diversity and tolerance

[Fist and Faith]

Let's do this in another thread, eh?

Diversity may exist for different reasons. The one I'm interested in here is this: When something cannot be directly observed, different people have different beliefs for what it is/how it happened/whatever. How did the universe come to exist? Why are there huge, reptilian-shaped stone skeletons in the earth? What are those points of light we see in the sky at night? Someone can look at the aspects of a question that we can directly observe, and see them fit together in a certain way, forming a certain picture. Another person can take the same pieces, and form a different puzzle.

Diversity.

Is this a good way to begin this discussion?

Of course, that doesn't explain how it is that two different people directly observing the same things come to put them together into different puzzles. I've already spoken about my beliefs that each of us has a psyche that requires certain types of things, and that is the driving force behind our finished puzzles. But that doesn't explain why that happens. (My belief is that it is a different type of diversity. The factual kind. There are many different kinds of bird. All birds are not eagles. It's a physical fact. I believe our brains are all wired in sufficiently different ways that they allow a variety of different fears, desires, hopes, needs, etc.)

But, whether I'm wrong or right, whatever the reason, there are many things that cannot be directly observed or proven. And so we have different beliefs.

I think it's important that we all know about each others' beliefs. Ignorance is not a good thing. It would be silly to not know about the Nazis. It's probably not a good idea to be ignorant of the meaning of people marching down the street with swastikas. And if I don't know what Buddhism is, I might react with unnecessary fear, even violence, if I see a few monks in their robes walking down the street.

So how much should we tolerate those whose unverifiable finished puzzle looks different from our own?

Personally, I'm not at all concerned with anybody else's beliefs. You can believe such and such a way is right, and mine is wrong. I only have a problem when you try to force your ways on me. I'll fight you if you try to force me to do or say certain things. And, of course, I'll fight you if your beliefs say you must hurt or kill me.

[aliantha]

I'm not seeing much of anything there to disagree with, Fist.

[Lord of the Gyre]

The only thing I would change about that statement would be "I'll fight you if you try to force myself or others to do or say certain things. And, of course, I'll fight you if your beliefs say you must hurt or kill the innocent or undefended.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I'm much less concerned with people's beliefs than I am with their actions. Believe whatever you want...it's not going to hurt me.

--A

[Cybrweez]

It's a physical fact.

Bah, we define physical facts then. Soon, bird and eagle can mean different things, and that fact is no longer fact. We define what these things are, and therefore the facts. Reminds me of, 'well, you say that religion teaches that, but how do I know you're right?' Its just that some 'facts' are more agreed upon than others.

For instance, I'm sure you could find someone who would say all birds are eagles - are they wrong? If you were the only one to say Buddism is wrong, is Buddhism right?

Personally, I'm not at all concerned with anybody else's beliefs.

And yet...

I only have a problem

the truth is you do have a problem w/others' beliefs, when you don't like them. Again, the line of what someone likes or doesn't is different for everyone, but if I don't like that you post here and force you to stop, could you be angry at me? Could you think I'm wrong or mean? Of course not, b/c then you'd have a problem w/my belief.

So the question of how much to tolerate is personal as well. And if you really don't have a problem w/others' beliefs, you wouldn't have a problem no matter how tolerant someone is. That's quite a pet peeve of mine, this idea that other people are intolerant. I've posted about it here b4. Yea, I'm intolerant, quite a bit actually. You have a problem with that? How intolerant you are.

See the circle?

[Fist and Faith]

So there's nothing we can agree on? We can't define terms in order to communicate? We can't agree to call this thing a "feather"; all things with feathers "birds"; birds with certain characteristics "eagles", and birds with other characteristics "penguins"? How can humans (assuming it's permissible to classify ourselves as "human") have developed languages (if it's ok to call certain kinds of communication "language") without agreeing on how to define at least a few terms?

[Avatar]

I think we define them within our own context. The context of our own culture and society. Isn't society a group of people who agree to define things and act in similar ways?

--A

[rusmeister]

If I may...
It seems to me that the question, as always, boils down to the old question of truth.

Is there objective, overarching truth? Is there a whole elephant? (The assumption of the analogy of the elephant and the blind men is that no one can possibly perceive the whole elephant.)

The answer seems self-evident to me. Of course there is. (Referring back to Chesterton's "Philosophy for the Schoolroom")
That being so, people's attempts to organize conceptions that are as correct and complete as possible correspond to descriptions of the whole elephant that are closer to or further from that objective truth.

Thus, while one's "psyche" or desires could conceivably influence a given person's description, it by no means follows that the psyche determines the nature of the elephant.

On Avatar's first comment, I'd say that a persons actions reflect what they in fact believe, as opposed to what they profess to believe. So I'd agree that professed beliefs - nominal faith - are pretty irrelevant. But beliefs actually believed - and consequently acted on - matter very much and could very much hurt (or save) you.

