All build-up and no follow-through.

[sixbitsforfact]

A few days ago a couple friends and I got into a discussion on the on-going religious debate in France (for those not sure what I'm referring to, see this 'Economist' article). Personally, I've never been much for politics because it's shocking how quickly "friendly debates" become blood in the upholstery. That said, I do latch on to certain topics

Comments

[nogah]

USA and France are both very good examples of extremist liberal democracy and extremist social democracy. I'm against both of them, personally.

It is hard to fight against some of the things you were taught growing up; I find myself, this year, fighting hard against some of them and trying to erase the bad ones and embrace the good ones and combine them with my own ideas and my own ideals...frankly, it's pretty tiring.

[sixbitsforfact]

I agree. It's this business of extremism in any capacity that makes me so uncomfortable - no party can be right absolutely, and when their views are coupled with an unwillingness to consider different options, their power becomes very nerve-wracking.

I think it's wonderful you're questioning and fighting all those things, if that makes any sense.

[nogah]

It does makes sense. While (and maybe because) I was raised with liberalism in mind, it took me years to accept that it's okay and even right to question certain ideals you were brought up with that seem, well, unquestionable.

[sixbitsforfact]

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. There's this ridiculous notion that "liberal" automatically means "everything not-conservative," but there's just as much pressure in both parties to adhere to certain principles and beliefs and never stray from the path.

It takes time to adjust to the fact we are not our parents, or our childhood politics, and take it from there. I mean...where is there, necessarily?

[murderofonerose]

But does that leave no room for our own (somewhat) unique mannerisms, beliefs, and outlooks on the world?

We do. But it's difficult to consciously, intentionally incorporate new beliefs into our lives and ways of thinking. Actually, given the definitions of consciousness versus unconsciousness that I go by, it's impossible. (By unconscious, I actually mean that weird semiconscious state of things that could become conscious, but either start and/or continue as not.) As much as a person can be heavily influenced by the environment they were raised in they can still pick up new things in different environments in roughly the same way, but trying to do this intentionally is pretty hard. That's why people just keep on debating the same points a lot of the time, I think.

... Pft, if you got all the way to the end of this ramble, you deserve a cookie. I shouldn't be allowed on the internet right after philosophy class.

[sixbitsforfact]

I love your philosophical ramblings. Keep 'em coming!

I don't know how much Hobbes you've read; probably a fair bit, but just in case...

This reminds me of something in the Leviathan; when he addressed the notion of free will he argued all the actions we choose to do are free, just also a function of our current or past environment/upbringing/emotional and physical state, etc. Of course, most philosophers heavily disagreed because they believed no action was free if it had antecedent conditions.

Really, I'm not sure which I believe. I'd like to think we have control over who and what we become...that we are not just living, breathing diathesis-stress models, or survival machines driven by a series of subconscious programming. But we have also been conditioned since birth to behave and think and react certain ways. Those are pretty steep.

And if you got all the way to the end of this ramble, you deserve a pony.

[murderofonerose]

Oh god, I haven't read any Hobbes. Just a lot of sciencey stuff about the brain and consciousness, and a good amount of philosophy stuff about how and why God and/or the mystical experience can't be explained very well. So, like... Buber, Plotinus, Bernadette Roberts

[sixbitsforfact]

No, it does, definitely. Though I suppose a point of contention might be this notion of things just happening without our need to think about them first. True, we often fall victim to desires/impulses/"second natures" and just do something without deliberating too much. But that only can take us so far.

Jumping out of the way of an oncoming car = good impulse, because while we technically could choose not to avoid the collision, it could very well end in our death. That impulse is both instinctual (self-preservation) and learned (years of adults telling us not to cross the street without looking both ways, for example, because cars will hurt us).

But these other impulses that become second-nature to us, are they always in our best interest?

unrelated but..

[artlessthan3]

hey you :)

Re: unrelated but..

[sixbitsforfact]

Hey there! It's been forever... How are you?