I have heard it in one (2:20) of the current american presidential politics talks. Someone tried to mock one of the candidates as a person who can say and do anything, since that person has "no deeply held beliefs to violate".
Pondering on that statement, it occured to me that it is actually not as negative as it was meant to sound.
"Beliefs" are usually truth lacking axioms (as it is belief and not knowledge) which are necessary working assumptions for life. They are like medication. The fact that most of us need it doesn't make us better than those who do not need it, on the contrary.
Therefore playing around with definitions which serve believers of all kind, isn't bad if it doesn't hurt any higher value.
Believers are so attached to their beliefs that they holify them beyond proportion. Indeed, the only necessary belief is that what is is and thus cannot be denied under no cover or forgery.
תוקן על ידי שכליאל ב- 03/06/2008 17:18:11
נשלח ב-10/11/2008 14:40
Sachliel,
I mentioned Hume on purpose. Because of his skepticism we now realize that all true knowledge is also a kind of belief. It is based on healthy intuition, which no one can truly justify, but is correct nevertheless.
Beliefs are not just medication, but rather nourishment which makes people tick.
[
I've been reviewing some of your posts, and you definitely put yourself in the "professional sceptics" camp (the thread "Can Jews be perfected by believing in Christ?" really exposed you). However I'm quite sure that you find no solid footing where you stand since in the end you must justify you axioms - which by definition cannot be justified.
May be your axiom is "doubt" but that's as good as having no axioms.
]
נשלח ב-17/10/2008 17:57
Dear Anasasi
I stressed that beliefs are medications that most people need and I therefore agree with you that religion and its beliefs are strong motivational factors which are definitely necessary. Cortisone and opium are also necessary, but it does not mean that they should be turned into eternal ideals. The level of motivation that chabadniks have to bring people closer to their jewish roots is mainly positive, but it is no reason for many to become chabadniks.
I also agree that not recognizing absolutes is negative and that therefore religion may help bringing man closer to realize what the absolutes are. I only argue that to idealize medication means to holify mediocrity (lekadesh et habeinoniut). The point I am trying to make is of the importance of being aware that there is a level of mental-moral health beyond sickness an we should therefore gradually try as much as we can to get beyond the need for medication and thus get closer to perfection.
"Holy games" are necessary educational tools, but we got to grow out of them as much as we could be capable!
I have not read the book of R. Abraham but his line of thinking is well expressed in the hebrew forum.
נשלח ב-14/10/2008 23:07
Sachiel,
How is it then that religious people are usually more active than others, either in war or peace. It's skepticism which paralyzes people, who go on living without any axioms and aren't sure if their actions are right. Believing "what is is" (Objectivism?) is a nice idea, but Hume and his fellows have already made shreads of that too. Today the non-belief makes people relativistic, who rather do nothing than make mistakes.
You should read R. Michi's Avraham's book שתי עגלות וכדור פורח.
It made me wiser.