Obviously we can, in some cases, agree on terms. In other cases (such as pre-natal murder), we cannot and we can only fight, as our ancestors did over slavery. As Lincoln said, the nation (or society that Avatar imagines) must become all one thing or all the other (in those cases). The compromises cannot last.

And what cyberweez said.

[Avatar]

I don't think it's possible for it to be all one thing, or all the other.

There isn't a single subject on which agreement is universal. As a result, we have to be able to tolerate diversity, because even in apparently homogenous societies, there is more diversity than is immediately apparent.

(And of course, since there is no overarching truth, there is no possiblity of everybody believing the same thing. )

--A

[rusmeister]

I don't think it's possible for it to be all one thing, or all the other.

There isn't a single subject on which agreement is universal. As a result, we have to be able to tolerate diversity, because even in apparently homogenous societies, there is more diversity than is immediately apparent.

(And of course, since there is no overarching truth, there is no possiblity of everybody believing the same thing. )

--A

Hey, Av,
I found another relevant quote for you (noting that you didn't respond to the last - and lengthier - quote I posted for you):

It is better occasionally to call some
mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state
in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that
there are no mountains in the world.

The Patriotic Idea
G.K. Chesterton, 1904.

[Cybrweez]

Well, I think we can agree on things, and it can be all one or all the other. There are plenty of things we "all" agree on (maybe not 100% of the human population, but close enough), like all birds are not eagles. That's the "easy" stuff tho.

Fist, you ask 'assuming it's permissible to classify ourselves as "human"', but in the 'Tank, there's a thread about abortion where its not clear what 'human' is, so that falls under the terms that have no agreement, therefore people just assume what they think is human is the truth. Yes, its very annoying, but one reason why I think something external to this universe determines what is. It allows us to think clearly.

[aliantha]

Weez -- using "something external to this universe" to determine what's what certainly gives you a convenient framework to hang your beliefs on. The problem, as always, is that not everyone is going to agree with your approach.

So we're back to the question of how much dissent you're willing to tolerate. If you insist (as rus does) that your framework is the only possible explanation for The Truth, the answer is "not much."

[rusmeister]

Weez -- using "something external to this universe" to determine what's what certainly gives you a convenient framework to hang your beliefs on. The problem, as always, is that not everyone is going to agree with your approach.

So we're back to the question of how much dissent you're willing to tolerate. If you insist (as rus does) that your framework is the only possible explanation for The Truth, the answer is "not much."

Whether it "gives a convenient framework" or not does not change that basic fact that only truth external to ourselves allows us to both think and communicate meaningfully. Just being suspicious of what people like us see as the truth does not make that worldview untrue.

If there IS truth, then it is eminently logical to not treat that which is not true as equal in value to such truth, and to not "tolerate" it in that sense. We can live peaceably with flat-earthers, but respect their view that the earth is flat as a view equally valid as the view that it is a sphere? That's just loopy - foolishness. There's nothing "intolerant" about saying that we should not celebrate their views or otherwise treat them as "valid".

[Avatar]

Hey, Av,
I found another relevant quote for you (noting that you didn't respond to the last - and lengthier - quote I posted for you):

It is better occasionally to call some
mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state
in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that
there are no mountains in the world.

The Patriotic Idea
G.K. Chesterton, 1904.

Just because I call a hill what you might call a mountain, or vice versa, does not mean there are no mountains. Makes me think of two quotes myself..."to the climber, the mountain is clearer from the plain" and "You can't tell how steep it is until you're right up against it."

Does there need to be a fixed height for mountains? I would have thought that you would be arguing that there was. (Or should be.)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, you ask 'assuming it's permissible to classify ourselves as "human"', but in the 'Tank, there's a thread about abortion where its not clear what 'human' is, so that falls under the terms that have no agreement, therefore people just assume what they think is human is the truth. Yes, its very annoying, but one reason why I think something external to this universe determines what is. It allows us to think clearly.

Weez -- using "something external to this universe" to determine what's what certainly gives you a convenient framework to hang your beliefs on. The problem, as always, is that not everyone is going to agree with your approach.

So we're back to the question of how much dissent you're willing to tolerate. If you insist (as rus does) that your framework is the only possible explanation for The Truth, the answer is "not much."

Whether it "gives a convenient framework" or not does not change that basic fact that only truth external to ourselves allows us to both think and communicate meaningfully.

There is no difference between everybody accepting the same "external something" as a lens through which to view things, and everybody accepting a set of definitions of terms. Both are things that we can agree on, or not agree on.

It is well beyond obvious that not everyone accepts that there is any "external something." It is also beyond obvious that we will never all accept the same external something. Therefore, we will never be able to use that as our way of thinking clearly or communicating meaningfully.

