy and objectivity is mostly good*
> First of all I want to say the vast majority of the time they are good ways of thinking. Except once they reach a point I'll describe below.....
> 
> *Why Philosophy and Objectivity aren't the be all and end all*
> We don't ever think about it, but all of us have believes and behaviors we love and would never give up. Atheist see theists as close-minded, yet all atheists also have believes they to would never give up. All Atheists are close-minded. Atheists have the faiths and restrictions to, they're just differnt faiths and restrictions.


You might be right in case of some people, who always take others' ideas on faith. However, you are wrong in all other cases. Spirituality and religion relies on faith. Atheism relies on lack of it. If you raised a kid and didn't mention god even once, do you think this kid (atheist) would believe that god doesn't exist? The kid would be very surprised that some people do believe in something he never even heard about. That's the base of atheism.
For most of atheists "believing or not believing" is non issue. We don't bother with this because god doesn't exist. Same thing as you don't need to bother with believing or not believing in unicorns. It is not a belief, it is more like certainty, but not even important one to bother thinking about. 

You should seriously take it from me as the truth. I've been on both sides of this barricade. I know how it feels and goes on both sides. I still would like to believe in loving god, eternal happiness of afterlife, I wish they existed, but my logical part of my brain says they don't exist, period. 

Most important aspect of faith is spirituality, actually the feeling of spirituality. Feeling that something grater exist in universe, feeling god(s), feeling your ancestors' spirits, etc. I think it is genetic, expressed in certain brain architecture and neuronal connections. Simply put, people are born spiritual or not. Spiritual people feel and believe in supernatural, non-spiritual people don't. If this genetic aspect is true, it also points to the fact that non-believing is not a faith, but lack of it. State zero.




> Would if lets say hypothetically(I know this is illogical, but ignore that and just put yourself in the hypothetical), basic human behaviors and believes that you take for granted defied logic. Some of you here claim anything is ok as long as no one is harmed and everything that harms people is wrong. 
> 
> Ok, would if being competitive is somehow(in ways we didn't know) very harmful to society, would if laughing was somehow very harmful, would if loving people people was very harmful. I know this is crazy, but like I said put yourself in the hypothetical. Lets say hypothetically society really would be better if you gave these things up, despite how hard that is to believe.


I don't mind spiritual or religious people, as long as they are tolerant and accepting others. If spirituality is genetic, then spiritual people need to express their spirituality in their beliefs. Otherwise they will be unhappy all their lives. Like most of Russians during programmed atheism of communist regime.




> It's difficult to produce a hypothetical situation. My point is we do all have believes and behaviors we would never give up. None of us are willing to be completely objective. I don't know about you, but* I care more about doing what I love than being objective*.


 Because spirituality is a powerful feeling, it has nothing to do with logic.




> Human behavior is contradictory and illogical in many ways,


 That's what I thought when I was a Christian. Now I understand how people behave, on social level and evolutionary level. From dawn of humankind, being hunter gatherers to modern civilization. In short I lost heaven but I gained understanding. Heck, isn't it the true meaning of Adam, Eve, Snake and Apple?

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Lebrok,

Thanks for the response. I agree with and understand what you are saying. One could say a similar thing about theism as you are atheism. Someone who grows up in a world with no atheism won't view theism as faith. Believing in God would be like believing in the existence of China. You wouldn't be closing your mind to anything, you'd just be reacting to an unquestioned reality.

In the same way theism in that hypothetical world is unquestioned, so to are believes athirst in our world. If proven to somehow harmful, illogical, and wrong would an athiest stop laughing or would he hold on to his faith. 

The argument I'm making with this thread is that we shouldn't live our lives based completly on logic. Sometimes just living and not thinking is better.

----------


## LeBrok

> @Lebrok,
> 
> Thanks for the response. I agree with and understand what you are saying. One could say a similar thing about theism as you are atheism. Someone who grows up in a world with no atheism won't view theism as faith.


