Exactly Craig. In my youth I quickly worked out that the maxim 'well it my not be right for you but it is right for me' has more thruth in it than many others.
Indeed, I still live by it, as is evidenced by my lack of prophlatising and conversion attempts. Another such truth I wholehartedly belive in, and one that gets me into all sorts of arguments is that patriotism harms more than it helps. Yet I can quite understand the need to belong, this is my opinion and whilst it may differ from others I would be hard pressed to say which one is correct. On 29 Jan, 01:14, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil, > I have to confess that I have to read your posts more than once to get > your drift. It appears that you are espousing a certain type of > pragmatism. You are accepting the fact that truth is elusive, and yet > hoping that we can believe in something that works. But before we can > start talking about what is practical we have to decide what our aim > is. What is it that we are hoping works? What are we trying to > obtain? Can we all agree on what we are trying to obtain? Is > consensus necessary? > > On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is quite subtle Oxford shit Lee - we are mere oiks - yet I like > > the notion that we could better believe in what is true. > > > On 28 Jan, 17:20, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > Perhaps until we can answer the question, what is true? We are all > > > quite doomed! > > > > On 28 Jan, 00:04, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How can we better believe what is true? While it is of course useful > > > > to seek and study relevant information, our minds are full of natural > > > > tendencies to bias our beliefs via overconfidence, wishful thinking, > > > > and so on. Worse, our minds seem to have a natural tendency to > > > > convince us that we are aware of and have adequately corrected for > > > > such biases, when we have done no such thing. > > > > > There's a blog on this at Oxford University's Future of Humanity > > > > Institute (easy to google). Sad stuff on my brief scan, though I will > > > > return. The question seems key and I wondered whether we could do > > > > better with it. My own views include a notion of relativism that > > > > recognises realism is implied and non-philosophic tropical fish > > > > realism. I won't bore on this in here - at a somewhat more practical > > > > level I think we are in a plight that involves trauma and a need to > > > > believe we can live more rationally and justly in public affairs. > > > > This involves not using argument as a weapon and accepting some stuff > > > > is intolerable. I would see this as key to a future for humanity. > > > > Obama is a bit of a hope here, but only if we can gather round.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
