Criticism of criticism: The beginning of discussion and argument
HELLO GREAT PEOPLE OF STEEMIT
Today's DISCUSSION would be very interesting, confusing, biased, false or even unimportant, depending on how you see it. Most importantly, it's going to be from 'NO BOOKS', strictly from my own perspective.
.jpg)
I have always thought that there is more to what we think, what we know, feel, taste and sense. We were born as clean slate (tabula rasa). So whatever we think we know is from what we have seen, read, tasted, touched, heard etc, which now have a way of communicating to us through our reasoning, and how we interpret them varies.
Identical twins conceived by a particular woman and raised from the same compound and background for instance, can have varying interpretation or understanding of a particular topic or occurrence. They can have arguments and misunderstandings at some point for different reasons.
One can become 'more successful' than the other, even though they were given same opportunity and exposure. There is no guarantee that both of them will be good or bad.
Being a twin is no guarantee that you will give birth to twins and vice versa. We all go through different experience and challenges and our reactions towards them also differs.
There have been times when we have some sort of dreams in the night and when we wake up, we feel they are so real that their manifestation may be felt in our ' conscious' state. Some do have 'wet dreams', though these things are supposed to be mere 'dreams'.
This leaves a question i think is very fragile.... What if all these are not real? What if we are not really existing here but are mirage of visions and trans? What if it's all but a dream? What about the mystery of death? What if it's just the process of moving from one realm to another? What if it's just a recycling process?
What if even what we call language is not the same? How do i know that what i hear is same as what you hear? What if the different sounds has the same meaning?
Do you think what i'm asking is possible? While some will see reason with these, others will think it's a waste or i'm insane..... What if i am?
.jpg)
Source
What if those who are considered to be (insane) are those who really understand it? I have really thought about many things. For instance, i see the 'mad' people feed from the refuse bin and spoilt leftovers without getting ill but hardly will a 'normal' person try that without visiting the doctor for at least having a running stomach or vomiting.
Let me know your opinion on this philosophical problem. They are not always being considered, but i think i need to hear or see reactions and counter reactions.
Remember that your opinion about this is still yours and yours alone. Even if someone else say the same thing as you did, its still not really the same.
Compiled by @mychidera-eu for @euronation
@euronation is a team of people with common goals and desires. The team was created with the intention to create awareness around Steem ecosystem, getting new members on board the program, nurturing as well as mentoring towards excellence and helping them to find strong footing in the program. We guide new members on the ethos of Steemit, how they can be creative and come up with amazing ideas and impact the community at large.
The Team Is Made Up Of These Erudite Steemians :@jeaniepearl @eurogee, @edith4angelseu@smyle, @sweetestglo-eu , @drigweeu,@bob-elr @dray91eu, @adoore-eu Join us on Telegram and whatsaap through the below links:https://t.me/joinchat/HsUnkBJ083m0R6xIp4iA-Ahttps://chat.whatsapp.com/9VhuK6475477fD7fPIYJ6i
My Answer to this question; what if?:
The answer is that What If is the judge.
Lets take for instance, every body, who believes the existence of God and fear him enjoys this world now even with those who do not believe. The both(those that trust in existence of God and thos that do not) can make money now, have sex, build house, drive cars, have a job, have children, have families, earn their living. Infact they have all things partaining to life now, but AT THE END OF THE DAY:
Very good input there i must confess. But you know philosophers are considered to be lovers of wisdom.
Philosophy also have no rule nor theory.... Everyone is right in their thinking!
Now if you believe so much in that which you have not seen... Just that you were told our you read in the books that it's exist and even if you do not believe is still your take and responsibility but not totally your doing.
The law existentialism suggests that we are responsible for our doing but what about that which happens to us? Is obvious that no matter who we are and how we try, there are still things that are beyond our control.
