The Contextual Example and More...
Estudia: Ok, Phi, listen up. I think I can come up with an example.
Philo: Go ‘head, let’s hear it.
Estudia: If someone or some group were to demand that the government should provide free medical care for everyone no matter how rich or how poor because they insist that everyone has a right to free health care, then I think that they would be guilty of dropping the context of several concepts.
Philo: Continue
Estudia: One context that would be dropped would be around the concept of “free”. The concept of free means that there is no cost to anyone, but this is not the case with medical care. The health care professionals, who incidentally must spend so much time achieving competence, are totally forgotten. These people would have to be enslaved to even begin to allow them to see any and ever one that desires to be cared for whether needed or not. They would not be able to offer there services to those they choice to help or for a price that they deem appropriate based on their knowledge and expertise.
Philo: That’s true
Estudia: And furthermore, all the associated industries like medical suppliers, pharmaceutical manufactures, payment services, insurance providers, and more would have to give up profits and incentives for growth in order to give away services.
Philo: Well, maybe. That’s not bad.
Estudia: Okay, maybe that’s not too clear. How ‘bout this. A devout Catholic who is a staunch reporter on Muslim fundamentalism has said,
“Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another.
Here this guy is dropping the entire meaning of the word “truths”. He is taking it to mean what is accepted or divinely provided as per some ancient text or the words of some accepted spokesperson such as an Inman or a Pope. There is no mention of what is real, or what is a part of reality ― what can be detected by the senses, or with the aid of some mechanism such as a microscope, electromagnetic field, or whatever. He is saying that reality doesn’t matter and the only way you are going to convince a true believer is by replacing those beliefs with something just as mystical. He has a point that would apply to fundamentalist looking for something to believe in, but not for what is really needed to improve life for all. Man can not relate some new idea to any previous held idea just by accepting a “truth”. He must explicitly identify the logical relationships of why he should accept a new idea before he can eliminate contradictions in his thinking. If a man is to learn what is really true, he must amend what he once thought based upon evidence of the error of his old beliefs, not by simple rejection of old beliefs and substitution of some new claim.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about here, but this is the best I can do.
Philo: Not bad. You have the essence of the idea. Ayn Rand stated that “logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.” Your Catholic author is hoping that you don’t keep things in context. He is ignoring the contradiction of what religion is. It is not truth based on logic or reasoning, but on blind faith. He is hoping you won’t question his motive of supporting religion by saying that the only way to know the truth is through faith.
Estudia: So logic means that I have to take in all my other views about a topic and see any contradictions.
Philo: Yes. Not like the average man of faith who tries to keep the contradiction of his acceptance of the illogical and unproven as fact. In order to adhere to reality, you have to keep things in context and use logic to avoid contradictions.
Estudia: So with logic what will I achieve?
Philo: By keeping everything in context, logic will be your means of achieving objectivity.
Estudia: Cool. Lets talk some more about this later, okay?
Philo: Sure. See you again soon.
Philo: Go ‘head, let’s hear it.
Estudia: If someone or some group were to demand that the government should provide free medical care for everyone no matter how rich or how poor because they insist that everyone has a right to free health care, then I think that they would be guilty of dropping the context of several concepts.
Philo: Continue
Estudia: One context that would be dropped would be around the concept of “free”. The concept of free means that there is no cost to anyone, but this is not the case with medical care. The health care professionals, who incidentally must spend so much time achieving competence, are totally forgotten. These people would have to be enslaved to even begin to allow them to see any and ever one that desires to be cared for whether needed or not. They would not be able to offer there services to those they choice to help or for a price that they deem appropriate based on their knowledge and expertise.
Philo: That’s true
Estudia: And furthermore, all the associated industries like medical suppliers, pharmaceutical manufactures, payment services, insurance providers, and more would have to give up profits and incentives for growth in order to give away services.
Philo: Well, maybe. That’s not bad.
Estudia: Okay, maybe that’s not too clear. How ‘bout this. A devout Catholic who is a staunch reporter on Muslim fundamentalism has said,
“Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another.
Here this guy is dropping the entire meaning of the word “truths”. He is taking it to mean what is accepted or divinely provided as per some ancient text or the words of some accepted spokesperson such as an Inman or a Pope. There is no mention of what is real, or what is a part of reality ― what can be detected by the senses, or with the aid of some mechanism such as a microscope, electromagnetic field, or whatever. He is saying that reality doesn’t matter and the only way you are going to convince a true believer is by replacing those beliefs with something just as mystical. He has a point that would apply to fundamentalist looking for something to believe in, but not for what is really needed to improve life for all. Man can not relate some new idea to any previous held idea just by accepting a “truth”. He must explicitly identify the logical relationships of why he should accept a new idea before he can eliminate contradictions in his thinking. If a man is to learn what is really true, he must amend what he once thought based upon evidence of the error of his old beliefs, not by simple rejection of old beliefs and substitution of some new claim.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about here, but this is the best I can do.
Philo: Not bad. You have the essence of the idea. Ayn Rand stated that “logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.” Your Catholic author is hoping that you don’t keep things in context. He is ignoring the contradiction of what religion is. It is not truth based on logic or reasoning, but on blind faith. He is hoping you won’t question his motive of supporting religion by saying that the only way to know the truth is through faith.
Estudia: So logic means that I have to take in all my other views about a topic and see any contradictions.
Philo: Yes. Not like the average man of faith who tries to keep the contradiction of his acceptance of the illogical and unproven as fact. In order to adhere to reality, you have to keep things in context and use logic to avoid contradictions.
Estudia: So with logic what will I achieve?
Philo: By keeping everything in context, logic will be your means of achieving objectivity.
Estudia: Cool. Lets talk some more about this later, okay?
Philo: Sure. See you again soon.
posted by Rp | 11:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home