 There is a difference. Religion and specific beliefs need to be taught. Atheism could be described as lack of this knowledge. in other words if you don't teach people about god(s) they will be atheists. Religious people need to be taught about god(s) to believe, atheists don't. Atheism can be explained as a state of mind a child is born with. It stay atheist till you teach it about supernatural, so it will believe.







> Believing in God would be like believing in the existence of China.


 Nope, believing in God is like believing in existence of Neverland. You might believe in it as a child but later you see that there is no evidence except few books and people who take it on faith. That's exactly my experience with religion.




> In the same way theism in that hypothetical world is unquestioned, so to are believes athirst in our world. If proven to somehow harmful, illogical, and wrong would an athiest stop laughing or would he hold on to his faith.


Never happened.




> The argument I'm making with this thread is that we shouldn't live our lives based completly on logic. Sometimes just living and not thinking is better.


My case was simple. I was taught to believe in God. With years going by I couldn't reconcile lack of evidence of God's existence, his loving character, scientific discoveries, christian doctrines, human nature, with church teaching, or any religious teachings and my beliefs. Only when I decidet to use science in understanding human nature and world in general everything made sense finally. To make is sweeter, science can explain human beliefs in super natural, but not vice versa. I stick with science.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Lebrok,

You're not responding to what the whole message behind this thread is. 




> There is a difference. Religion and specific beliefs need to be taught. Atheism could be described as lack of this knowledge. in other words if you don't teach people about god(s) they will be atheists. Religious people need to be taught about god(s) to believe, atheists don't. Atheism can be explained as a state of mind a child is born with. It stay atheist till you teach it about supernatural, so it will believe.


I never denied this. But in a world with no atheism, theism would just be an assumed (taught)truth like the existence of China was for an Irishmen in the 1600s. It wouldn't be a faith. 




> Nope, believing in God is like believing in existence of Neverland. You might believe in it as a child but later you see that there is no evidence except few books and people who take it on faith. That's exactly my experience with religion.


You're not putting yourself in the situation of my hypothetical. Forgot about your world and only try to understand my hypothetical. To an Irishmen in 1605, China was neveralnd. He saw no evidence of its existence he just assumed it did because people told him it did. Lets say historical I'm wrong. Doesn't matter. Lets make a hypothetical 1605 Ireland. It doesn't change the point I'm making. In a world without atheism, religion isn't faith it is as reaction to an unquestioned reality. The same is true for assumed truths, that have nothing to do with religion, we all have including atheists. Once those assumed truths are questioned, atheists become just as close minded and faith-based as theist. 

EDIT: Also keep out sarcasm and insults. 




> Never happened.


It's a hypothetical world.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> That's what I thought when I was a Christian. Now I understand how people behave, on social level and evolutionary level. From dawn of humankind, being hunter gatherers to modern civilization. In short I lost heaven but I gained understanding. Heck, isn't it the true meaning of Adam, Eve, Snake and Apple?


No, human behavior is very contradictory and illogical. Most of what we do makes as much sense as what dogs do.

----------


## LeBrok

> I never denied this. But in a world with no atheism, theism would just be an assumed (taught)truth like the existence of China was for an Irishmen in the 1600s. It wouldn't be a faith.


 Exactly, because in its core, it is not. I'm glad you understood my explanations. Keep in mind that not believing in China, because you never heard of it, is a starting point. That's why I say that atheism is the state zero of mind, the starting point.





> You're not putting yourself in the situation of my hypothetical. Forgot about your world and only try to understand my hypothetical. To an Irishmen in 1605, China was neveralnd. He saw no evidence of its existence he just assumed it did because people told him it did. Lets say historical I'm wrong. Doesn't matter. Lets make a hypothetical 1605 Ireland. It doesn't change the point I'm making. In a world without atheism, religion isn't faith it is as reaction to an unquestioned reality. The same is true for assumed truths, that have nothing to do with religion, we all have including atheists. Once those assumed truths are questioned, atheists become just as close minded and faith-based as theist.


