Can we choose to agree?

[manolo]

Folks,

There is a philosophical debate over whether we can choose our beliefs. Can we choose to believe something or not?

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/can- ... e-believe/

I am wondering if there could be a similar debate over whether we can choose to agree. If someone presents us with a view do we choose to agree or disagree with this view or do we respond emotionally with a kind of default setting?

On certain moral and metaphysical questions I have switched between agreeing and disagreeing, but it doesn't feel like a voluntary action, more like a light being switched on or off. For example, the statement “God exists”. Sometimes I have thought (or felt) that this is true, and other times that it isn't. The switch doesn't seem to involve reasoning, but feels more instinctive. What I do know is that when I feel one way, I don't feel the other way. I have never been comfortable with the idea that God both exists and doesn't exist, so would not be able to agree with that notion, no matter how hard I try.

With agreeing, there does seem to be a sense of volition in the process, but I am not so sure if the volition is real. Anyone agree/disagree?

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Alex,

To me, it seems obvious that people can choose to agree or disagree voluntarily. One's background, obviously, hugely influences one's views, but many choose to overcome their "ingrained" or "cultural" programming thru acts of will.

Via reading on the internet, we all "know" how "good" Americans, Europeans, Asians, whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Liberals, Conservatives, etc. think. But the fact is they don't all think alike, nor would one expect "them" to. The observer is merely projecting their chosen prejudices.

The choice to believe one does not have free will seems unrealistically pessimistic to me. Nor supported by my observations here on Earth. I'm not sure why any specific individual would choose to do so. In the instances I have seen, it often appears to be a conscious choice to evade personal responsibility. At other times, it seems a sense of powerlessness.

Perhaps some humans truly are hardwired from birth, and modifying their BIOS is not an option to them. It is a big data pool. Floatation devices are highly recommended.

The more interesting questions to me are:
1. Looking at the same data, some choose to believe something (AGW for example) is real, while some do not.
2. Some choose to look at the world as a closed, static system.
3. When faced with complex systems, some choose to hyper-simplify. The one's I personally call binoids.
4. Then the "splitters." Fred knows he has a choice when it comes to buying into a philosophy, or choosing to eat either chocolate or vanilla ice cream, buy a car or pickup, but thinks there is only one "true religion" or one "political ideology that is "just" or "workable."
5. Then my favorite herd. The "if only they would think differently, I would be happier" tribe.

I recall a conversation with a very religious co-worker. I mentioned the old line "God can do anything, but he can't do the impossible. He can't make a square circle." The co-worker replied "Oh yes he can! God can do anything." It was a very short conversation.

The challenge we face in SimpleMindedStan is to constantly remind the people that they are empowered individuals who have free will that they can use to improve both the realm and the quality of their own lives, and yet that they should still worship me as their god-King.

Free ice cream on the third Friday of every month is working great..... for now.

People.... they're all like that!

[kmich]

We all create and have beliefs, and these are limited by our understandings that are derived from a complex set of conditions including our education, experience, family, and culture. Beliefs may be “chosen” in a very limited sense, but the biases that inform these “decisions” are shaped by our conditions. The stronger we adhere to our “beliefs” the more we are directed by our conditions and the more restricted our freedom becomes. In fact, studies on cognitive dissonance indicate that when information is presented that contradicts someone’s strongly held beliefs, their beliefs do not weaken, instead their convictions regarding them strengthen.

Is there a third option from choosing to agree or disagree? Is it possible to simply listen openly without doing either? Can we hold onto our beliefs lightly enough to allow that process of simple listening and clarity to go forward? IMHO, real freedom is not in choosing to agree to disagree but in permitting a kind of silent openness. People often interpret that as being wishy washy and fecklessly “fence sitting.” I just don’t buy it. They just want you to declare what prison of conditions you live in so as to compare you with their own state of confinement which they will likely view as somehow superior.

[manolo]

We all create and have beliefs, and these are limited by our understandings that are derived from a complex set of conditions including our education, experience, family, and culture. Beliefs may be “chosen” in a very limited sense, but the biases that inform these “decisions” are shaped by our conditions. The stronger we adhere to our “beliefs” the more we are directed by our conditions and the more restricted our freedom becomes. In fact, studies on cognitive dissonance indicate that when information is presented that contradicts someone’s strongly held beliefs, their beliefs do not weaken, instead their convictions regarding them strengthen.

Is there a third option from choosing to agree or disagree? Is it possible to simply listen openly without doing either? Can we hold onto our beliefs lightly enough to allow that process of simple listening and clarity to go forward? IMHO, real freedom is not in choosing to agree to disagree but in permitting a kind of silent openness. People often interpret that as being wishy washy and fecklessly “fence sitting.” I just don’t buy it. They just want you to declare what prison of conditions you live in so as to compare you with their own state of confinement which they will likely view as somehow superior.

kmich,

I can't disagree with you, no matter how hard I try. Your post has convinced me. However, the notion of "silent openness" (agnostic ?) has always appealed, so I am not just agreeing with you; I'm agreeing with myself.

Agreeing with oneself is an easy danger to court. Many a PhD thesis has been completed in the manner of a man who puts a pair of gloves in a drawer and then takes them out again with a gesture of surprise.

Alex.

[manolo]

Alex,

To me, it seems obvious that people can choose to agree or disagree voluntarily. One's background, obviously, hugely influences one's views, but many choose to overcome their "ingrained" or "cultural" programming thru acts of will.

