The Religion of Blinding Bluster

[Right Divider]

Yes.

Thanks

 

[Arthur Brain]

Eloquently stated, Arthur. : )

Eh? Of course it wasn't, it was ham fisted turnip donkey as per usual. I know my limits...sorta...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes.

Was that the one where some game show host gives a contestant a choice of three rooms with a star prize behind one of them and then reveals that one of them doesn't have the prize within and then gives the contestant the chance to change his original choice to the two remaining rooms? Oh, wow, was that fun...

 

[annabenedetti]

Was that the one where some game show host gives a contestant a choice of three rooms with a star prize behind one of them and then reveals that one of them doesn't have the prize within and then gives the contestant the chance to change his original choice to the two remaining rooms? Oh, wow, was that fun...

The very same.

 

[Jenkins]

Deafness also accomplishes nothing.

It's a good idea to remain deaf to Godless ideas after they are dismissed . Are you in agreement on this?

 

[PureX]

Coincidentally, I finished watching the series Gaslit tonight. The two FBI agents waiting to pick up John Dean to testify in the Watergate hearings have a passing disagreement about slippery slopes and objective morality. : )

Anyway. I have no great thoughts here, only that it's possible to establish universal ethical imperatives that work across societies and across time (murder is bad), and secondarily that it would also be possible to have a ranked subset of ethical imperatives that allow for more relativity (killing in self-defense is justifiable). I guess I'll leave it at that.




I wondered because it seems to me that some of what the thread is about seems to cross back and forth between: perception is reality, so there is no objective truth, and: everything in society is relative so there can be no universal truth.

Existence is both subjective and objective in that it contains 'what is' AND what we think is, is. The truth is both, even though they don't necessarily jive with each other. Unfortunately, we humans don't want to accept this because it's confusing to us, and unsettling. We want to believe that what is, and what we think is, is, are the same thing. So that's what we choose to believe even though it's not accurate. And the more adamantly we try to maintain it, the more dishonest we become. And honesty matters because we can't ever know the whole truth.

 

[annabenedetti]

Existence is both subjective and objective in that it contains 'what is' AND what we think is, is. The truth is both, even though they don't necessarily jive with each other. Unfortunately, we humans don't want to accept this because it's confusing to us, and unsettling. We want to believe that what is, and what we think is, is, are the same thing. So that's what we choose to believe even though it's not accurate. And the more adamantly we try to maintain it, the more dishonest we become. And honesty matters because we can't ever know the whole truth.

We agree on basic ideas here, but I'd stop at it being dishonest. Accusing someone (let alone a universal "we") of dishonesty when they most likely aren't aware of a divergence between what is perceived as reality and what is (or may be) reality is unjust, no matter how unintentionally. Most humans are just trying to get by day to day. There's a certain privilege in even having the mental leisure to consider, say, Plato's Cave apart from what it takes for them to survive.

 

[ok doser]

Existence is both subjective and objective in that it contains 'what is' AND what we think is, is. The truth is both, even though they don't necessarily jive with each other. Unfortunately, we humans don't want to accept this because it's confusing to us, and unsettling. We want to believe that what is, and what we think is, is, are the same thing. So that's what we choose to believe even though it's not accurate. And the more adamantly we try to maintain it, the more dishonest we become. And honesty matters because we can't ever know the whole truth.

I would recommend that you pray for guidance as you try to struggle your way through the confusion in your life.

 

[Yorzhik]

I would recommend that you pray for guidance as you try to struggle your way through the confusion in your life.

And we pray for him too. At least in aggregate as there are more and more confused any hypocritical people just like him.

 

[PureX]

We agree on basic ideas here, but I'd stop at it being dishonest. Accusing someone (let alone a universal "we") of dishonesty when they most likely aren't aware of a divergence between what is perceived as reality and what is (or may be) reality is unjust, no matter how unintentionally.

Most people are quite aware that reality as we perceive it is not the same as reality as it is. We have all misperceived reality often enough to understand that this is so. We can ignore this difference so long as it poses no significant problems for us as we move through the world, but in fact it does pose significant problems for us a lot of the time, and in many instances. Far more often that we like to admit. But we write those off as the "other guy" misperceiving reality. And that's where it starts to get dishonest ... when we start assuming that the discrepancies are someone else's fault. They must be because, "our reality IS reality". When in truth, from the human perspective, everyone's grasp of reality is incomplete and error-prone.