 Why would you want to invent some weird hypothetical world if you have a real world example of a person who experienced it.

Tell me what is better, to invent hypothetical world or take real life situations to try to understand how world works.




> EDIT: Also keep out sarcasm and insults.


You must have seen it in your hypothetical world.




> Forgot about your world and only try to understand my hypothetical. To an Irishmen in 1605, China was neveralnd.


Of course, at first he took it on faith. Some people believed some not. Would you believe in existence of country of LeBrokstan on this planet if I told you so? No? 
Would you consider this as "believing" in non existence of LeBrokstan, equal to believing in existence of Germany? That's your answer in equating believing in god to theist, and believing in god's non existence for atheist. Latter could be better described as "not believing", meaning it doesn't exist, you don't care for it, you don't occupy your thoughts with it. Unlike "believing", which takes an intellectual effort to imagine it as something real, and constantly thinking of it and keeping believing.

----------


## LeBrok

> No, human behavior is very contradictory and illogical.


you forgot to add "to you" it is contradictory and illogical.


> Most of what we do makes as much sense as what dogs do.


I can explain dog's behavior too. Ask me a question.

----------


## Angela

I don't want to speak for LeBrok, but I think what he's getting at is that the more we understand the effects of genetics and environment, the more we can understand what causes people to behave in certain ways. We do that by applying logic to information we've learned.

That doesn't mean that the behavior of human beings, and that includes everyone, is always what a logical mind would think is the optimum in terms of consequences for the person involved.

Let's take the case of battered women as one example. Usually, if a man beats a woman once, he'll do it again, no matter how he might apologize and promise never to do it again. The statistics all bear that out. Some women live with this kind of abuse for years; it sometimes ends only with their death. Does it make sense from a "logical" perspective for her to stay? No, it doesn't, because not only is she in pain, and subjecting her children, if there are any, to trauma, but her survival is at stake. 

Yet, some women stay. Why? Dig a little deeper, and you might find that there was a bond formed where the woman initially saw the man as strong, someone who could protect her, or she saw violent jealousy as proof of his love, or she's so insecure that she's more afraid to try to make it on her own, or she's ashamed to admit what a mistake she made, or she's afraid he'll find her and kill her if she leaves, or it's a form of Stockholm syndrome, or she's come to psychologically associate the pain with the subsequent remorse, affection, and reconciliation. It's like Pavlov's dog. So, we can understand, or approach understanding the "reasons" for certain behaviors, or their internal logic, but they're not "logical" in the sense of leading to a positive outcome for the woman.

As for faith, reason takes you only so far. St. Thomas Aquinas only takes you so far. The Christian existentialists talk about the "leap of faith". When you come to the end of all the philosophy and theology and "reason", faith is still a choice, or, if you're a believer, a gift of grace sent by God. 

I would also say that I don't believe that people raised without a belief in God will necessarily never believe in him. After all, as far as atheists are concerned, man created God, created religion out of some need, or, if you're a believing person, out of a natural recognition of the reality that lies behind the veil of actuality. For people like that:

"The world is charged with the grandeur of God. 

 It will flame out, like shining from shook foil; 

 It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil 

Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod? 

Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 

 And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil; 

 And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil 

Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod. 



And for all this, nature is never spent; 

 There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 

And though the last lights off the black West went 

 Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs — 

Because the Holy Ghost over the bent 

 World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings!"

Gerald Manley Hopkins

----------


## Fire Haired14

You guys don't understand what I'm getting at. This is what I'm getting at....

Philosophy isn't that great because it's about objectivity but no one is willing to be completely objective. Atheist like Theist have believes they'll never give up. These believes for Atheist is not no believe in God. Humans value philosophy(objective and logic) a lot, but I don't think it should determine everything we do. Some actions should be done not because they're logical.

