Friday, October 5, 2007
Reasoning
We all have beliefs. We make statements every day about issues and subjects that concern us. We don't often consider what we base our knowledge on and question our methods for coming to these conclusions. While some things are obvious to conclude, other's are not. Prejudice for example is a complex issue, a conclusion based on knowledge that is faulty, but if faulty, what makes it so? This is where our analytical capacity could do wonders. Knowing how to analyze an argument, strip away the emotion/decoration and find it's basic elements, is a way to find out whether a belief (or truth, conclusion ... etc.) is logical, or illogical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Rene Descartes furthered humanism thought by suggesting that his own mind could bring knowledge, rather than simply agreement with others' thoughts. If he is correct, no one can scoff at any other person's knowledge obtained through their own mind. Who, then, can say there are no ghosts or aliens, when others have seen them? On the other hand, who can disagree with those who insist (for a lack of experience) that ghosts and aliens do not exist? We must never agree with Descartes, and then roll our eyes at someone else's fantastical claims. I have heard the voice of God on several occasions. If this is not true for you, don't despair. It is not proof that God does not exist (and if He does exist He certainly may speak to whomever He wishes). This difference of experience does not prove that there is no absolute truth. I know this because God told me. Contrary thought is meaningless.
I read your post and thought you gathered a great deal of insight from our reading.
I question why you are speaking in third person.
Is it out of habit?
Or is it perhaps something else?
Post a Comment