2.12.18
Constellations of belief
Constellations of belief is why people will hold to a given belief even when it goes against common sense--because it is connected with a group he wants to be apart of or because it is part of a belief system that does have elements of truth.
This is how people fall into evil, but it is also how people fall into good. The reason is there is "out there" lots of constellations of belief. And in no given place is "all truth". That gives a wide range of free will.
In this statement I am trying to give a reason for people holding to things that do not seem to make a lot of sense like the Trinity--because of other things that go along with it like the Golden Rule.
But as Dr Michael Huemer pointed out it is often group identity that determines people's beliefs.
I have had a hard time with this exact subject. And I have no golden rule such as common sense or Reason as to how to judge in this area.
However I do have my own set of rules that I try to hold to in terms of belief systems and rules of conduct. The top one is tell the truth no matter what the consequences are [unless it is a case that can cause harm to others]. I believe that telling the truth always gives me a certain degree of common sense by which then I can tell what world view systems make more sense.
As for world view issues I missed the anti reason movement in the West almost totally. I found rational philosophy to make sense and almost never even saw the 20th century post modern stuff until I already had been learning Plato and Spinoza in High school and elementary school.
But pure Rational philosophy almost has to lead to Kant. It is not just problems in Spinoza himself but also the points raised by Berkeley and Hume. Almost by force one is lead to Kant to find some middle ground. But does that then lead to Hegel as a lot of people thought? I am not sure. To me it seems Hegel is good for Metaphysics and Leonard Nelson is good for epistemology.
People that are not happy with Hegel I think come from legitimate complaints about German Nationalism which they think was inspired by Hegel or from complaints about Communism.
But even though Communism as a theory is clearly wrong I can see how it was needed to bring peace and stability to the Russian Empire. You really can not see this unless you have been in former republics of the USSR and see how things really are. If you would be there you would understand what the czars and the USSR were facing. It is nothing like ruling mild mannered white Anglo Saxon Protestants!
[I should add that Kelley Ross also has a Metaphysical approach that is different than Hegel, which is as important as the whole Kant Fries School. But to me it just does not look all that different than Hegel's Metaphysics.]
This is how people fall into evil, but it is also how people fall into good. The reason is there is "out there" lots of constellations of belief. And in no given place is "all truth". That gives a wide range of free will.
In this statement I am trying to give a reason for people holding to things that do not seem to make a lot of sense like the Trinity--because of other things that go along with it like the Golden Rule.
But as Dr Michael Huemer pointed out it is often group identity that determines people's beliefs.
I have had a hard time with this exact subject. And I have no golden rule such as common sense or Reason as to how to judge in this area.
However I do have my own set of rules that I try to hold to in terms of belief systems and rules of conduct. The top one is tell the truth no matter what the consequences are [unless it is a case that can cause harm to others]. I believe that telling the truth always gives me a certain degree of common sense by which then I can tell what world view systems make more sense.
As for world view issues I missed the anti reason movement in the West almost totally. I found rational philosophy to make sense and almost never even saw the 20th century post modern stuff until I already had been learning Plato and Spinoza in High school and elementary school.
But pure Rational philosophy almost has to lead to Kant. It is not just problems in Spinoza himself but also the points raised by Berkeley and Hume. Almost by force one is lead to Kant to find some middle ground. But does that then lead to Hegel as a lot of people thought? I am not sure. To me it seems Hegel is good for Metaphysics and Leonard Nelson is good for epistemology.
People that are not happy with Hegel I think come from legitimate complaints about German Nationalism which they think was inspired by Hegel or from complaints about Communism.
But even though Communism as a theory is clearly wrong I can see how it was needed to bring peace and stability to the Russian Empire. You really can not see this unless you have been in former republics of the USSR and see how things really are. If you would be there you would understand what the czars and the USSR were facing. It is nothing like ruling mild mannered white Anglo Saxon Protestants!
[I should add that Kelley Ross also has a Metaphysical approach that is different than Hegel, which is as important as the whole Kant Fries School. But to me it just does not look all that different than Hegel's Metaphysics.]
finding truth in a given world view system
There is a certain n point when you give up finding truth in a given world view system. This is like a person with great expertise in tax laws who has worked for years as a lawyer and a tax accountant. Then he hears about a politician who has come to town that is going to give a speech about taxes. So he goes to listen. He expects to hear some relevant argument about the local tax cuts to conservation groups that have been harassing the logging industry or such similar themes. But he hears nothing of the sort. All the politician talks about is how he is going to lower taxes and increase spending for teachers and health care etc,. That is nothing related to the issues. Then he goes into the book the politician has written and also finds nothing. So at some point he decides that politician has nothing to say that is relevant to tax issues.