----------


## Angela

> You guys don't understand what I'm getting at. This is what I'm getting at....
> 
> Philosophy isn't that great because it's about objectivity but no one is willing to be completely objective. Atheist like Theist have believes they'll never give up. These believes for Atheist is not no believe in God. Humans value philosophy(objective and logic) a lot, but I don't think it should determine everything we do. Some actions should be done not because they're logical.


No, I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand. Philosophy is just the study of the nature of knowledge, reality and existence. Not all philosophers are Rationalists. You might want to look up Hume and his ideas about Skeptical Rationalism, or look at this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yd0YIYmmAY
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy...section4.rhtml

The bottom line for me is that it leads to the conclusion that "reality" doesn't exist. Maybe it's true, but one can't function, life can't function, civilization can't function on that basis. 

Said another way, theories like that have absolutely nothing to do with either everyday living or with the accumulation of knowledge.

In terms of everyday life, practical life, what the philosophers might call "practical reason" is what makes human society possible. Man can't and shouldn't operate on instinct alone. You might want to read some Freud. Some of his work has been discounted or modified, but his analysis of the id, ego and superego might help you understand what I'm talking about. 
http://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

Or maybe you might want to read this to get a handle on the value of reason in practical terms, which is what I was trying to address above:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...tionality.html

This is perhaps the most important take away: "Rationality is foremost a method of survival."

Then there is the role of reason and objectivity in science and academic disciplines etc. Without it there is no way to evaluate the "reality" of claims being made. Any charlatan could proclaim ideas for all sorts of nefarious purposes and people would have no way of judging their validity. Anyone who doesn't believe that this is the goal has no business working in these fields or even commenting on any of these matters, to be blunt. That doesn't mean anyone can totally eliminate bias of one type or another, because some of it is unconscious. That doesn't mean one shouldn't strive as much as possible to do it. 

Abraham Lincoln was a great believer in the value of reason and its presence in at least some people:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

That's because of reason.

If what you really want to do is mount a defense of "Creationism", then say so. I personally think it's bunk unless what is meant by it is just that the "first mover" is God. 

In terms of an argument against what he called naturalism in terms of the existence of a divine being, (which is actually called an "argument from reason"), an eloquent and intelligent explication is made by C.S.Lewis. I greatly respected him at one time, still do really, but ultimately, I think he's wrong. I'm with the Christian existentialists. Reason can take you only so far in terms of a belief in God. Then, it's either, from their point of view, a decision or choice to believe, or, in traditional terms you either receive the grace of belief in God or you don't. Or, you stand on the other side of the divide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith

----------


## João Soares

> My whole life I was in the background and later front line of discussions about philosophy and theology among my Dad and one of my brothers. My Dad has a phd in theology and my brother just starting working on his phd. I've always been a bit anti-philosophy and anti-objectivity/open-mindedness, and now that I'm older I can finally articulate why I don't think it is the be all and end all. Sorry my grammar won't be perfect and it might be hard to understand what I'm writing, but this is a forum not school so who cares. 
> 
> *Philosophy and objectivity is mostly good*
> First of all I want to say the vast majority of the time they are good ways of thinking. Except once they reach a point I'll describe below.....
> 
> *Why Philosophy and Objectivity aren't the be all and end all*
> We don't ever think about it, but all of us have believes and behaviors we love and would never give up. Atheist see theists as close-minded, yet all atheists also have believes they to would never give up. All Atheists are close-minded. Atheists have the faiths and restrictions to, they're just differnt faiths and restrictions. 
> 
> Would if lets say hypothetically(I know this is illogical, but ignore that and just put yourself in the hypothetical), basic human behaviors and believes that you take for granted defied logic. Some of you here claim anything is ok as long as no one is harmed and everything that harms people is wrong. 
> ...



Hi.

Let me start by saying that I have no academic degree on Philosophy or Theology.

I read this thread the day before yesterday and it got me thinking. The moment I read your post I reminded the books I have read of Aristotle, namely Eudemian Ethics.