Most humans are just trying to get by day to day. There's a certain privilege in even having the mental leisure to consider, say, Plato's Cave apart from what it takes for them to survive.

Dumb animals "just survive". Humans are obliged by their nature to do better then that. To do more then that. Humans recognize the eistence of God. Humans create great works of art. Humans ask why existence exists, and wonder what their role in it, is, We do these things because we know that existence is both a great gift, and a great mystery. Perhaps the greatest gift to us IS the mystery!

So to reject all this in favor of maintaining the delusion that we know it all, already, is 'inhumane'. A waste of that which makes us uniquely human: our 'unknowing'.

 

[TomO]

Dumb animals "just survive". Humans are obliged by their nature to do better then that. To do more then that. .

The amazing thing is...While I don't necessarily disagree with you...The way you so blithely kick aside Anna point makes me think you have spent a great deal of time down in Mom and Dad's basement pondering this.

 

[PureX]

The amazing thing is...While I don't necessarily disagree with you...The way you so blithely kick aside Anna point makes me think you have spent a great deal of time down in Mom and Dad's basement pondering this.

Thinking isnlt really that arduous once you get used to it. You just have to get past the knowing it all stage, so you can wonder again. I realize that's uncomfortable for a lot of people and I understand why. And it's OK to assume that reality is as we think it is so long as we aren't tryng to enforce that theory.

 

[annabenedetti]

Most people are quite aware that reality as we perceive it is not the same as reality as it is. We have all misperceived reality often enough to understand that this is so. We can ignore this difference so long as it poses no significant problems for us as we move through the world, but in fact it does pose significant problems for us a lot of the time, and in many instances. Far more often that we like to admit. But we write those off as the "other guy" misperceiving reality. And that's where it starts to get dishonest ... when we start assuming that the discrepancies are someone else's fault. They must be because, "our reality IS reality". When in truth, from the human perspective, everyone's grasp of reality is incomplete and error-prone.

No, PureX, I don't think "most people are quite aware that reality as we perceive it is not the same as reality as it is."

For a couple reasons. First: Even knowing a whole list of cognitive biases that could filter my experiences and trying to be aware of them doesn't mean that I'd realize *in the moment* that I was being affected by any of them. One cognitive bias, actor-observer bias, makes it easy to blame outside factors for my personal shortcomings (I was late because traffic was terrible), while fundamental attribution error does the reverse (he was late because he's too lazy to be ready on time).

You may not realize that you're falling prey to the bias of fundamental attribution error when you assume the character defect of dishonesty in another because they cannot or do not perceive their perception as anything other than objective reality. For them to understand this, unless they are exceptionally perceptive, they had to have been taught that such a thing was possible in the first place.

Also: in behavioral statistics there are various threats to the external validity of a sample, which can affect whether or not a finding can be generalized to a population. One of these is obtaining a WEIRD sample: White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.

It seems to me, again, that there's a certain white, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic privilege in having the mental leisure to ponder this. Not that pondering this is a bad thing, and some of the best philosophical ideas have come from people under great duress. You and me, though, sitting at our keyboards discussing the honesty or dishonesty of people whose perception is reality takes a certain amount of situational privilege and I don't think you're giving other people enough space to be human without assuming they're being dishonestly human.

Dumb animals "just survive". Humans are obliged by their nature to do better then that. To do more then that. Humans recognize the eistence of God. Humans create great works of art. Humans ask why existence exists, and wonder what their role in it, is, We do these things because we know that existence is both a great gift, and a great mystery. Perhaps the greatest gift to us IS the mystery!

So to reject all this in favor of maintaining the delusion that we know it all, already, is 'inhumane'. A waste of that which makes us uniquely human: our 'unknowing'.

People are just trying to survive, all the time, everywhere. I'm not gonna argue that point further. When people are using all that they have just to get through from one day to the next, you don't have the right to tell them they should have saved a little of themselves to ask the big questions. Their existence is not your existence, and maybe they just didn't have enough left that day to create great works of art.