Can we try the other idea? Can we agree on some terms? At the moment, just one: feather. Any chance we will all agree that anything with certain properties (chemical composition, structure/shape) is a feather? I'm not going to ask for anything beyond that at the moment. Is agreement on even this possible? (I do have a point. Not just being difficult. But honestly, if anyone says No, then how can we be communicating at all? There must be some terms we can all agree on, or we'd all be speaking gibberish to each other.)

Well, I think we can agree on things, and it can be all one or all the other. There are plenty of things we "all" agree on (maybe not 100% of the human population, but close enough), like all birds are not eagles. That's the "easy" stuff tho.

Does everyone agree with this? Are there things that we ALL agree on? Is there "easy" stuff?

[Fist and Faith]

The only thing I would change about that statement would be "I'll fight you if you try to force myself or others to do or say certain things. And, of course, I'll fight you if your beliefs say you must hurt or kill the innocent or undefended.

Greetings, Lord!

I'll go along with the second sentence. Not necessarily the first. Do some parents who raise their children in a certain religious environment "force" their children to do and say certain things? To believe certain things? Of course they do. How can it be otherwise? How does a child hear certain beliefs expressed as fact from Day One, and not come to believe they are facts? Yet these parents are doing what they believe is right. I won't fight them on this.

My children's mother has read a huge number of Sylvia Brown books. I don't tell them that Sylvia Brown is a stark raving loon, or that their mother is for swallowing all that crap. (Nor can I prove those things. ) Not long ago, my daughters were going to do something with a family who has kids the same age as them, so, to make it easier, they went to church with the family. I asked them if they had a good time, and if they wanted to go again. Am I, by demonstrating the attitude that I post about here, forcing them to accept that attitude?

I know, I'm rambling far off what you had in mind. I'm just saying, it's not a clear cut thing.

[rusmeister]

Hey, Av,
I found another relevant quote for you (noting that you didn't respond to the last - and lengthier - quote I posted for you):

It is better occasionally to call some
mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state
in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that
there are no mountains in the world.

The Patriotic Idea
G.K. Chesterton, 1904.

Just because I call a hill what you might call a mountain, or vice versa, does not mean there are no mountains. Makes me think of two quotes myself..."to the climber, the mountain is clearer from the plain" and "You can't tell how steep it is until you're right up against it."

Does there need to be a fixed height for mountains? I would have thought that you would be arguing that there was. (Or should be.)

--A

Well, Av, generally speaking, I DON'T think you call my hill a mountain and vice versa in our discussions of absolute and relative truths. I think you say "there is no mountain". That's certainly what I take from your consistent denial of objective, overarching standards. I admit relative truths. I just say that there is an Absolute behind them. You deny that absolute, and leave only the relative. You say "everything depends", and I say that "depend" means "hang", and that there logically must be something to ultimately hang everything from (or better, that it hangs/depends on).

I've said it before - and so has Lewis - that you can't use the ideas of better or worse until you have established what is good and bad. Without your absolutes to anchor them, you can have no relative. Or, if you like, without an Arch of Time, you can have no world.

[rusmeister]

Fist, you ask 'assuming it's permissible to classify ourselves as "human"', but in the 'Tank, there's a thread about abortion where its not clear what 'human' is, so that falls under the terms that have no agreement, therefore people just assume what they think is human is the truth. Yes, its very annoying, but one reason why I think something external to this universe determines what is. It allows us to think clearly.

Weez -- using "something external to this universe" to determine what's what certainly gives you a convenient framework to hang your beliefs on. The problem, as always, is that not everyone is going to agree with your approach.

So we're back to the question of how much dissent you're willing to tolerate. If you insist (as rus does) that your framework is the only possible explanation for The Truth, the answer is "not much."

Whether it "gives a convenient framework" or not does not change that basic fact that only truth external to ourselves allows us to both think and communicate meaningfully.

There is no difference between everybody accepting the same "external something" as a lens through which to view things, and everybody accepting a set of definitions of terms. Both are things that we can agree on, or not agree on.

It is well beyond obvious that not everyone accepts that there is any "external something." It is also beyond obvious that we will never all accept the same external something. Therefore, we will never be able to use that as our way of thinking clearly or communicating meaningfully.

Almost completely agree. But if we at least accept that there must be truth external to us, whether we agree or not, then we can at least begin to try to communicate. If we do not accept that, as Av clearly doesn't, then we can't talk at all.

Can we try the other idea? Can we agree on some terms? At the moment, just one: feather. Any chance we will all agree that anything with certain properties (chemical composition, structure/shape) is a feather? I'm not going to ask for anything beyond that at the moment. Is agreement on even this possible? (I do have a point. Not just being difficult. But honestly, if anyone says No, then how can we be communicating at all? There must be some terms we can all agree on, or we'd all be speaking gibberish to each other.)