I can relate to your thoughts to some degree.

What I think is that you seem to give a negative connotation to objectivity and reason, while at the same time accepting and recognizing its importance to society. For example, you claim yourself anti-philosophy and anti-objectivity while recognizing that society would be “better off” without the competitiveness, love, laughing, the three being harmful to it. What is competitiveness, love and laughing if not illogical and subjective (as opposed to objectivity)?

However, I think I disagree with you on the matter that society should give up these things. All these 3 things (for example) are only harmful to society if we let them to be. And I think objectivity is precisely the answer for this. What is objectivity if not our own consciousness of our subjectivity? I think that if you can master your subjectivity, the question of whether they (those 3 things you described) will be harmful or good for society is entirely up to you.
However, if you do not master, or do not know how to master, or are not in position to master it, you will act according to them/it (subjectivity) and have no control over your behaviours with respect to the society. You will be a “slave” of it (your subjectivity). 
I also agree with you in this sentence of yours: “you should just live life and not think about it. It can be nerdy and unhealthy behaviours", except I would substitute “you should” for “if you”.

So instead of seeing subjectivity and objectivity entirely separated and antagonistic, I would see them as interdependent and coexistent. 

Feel free to answer!
Regards

----------


## João Soares

--------------------

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

It is interesting for me and from a certain perspective are very productives as thoughts, but let me begin -with my almost speaking, almost thinking and my almost english-, from the things I am more affiliated.

I think that philosophers are not nescesary capable to answer very deep questions for the reason that no one give us a reliable/πειστική answer, at least until now. Otherwise they wouldnt be so many... a couple or more of them would be enough but it looks that is not the case.
Allthough I have to be fair for all the people - philosophers are not the exception-, and not to underestimate their ability to create "big"questions -mostly-, and lesser to give -for the rest of us - answers, except for themselves.
A brilliant historical paradeigm is the "sophos"/ wise, Socrates and his famous gnomicon:
*"One think I know, that I dont know."* ( pfff... ok, Socrate, thanks, I call for the informations next time...)
The things from historical became perpetual hysterical and people consider him - who? him- as the fundamental stone, of... (according to cliches) Western civilization, Philosophy, etc etc. ( = pretty dissapointing hmm?)


What went wrong ..? I mean with the guy which allthough it was managable to escape he didn't and let himself, to execute him, and desponted his primal survival insticts... Is him a good an object lesson for our kids?
I think for the clinic psychology is a typical case of ...a sick man.
But
What went wrong with us...?


(At the begining of my post I said myself: Hey that's a thread, that were gonna have fun, but unfortunately for us the things are turning serious now and... that means *more fun*!!! -yuppie!!!) 
 :Laughing:

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

Philosophos/Φιλόσοφος. from 
Phil-/Φίλ- : to love/φιλείν , as also Philos/Φίλος (friend), and Philee/Φιλί (Kiss) etc.
Nice things. Love things, good stuff
Hate is also nice thing -when times comes to,- but love is better.
We're having more than one reasons for that and I will not extend to that issue.


My main effort is to say that "words" are nice", I enjoy to hear them, I like them how they sound, their deep meaning and is not overwhelmingly to say that I am more fascinated how they sound, and in a second degree, what they mean. At least that happens with almost all the words, today I know, which I heared them -first-, before I knew their meaning.
Without any decission for a straight parallelism, but maybe, I am thinking is a sort of mechanism like that of the religious believers, which they believe to -a- god, before they meet him. (!)


Also the reasonable arguments excite me, I 'll use as a metaphor that sometimes look like great buildings not as simple boxes, but very intelligent, brick by brick, like word by word, extended vertical and horizontaly (orthodoxically and catholically), with stairs to achieve our elevations to an upper level, but with mechanic elevetors to achieve an instant uplifting - the enlightment- to the high floors.
The good and reasonable arguments as good architects, are breathy and refresh, provide healthy and nice living, give a nice pespective of the surrounding view, and are ours... estate; property; belonging; holding; fortune; wealth; substance; They well service our vanity or our deep needs as we choose to say, but we exist -as humans- before them, as the world didn't create from human logical thoughts.