 

[ok doser]

And we pray for him too. At least in aggregate as there are more and more confused any hypocritical people just like him.

Amen

 

[PureX]

No, PureX, I don't think "most people are quite aware that reality as we perceive it is not the same as reality as it is."

For a couple reasons. First: Even knowing a whole list of cognitive biases that could filter my experiences and trying to be aware of them doesn't mean that I'd realize *in the moment* that I was being affected by any of them. One cognitive bias, actor-observer bias, makes it easy to blame outside factors for my personal shortcomings (I was late because traffic was terrible), while fundamental attribution error does the reverse (he was late because he's too lazy to be ready on time).

Let me stop you, here.

Understand that we do not have to know WHAT we don’t know, to know THAT we don’t know. In fact, if we could know WHAT we don’t know, it would be false to then claim that we don’t know it. So none of us has to be aware of what or how we are being in-cognizant of reality to recognize that we are very likely being in-cognizant of the fullness of reality. and may in fact be misperceiving and misleading ourselves and others as a result. Especially when basic reason dictates that this is a likely possibility. Being aware that at any time we can be quite wrong about any thing does not require that we know ourselves to be wrong about x, y, or whatever, specifically.

Nor do we have to be consciously aware and determined to deceive ourselves or others by ignoring some aspects of reality to actually deceive them. Dishonesty does not require the deliberate intent to mislead, to mislead.

You may not realize that you're falling prey to the bias of fundamental attribution error when you assume the character defect of dishonesty in another because they cannot or do not perceive their perception as anything other than objective reality. For them to understand this, unless they are exceptionally perceptive, they had to have been taught that such a thing was possible in the first place.

One does not need to be exceptionally perceptive to know they can be fooled, and can fool themselves, as it has happened to them often enough in the past. And since the nature of being fooled is such that we do not know it’s occurring when it’s occurring, it means that it could be occurring at any time, even though it appears to us that it is not. This isn’t rocket science, it’s just basic logic.

Also: in behavioral statistics there are various threats to the external validity of a sample, which can affect whether or not a finding can be generalized to a population. One of these is obtaining a WEIRD sample: White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.

It seems to me, again, that there's a certain white, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic privilege in having the mental leisure to ponder this.

Such universal experience does not require any exceptional leisure to contemplate. The human brain functions very quickly and can form such an idea in an instant. That idea being the logical validity of constant skepticism.

Not that pondering this is a bad thing, and some of the best philosophical ideas have come from people under great duress. You and me, though, sitting at our keyboards discussing the honesty or dishonesty of people whose perception is reality takes a certain amount of situational privilege and I don't think you're giving other people enough space to be human without assuming they're being dishonestly human.

I think you’re perhaps saddling dishonesty with an immoral inference that is unwarranted. That we humans constantly deceive ourselves and each other is not a moral failing unless it’s done deliberately and with the intent to do harm. IMO

People are just trying to survive, all the time, everywhere. I'm not gonna argue that point further.

No, they aren’t just trying to survive. They are trying to do much more then that because they are human. I’m sorry but you’re wrong about this. If survival was all we sought, slavery would be viewed as a good life option. But it’s not. Because we want much more than just to continue living.

When people are using all that they have just to get through from one day to the next, you don't have the right to tell them they should have saved a little of themselves to ask the big questions.

They will ask the big questions regardless, and especially when life is hard. Because that’s when those questions matter the most.

Their existence is not your existence, and maybe they just didn't have enough left that day to create great works of art.

We are creating ourselves every day. That’s the ultimate gift of our unknowing: that we get to decide what the truth is, for ourselves, and as we do that, we are also deciding who we are because of it.

 

[Right Divider]

You just have to get past the knowing it all stage, so you can wonder again.

Who has claimed to "know it all"?

We do know plenty, because the one Who knows it all has told us about Himself in His Word.

 

[PureX]

Who has claimed to "know it all"?

We do know plenty, because the one Who knows it all has told us about Himself in His Word.

"I could be wrong, but not about anything that matters."

 

[TomO]

"I could be wrong, but not about anything that matters."

Please tell me you at least pay them "rent".

 

[Idolater]

No, PureX, I don't think "most people are quite aware that reality as we perceive it is not the same as reality as it is."