I will also like to let you know that believing or not believing in the unmovable mover is not totally your doing. It's has to do with your exposure and experience. In other words it's still not you believing but the believe chooses you to believe it
See my question; what does it cost you to believe or not to believe? If nothing for the both, he who believes is smatter because it costs him nothing to believe, and he might later gain if what he believes is real. But if what he believed is not real at the end of the day, it still costs him nothin. But he who does not believe might regret because of the consequences that might come if what he did not believe was true and real
This is what i want you to know. Maybe i should say it from the bible itself which is the foundation of your the knowledge of what you believe or think you believe
This was what Christ said the Peter. This means that it's not of your doing that you believe. What you believe choose you to believe and you can not stop believing in it because it's not within your power to do so.
Same way it is to those who do not believe. They do not choose not to believe but that which they do not believe gave not choose them.
I also know the saying that God does not choose the perfect but he perfect him that he choses.
So what's your criticism?
You are right. You are one of the few persons I have seen that have this revelation with me. Let me compliment your coment better;
Very true. So at least we have come to a point of no criticism which is another criticism. How can we have same revelation and understanding/believe of a thing that were just told but not seen,
How can we not criticize the things that look true to us? How come we are not bothered that we have come to believe?
Boost Your Post. Send 0.100 STEEM or SBD and your post url on memo and we will resteem your post on 5000+ followers. check our account to see the follower count.
Opinions exist for every matter. It's one of the distinguishing factors among thinking humans. Robots would all act in similar way given the instructions and command of their maker ab initio
We judge matters based on our view of situations which have formed over time in our dealings with people, ideas and cultures.
Very true but what about the concept of good and bad? What criteria do you think it's the best to use in determining what's right and what's wrong
I think that would be relative. People have different perceptions. I would say *'conscience' * but I can't vouch that everyone has them. But it would be safe to say that most times than not, the popular opinion on what's good and what's not should be the guide or determining factor as you've put it.
I understand that 'conscience' is like a judge to every man... Telling him when he has wronged. But i also would like you to know that the conscience does not judge us the same way.
That's why some people can willingly take another's life or their own life. Most times they believe it's the right thing to do.
So i think conscience is not enough criteria of measurement of good and bad
That's what I've opined in saying not everyone has them. The truth though is that majority do. That's why I left off saying popular opinion on what's right should hold in most situations.
@penauthor
But still, with conscience and popular opinion, we still do not have a working rule as you also agree that there it's not everyone that have it.
So while wet need to know what criteria we should use in determining what's good and bad, we should consider the opinions of those without conscience and who are not among the popular opinion. Do you agree?
I don't exactly understand what you mean. When laws are set and rules made, it becomes binding on everyone within the jurisdiction of the particular country. So, it wouldn't matter if your conscience kicks against it, you'd just have to comply to ensure you don't get on the wrong side of the law.
So, in determining what should stand as a guide to actions, the general concept should come through and be binding on the lot of the population. I see no reason why their stand should be wrong except an evil spell has been cast on the minds of the populace making them have views and opinions that wouldn't make for good moral codes.
Hahahahha. I must thank you for your responses so far. Though i want to assure you that we can't come to a mutual agreement as far as this topic remains criticism of criticism and not understanding me too is obvious because it's some times like that.
Now let me tell you this. In my opinion, the problem of the world is those popular opinion that is considered the standards of living. Those with minor opinions always like to be heard too so they go lengths to air their view.
Take for example religion. There are different people in the world today having different believe and concept of life. You may not like some but some are right and yours is wrong at least in some aspects...
We always have opinion that is always different with others. We can never have a working rule based on popular opinion. Do you agree?
hmmmmm. These things are so thoughtful thoughts here. I can not say for certainty if it's all real or false but i will give you the opportunity to express your view as mine is mine. Unless you want to mine my mine
Still wondering why i love this part... Of a fact, people often see philosophers as "insane", but that's what they signed for.
We are philosophers and critics in our own way and are entitled to our own opinion since it at least proves our existence (Cogito Ergo Sum). But most importantly, our criticisms should be geared towards making the world a better place.
Thanks @euronation for the strong piece.
You are very correct. Our criticism should be geard towards making the world a better place but there is a problem with that.
While some will see the concept of a better world as a place where there is orderliness and maybe a place if l of immortality, there are some who will prefer a world where no one is the government and no one makes the rule and so there is no retributions. There should be space for the unborn and so the old should die.