In short terms we can safelly say that all these words, logic and science are helpfull but not enough for our happiness, not to mention that sometimes are enough to put us on despair...


So, to conclude, I wouldn;t rely myself with only nice words, or with good arguments, or to the science for my nice and happy living.

_A rhetorical question_. -When was the last time you make love? If you didn;t used many words, if you didnt use reliable arguments to explain your passion, and if you didnt have to use blue pills (science), The most probably is that you really had a nice time... :Grin:  


Now I have to leave, I have to go to ecclesia, my people are waiting...
I'll be back... later for the serious part.


(ps. last night, Zeus kissed the moon, watch the nightsky tonight -it is the vibrant star-, just a finger distant -from her lips- you will see him passing away to her left side, while moon is ready to become full ... in a couple of days)

----------


## davef

> I don't want to speak for LeBrok, but I think what he's getting at is that the more we understand the effects of genetics and environment, the more we can understand what causes people to behave in certain ways. We do that by applying logic to information we've learned.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the behavior of human beings, and that includes everyone, is always what a logical mind would think is the optimum in terms of consequences for the person involved.
> 
> Let's take the case of battered women as one example. Usually, if a man beats a woman once, he'll do it again, no matter how he might apologize and promise never to do it again. The statistics all bear that out. Some women live with this kind of abuse for years; it sometimes ends only with their death. Does it make sense from a "logical" perspective for her to stay? No, it doesn't, because not only is she in pain, and subjecting her children, if there are any, to trauma, but her survival is at stake. 
> 
> Yet, some women stay. Why? Dig a little deeper, and you might find that there was a bond formed where the woman initially saw the man as strong, someone who could protect her, or she saw violent jealousy as proof of his love, or she's so insecure that she's more afraid to try to make it on her own, or she's ashamed to admit what a mistake she made, or she's afraid he'll find her and kill her if she leaves, or it's a form of Stockholm syndrome, or she's come to psychologically associate the pain with the subsequent remorse, affection, and reconciliation. It's like Pavlov's dog. So, we can understand, or approach understanding the "reasons" for certain behaviors, or their internal logic, but they're not "logical" in the sense of leading to a positive outcome for the woman.
> 
> As for faith, reason takes you only so far. St. Thomas Aquinas only takes you so far. The Christian existentialists talk about the "leap of faith". When you come to the end of all the philosophy and theology and "reason", faith is still a choice, or, if you're a believer, a gift of grace sent by God. 
> ...


Wait, I don't get why the woman mentioned in your post would stick around with the guy who beats her. If I were that woman, I would be like "screw you, I'm finding another guy." If I were married to a woman I truly loved, I would offer her roses, jewelry, dresses, and nail polish.

----------


## Apsurdistan

> Wait, I don't get why the woman mentioned in your post would stick around with the guy who beats her. If I were that woman, I would be like "screw you, I'm finding another guy." If I were married to a woman I truly loved, I would offer her roses, jewelry, dresses, and nail polish.





This clip is so fall off your chair funny.

I don't think hitting women is right just to make that clear. Even if she's really annoying I think you shouldn't hit a woman ever unless it's in self defense. And I'll give a little anecdote... I never had to hit a woman except my sister. Because she kinda bullied on me when I was a kid. She's older than me and always has to be the dominant one and the right one in any kind of argument. And this one time I was probably around 17 years old I think we were fighting about what I wanted to watch on TV in the living room and she really wouldn't let it go and she even starts punching and kicking me but not in a playful way either. So I threw her on the floor lifted her legs up by her ankles and kicked her in the ass. And that was my most non-violent way to calm her down to establish dominance and let her know hey I'm not a little kid you can bully anymore and no you cannot hit me. And from that moment on she changed her attitude towards me and that was the only way to do it apparently.