Well, I think we can agree on things, and it can be all one or all the other. There are plenty of things we "all" agree on (maybe not 100% of the human population, but close enough), like all birds are not eagles. That's the "easy" stuff tho.

Does everyone agree with this? Are there things that we ALL agree on? Is there "easy" stuff?

Yes, there is, and yes, we can agree on "feather" - that there are boundaries and defining ideas which prevent us from naming anything at all "a feather". Or at least, make it meaningful.

"Philosophy for the Schoolroom" (posted above) is a good start. If we use that as a springboard, we can communicate. If we do not even accept those basic postulates, we cannot.

[Fist and Faith]

Hey, Av,
I found another relevant quote for you (noting that you didn't respond to the last - and lengthier - quote I posted for you): The Patriotic Idea
G.K. Chesterton, 1904.

Just because I call a hill what you might call a mountain, or vice versa, does not mean there are no mountains. Makes me think of two quotes myself..."to the climber, the mountain is clearer from the plain" and "You can't tell how steep it is until you're right up against it."

Does there need to be a fixed height for mountains? I would have thought that you would be arguing that there was. (Or should be.)

--A

Well, Av, generally speaking, I DON'T think you call my hill a mountain and vice versa in our discussions of absolute and relative truths. I think you say "there is no mountain". That's certainly what I take from your consistent denial of objective, overarching standards. I admit relative truths. I just say that there is an Absolute behind them. You deny that absolute, and leave only the relative. You say "everything depends", and I say that "depend" means "hang", and that there logically must be something to ultimately hang everything from (or better, that it hangs/depends on).

I've said it before - and so has Lewis - that you can't use the ideas of better or worse until you have established what is good and bad. Without your absolutes to anchor them, you can have no relative. Or, if you like, without an Arch of Time, you can have no world.

But many of us disagree. We say there doesn't need to be an absolute to hang these things on. It isn't necessary. And we seem to be managing just fine this way.

And when that absolute is something for which there is no evidence, and no reason to believe in, deciding to accept it as the absolute is just silly. (From our point of view, that is. Obviously, you have reason to believe. But it's the kind that cannot be shared or demonstrated, so it doesn't work for some of us.)

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, you ask 'assuming it's permissible to classify ourselves as "human"', but in the 'Tank, there's a thread about abortion where its not clear what 'human' is, so that falls under the terms that have no agreement, therefore people just assume what they think is human is the truth. Yes, its very annoying, but one reason why I think something external to this universe determines what is. It allows us to think clearly.

Whether it "gives a convenient framework" or not does not change that basic fact that only truth external to ourselves allows us to both think and communicate meaningfully.

There is no difference between everybody accepting the same "external something" as a lens through which to view things, and everybody accepting a set of definitions of terms. Both are things that we can agree on, or not agree on.

It is well beyond obvious that not everyone accepts that there is any "external something." It is also beyond obvious that we will never all accept the same external something. Therefore, we will never be able to use that as our way of thinking clearly or communicating meaningfully.

Almost completely agree. But if we at least accept that there must be truth external to us, whether we agree or not, then we can at least begin to try to communicate. If we do not accept that, as Av clearly doesn't, then we can't talk at all.

The problem is that we disagree on what that external truth is.

Can we try the other idea? Can we agree on some terms? At the moment, just one: feather. Any chance we will all agree that anything with certain properties (chemical composition, structure/shape) is a feather? I'm not going to ask for anything beyond that at the moment. Is agreement on even this possible? (I do have a point. Not just being difficult. But honestly, if anyone says No, then how can we be communicating at all? There must be some terms we can all agree on, or we'd all be speaking gibberish to each other.)

Well, I think we can agree on things, and it can be all one or all the other. There are plenty of things we "all" agree on (maybe not 100% of the human population, but close enough), like all birds are not eagles. That's the "easy" stuff tho.

Does everyone agree with this? Are there things that we ALL agree on? Is there "easy" stuff?

Yes, there is, and yes, we can agree on "feather" - that there are boundaries and defining ideas which prevent us from naming anything at all "a feather". Or at least, make it meaningful.

"Philosophy for the Schoolroom" (posted above) is a good start. If we use that as a springboard, we can communicate. If we do not even accept those basic postulates, we cannot.

I don't remember "Philosophy for the Schoolroom", and I only see you mentioned it above. I don't know if I agree that that is an acceptable springboard.

But we can communicate regardless. We've just agreed on "feather." And any number of other things would have worked as well. I only used that because birds are eagles had already been brought up. The question is: Why can we agree on it? Why is it possible to agree on anything? What characteristics about the things that all of us - even you and me, rus! - agree on make them things that we can agree on?