For a couple reasons. First: Even knowing a whole list of cognitive biases that could filter my experiences and trying to be aware of them doesn't mean that I'd realize *in the moment* that I was being affected by any of them. One cognitive bias, actor-observer bias, makes it easy to blame outside factors for my personal shortcomings (I was late because traffic was terrible), while fundamental attribution error does the reverse (he was late because he's too lazy to be ready on time).

You may not realize that you're falling prey to the bias of fundamental attribution error when you assume the character defect of dishonesty in another because they cannot or do not perceive their perception as anything other than objective reality. For them to understand this, unless they are exceptionally perceptive, they had to have been taught that such a thing was possible in the first place.

Also: in behavioral statistics there are various threats to the external validity of a sample, which can affect whether or not a finding can be generalized to a population. One of these is obtaining a WEIRD sample: White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.

It seems to me, again, that there's a certain white, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic privilege in having the mental leisure to ponder this. Not that pondering this is a bad thing, and some of the best philosophical ideas have come from people under great duress. You and me, though, sitting at our keyboards discussing the honesty or dishonesty of people whose perception is reality takes a certain amount of situational privilege and I don't think you're giving other people enough space to be human without assuming they're being dishonestly human.



People are just trying to survive, all the time, everywhere. I'm not gonna argue that point further. When people are using all that they have just to get through from one day to the next, you don't have the right to tell them they should have saved a little of themselves to ask the big questions. Their existence is not your existence, and maybe they just didn't have enough left that day to create great works of art.

I think we're on the same side on this issue Anna, which is always nice. It is always interesting when science corroborates principles that Jesus and the Bible taught us,* such as "do unto others," which is a terrific strategy for protecting yourself from making too big a mistake with the fundamental attribution error, which as you indicate is a common human cognitive error.

Cognitive errors are strange things, from some perspectives. It's easy to see them in animals. I was watching a wild bird do something yesterday that was just silly on its face, but it was just doing what its brain was directing it to do, a brain made by and sustained by its DNA. It was repetitive and dumb, what the thing was doing, it was obvious what it should do, given that its objective was obvious, but the poor thing's brain was acting like it had conceptual blinders, it couldn't 'zoom out' conceptually to see the obvious option that it was missing.

We say 'missing the forest for the trees'. That's not an enumerated cognitive error that I know of, but it's descriptive of a certain pattern that is related to the patterns of cognitive errors. There is definitely an error, and it depends on your point of view, whether you can see the error or not.

Something like this anyway.


* I'm reminded also of St. Augustine's diagnosis the 'noetic effect' of the Fall of Man. Protestant scholars in particular emphasize that Augustine basically thought that we are all injured or handicapped mentally, the cognitive errors or cognitive biases being cases in point.

 

[PureX]

Who has claimed to "know it all"?

We do know plenty, because the one Who knows it all has told us about Himself in His Word.

"I could be wrong, but not about anything that matters."

I think we're on the same side on this issue Anna, which is always nice. It is always interesting when science corroborates principles that Jesus and the Bible taught us,* such as "do unto others," which is a terrific strategy for protecting yourself from making too big a mistake with the fundamental attribution error, which as you indicate is a common human cognitive error.

Cognitive errors are strange things, from some perspectives. It's easy to see them in animals. I was watching a wild bird do something yesterday that was just silly on its face, but it was just doing what its brain was directing it to do, a brain made by and sustained by its DNA. It was repetitive and dumb, what the thing was doing, it was obvious what it should do, given that its objective was obvious, but the poor thing's brain was acting like it had conceptual blinders, it couldn't 'zoom out' conceptually to see the obvious option that it was missing.

We say 'missing the forest for the trees'. That's not an enumerated cognitive error that I know of, but it's descriptive of a certain pattern that is related to the patterns of cognitive errors. There is definitely an error, and it depends on your point of view, whether you can see the error or not.

Something like this anyway.


* I'm reminded also of St. Augustine's diagnosis the 'noetic effect' of the Fall of Man. Protestant scholars in particular emphasize that Augustine basically thought that we are all injured or handicapped mentally, the cognitive errors or cognitive biases being cases in point.

I think willingness has a lot to do with it. The willingness to recognize that we are prone to such myopic presumptions about reality that aren't accurate.