----------


## Yetos

@ Absurdistan

nice avatar

radio mutation?
genetic mutation?
or mind mutation?

----------


## Apsurdistan

> @ Absurdistan
> 
> nice avatar
> 
> radio mutation?
> genetic mutation?
> or mind mutation?


All of the above. I guess...
Not the best time to ask me trick questions it's late and I'm watching MotoGP.

----------


## MarkoZ

> This clip is so fall off your chair funny.
> 
> I don't think hitting women is right just to make that clear. Even if she's really annoying I think you shouldn't hit a woman ever unless it's in self defense. And I'll give a little anecdote... I never had to hit a woman except my sister. Because she kinda bullied on me when I was a kid. She's older than me and always has to be the dominant one and the right one in any kind of argument. And this one time I was probably around 17 years old I think we were fighting about what I wanted to watch on TV in the living room and she really wouldn't let it go and she even starts punching and kicking me but not in a playful way either. So I threw her on the floor lifted her legs up by her ankles and kicked her in the ass. And that was my most non-violent way to calm her down to establish dominance and let her know hey I'm not a little kid you can bully anymore and no you cannot hit me. And from that moment on she changed her attitude towards me and that was the only way to do it apparently.


You're a weirdo.

----------


## Apsurdistan

> You're a weirdo.


I'm only being honest. If that's weird for some of you or my avatar is freaking you out too much I don't know what YOUR problem is and I think that's weird and dumber than a bag of hammers.
And I would appreciate if no more personal negative random judgements are passed on me. I don't do that to you and I think this forum doesn't tolerate that type of crap. And if it does then I'll start the name calling too.

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

.
Therefore, I would say that:
Truth or reality, are objectively subjective, and subjectively objective.


Words/reason/logical arguments are the media for an aproach but not the absolut task /achievement/ goal.
so,
With parable/metephoric tension I could say that thay are:
* usefull as the wheels for the airplanes.*

End for me.

----------


## Apsurdistan

What I think is the reality of our existence, and it's not wordy and complicated...
Nothing really makes sense or really matters. It's just a temporary experince and a ride you should try to enjoy. Everything else is details.

----------


## davef

> What I think is the reality of our existence, and it's not wordy and complicated...
> Nothing really makes sense or really matters. It's just a temporary experince and a ride you should try to enjoy. Everything else is details.


Lyrics from Metallica (I can't even type that name without spilling tears of passion....Metallica is a strong word for me...but in a good way...because Metallica is sacred...to me at least).

Never opened myself this way
Life is ours, WE LIVE IT OUR WAY
All these words I don't just say
And nothing else matters

Trust I seek and I find in you
Every day for us something new
Open mind for a different view
And nothing else matters

Never cared for what they do
Never cared for what they know
But I know

----------


## davef

NEVER CARED FOR WHAT THEY..classic combination of words

----------


## Apsurdistan

Metallica might be the greatest band of all time.

That song "nothing else matters" I believe was written by James Hetfield while he was on the road and it's dedicated to his girlfriend or wife and their love connection.
Of course it can be perceived in many different ways. And everybody seems to like that song, fans or not of Metallica.

----------


## Yetos

> Lyrics from Metallica (I can't even type that name without spilling tears of passion....Metallica is a strong word for me...but in a good way...because Metallica is sacred...to me at least).
> 
> Never opened myself this way
> Life is ours, WE LIVE IT OUR WAY
> All these words I don't just say
> And nothing else matters
> 
> Trust I seek and I find in you
> Every day for us something new
> ...



Metal always had strong lyricks. the poets Uriah Heep
from Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath and rest British bands of 70's
to west coach bands,
Metallica and Megadeath simply took lyricks more serious.
especially Metalicca turn lyricks of metal to first person confession or apologies

----------