That is like me when I a trying to make sense out of the big world I live in and I hear some promises of any given world view. Then I find out they have nothing to say about important matters.
One reason I think I was particularly attracted to Rav Nahman's of Breslov lessons is that I saw there real insights and advice as to human problems which I did not see in Musar. [Though Shar yashuv in Far Rockaway and the Mir in NY were for me amazing places to learn Talmud, I still found myself feeling empty until I found the books of Rav Nahman.]
That is like me when I a trying to make sense out of the big world I live in and I hear some promises of any given world view. Then I find out they have nothing to say about important matters.
One reason I think I was particularly attracted to Rav Nahman's of Breslov lessons is that I saw there real insights and advice as to human problems which I did not see in Musar. [Though Shar yashuv in Far Rockaway and the Mir in NY were for me amazing places to learn Talmud, I still found myself feeling empty until I found the books of Rav Nahman.]
1.12.18
Hegel and McTaggart for Metaphysics and Leonard Nelson for "How do we know stuff?" ( i.e Epistemology)
The blogger Mother in Israel mentioned once on her blog about Hegel. I was pretty much against Hegel at the time since I had been learning the Kant Friesian School of Dr Kelley Ross . But for some reason that I have forgotten I started looking at Hegel again. [My first time had been in NY when I borrowed the Cambridge Companion to Hegel].
It is a lot easier to understand Hegel (I must say) if you look at McTaggart. The is an important point that McTaggart makes in his commentary on the Greater Logic right away in the very beginning.It is that The Dialectic is not meant to derive all laws of Physics by pure Logic. There is an interplay between empirical evidence of Reason.
[Dr Ross expands on the format of the Kant Fries School of Leonard Nelson. Nelson was mainly against the Neo Kant School and had little to say about Hegel.]
To me it seems tragic that Neslon and Hegel are not learned much. It terms of making sense of the world they have much to offer.
It is a lot easier to understand Hegel (I must say) if you look at McTaggart. The is an important point that McTaggart makes in his commentary on the Greater Logic right away in the very beginning.It is that The Dialectic is not meant to derive all laws of Physics by pure Logic. There is an interplay between empirical evidence of Reason.
[Dr Ross expands on the format of the Kant Fries School of Leonard Nelson. Nelson was mainly against the Neo Kant School and had little to say about Hegel.]
To me it seems tragic that Neslon and Hegel are not learned much. It terms of making sense of the world they have much to offer.
What were the sacrifices that Hezekiah [in Chronicles] brought after he cleaned the Temple?
What were the sacrifices that Hezekiah [in Chronicles] brought after he cleaned the Temple? Some might have been burnt offerings. The אלים [sheep over a year old] may have been peace offerings. (They could not have been burnt offerings since if they are sheep they need to be less than a year old.) But what were the sin offerings that he brought of the Tribe of Judah? From what I recall that must have been for just the majority of the tribe of Judah. I mean to say that a sin offering for the whole congregation I seem to recall can be for a single tribe.
[They certainly were not for individuals because they were seven male goats. The sin offering for an individual has to be a female goat.]
[They certainly were not for individuals because they were seven male goats. The sin offering for an individual has to be a female goat.]
book of Kings
In the book of Kings all you really see with King Ahaz (the father of Hezekiah) is that he found a nice altar in Damascus and then asked Uriah the Priest to build one like it in the Temple. But in Chronicles it took the priests and Levis two weeks to clean out the Temple when Hezekiah began his reign. That seems to indicate that the whole Temple area was completely unusable. Also you can see this from the fact that Hezekiah did not want to bring the Passover in uncleanliness as he could have if the Temple had been usable.[ Instead he made the 14 of Iyar the Passover as the Torah requires for people that did not manage to make the first one.
The problem that I see about the selling of Joseph is that in the very beginning of chapter 39 it says the Ishmael[s] sold him to Egypt.
The problem that I see about the selling of Joseph is that in the very beginning of chapter 39 it says the Ishmael[s] sold him to Egypt. But in the actual events it says the Tribe of Medyans in 37;36 sold him to Egypt. [Not one to the other and then to Egypt.]
But what I think is that the actual selling is attributed to the Mediyans indirectly.
But what I think is that the actual selling is attributed to the Mediyans indirectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)