SM,

I've read and value your whole post, but the above jumped out at me. Could a person choose to agree or disagree thru an act of will? If a person overcame their cultural programming in order to agree with something, what does this mean?

For example, there are certain conservative social positions that I agree with, although I generally don't find conservatism attractive. Does this mean that I have chosen to agree with these positions by an act of will or does it mean that I just do agree with them? I'm not sure, which is why the subject is interesting to me.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

We all create and have beliefs, and these are limited by our understandings that are derived from a complex set of conditions including our education, experience, family, and culture. Beliefs may be “chosen” in a very limited sense, but the biases that inform these “decisions” are shaped by our conditions. The stronger we adhere to our “beliefs” the more we are directed by our conditions and the more restricted our freedom becomes. In fact, studies on cognitive dissonance indicate that when information is presented that contradicts someone’s strongly held beliefs, their beliefs do not weaken, instead their convictions regarding them strengthen.

Is there a third option from choosing to agree or disagree? Is it possible to simply listen openly without doing either? Can we hold onto our beliefs lightly enough to allow that process of simple listening and clarity to go forward? IMHO, real freedom is not in choosing to agree to disagree but in permitting a kind of silent openness. People often interpret that as being wishy washy and fecklessly “fence sitting.” I just don’t buy it. They just want you to declare what prison of conditions you live in so as to compare you with their own state of confinement which they will likely view as somehow superior.

Very well stated kmich.

There is general stereotyping, which may be the drawers in our mental file cabinets, then there are the individual files, and the stuff in the files. The mental filing process is dynamic. Each person has to choose, at each moment from past definitions, current definitions, which peer group to buy into or shun, whether to continue to gather data, or form a conclusion now.

At some later date, should we cling to the old definition(s) or re-evaluate based on new information, or our ever changing priorities?

[Simple Minded]

Alex,

To me, it seems obvious that people can choose to agree or disagree voluntarily. One's background, obviously, hugely influences one's views, but many choose to overcome their "ingrained" or "cultural" programming thru acts of will.

SM,

I've read and value your whole post, but the above jumped out at me. Could a person choose to agree or disagree thru an act of will? If a person overcame their cultural programming in order to agree with something, what does this mean?

alex,

FWIW, I think one can. I know many who have, at some point in their lives, looked at what their peer group/family/local culture are continually reaping, as a result of unthinking habit/conformance and simply decided that is not how they want to live, and made their own life better by adopting new beliefs and habits. They were...... born again!!! Just not in the Christian sense.

IMSMO (and thru observation) this happens all the time.

For example, there are certain conservative social positions that I agree with, although I generally don't find conservatism attractive. Does this mean that I have chosen to agree with these positions by an act of will or does it mean that I just do agree with them? I'm not sure, which is why the subject is interesting to me.

Alex.

This is where I think it really gets interesting. Is "conservative/conservatism" a label you are applying to them? If so, based on what? Or, is it a flag the person you are observing is waving themselves? If so, why are they waving the flag?

In my opinion, it simply means there is common ground with which you agree. Why would one assume the label will determine whether common beliefs exist, or that no common beliefs are possible?

As I have noted before, I know more than a few who would be insulted to be called conservative or right wing, so they profess they are liberal or left wing. But their life styles are identical to those whom they profess to be superior to. So rather than call them lying hypocrites , or right wing conservatives , I simply call them normal humans. Makes for more harmonious relations.

Same goes for some of the Christians I have met.

I am at the point in my life that when Fred labels himself with a big label (Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, left, right, black, white, etc.) I really have no idea what that label means to them, nor what they think the label should mean to me. Is it an honest profession of their belief? Are they advertising/broadcasting something? Is advertisement/broadcast intended for my consumption or someone else's? Do they want the label to be determined by their regional definition or mine? Defined by my generational defintion or theirs?

Luckily, IMSMO, I don't have to deal with communities or tribes, only individuals. Cyber space is really nebulous (get the pun?).

One of the greatest quotes ever:

We do not content ourselves with the life we have in ourselves and in our own being; we desire to live an imaginary life in the mind of others, and for this purpose we endeavor to shine. We labor unceasingly to adorn and preserve this imaginary existence and neglect the real. A great proof of the nothingness of our being, not to be satisfied with the one without the other, and to renounce so often the one for the other!
Blaise Pascal

[noddy]

i tend to think of this territory in the triangle of emotions,instincts and reasoning.

emotions is the hippy talk, happy/sad, follow your feelings angle.
instincts is the power talk, fight or flight, animal response.
the intellect tries to tame all that and think of long term outcomes instead of those realtime responses...

choosing to agree - sure, if the intellect decides its worthwhile to override the negative responses the first 2 approaches throw up.

it takes time and effort to develop the will to force the intellect to win, my take on folks who dont believe in free will is it appears to be a sign of depression

[Simple Minded]

i tend to think of this territory in the triangle of emotions,instincts and reasoning.

emotions is the hippy talk, happy/sad, follow your feelings angle.
instincts is the power talk, fight or flight, animal response.
the intellect tries to tame all that and think of long term outcomes instead of those realtime responses...

choosing to agree - sure, if the intellect decides its worthwhile to override the negative responses the first 2 approaches throw up.

it takes time and effort to develop the will to force the intellect to win, my take on folks who dont believe in free will is it appears to be a sign of depression

nice summary.

I like the depression take on those who don't believe in free will. For some, I think it may also be laziness, a sense of hopelessness (same as depression) or ignorance of alternatives. Ignorance of alternatives can make one feel hopeless, which can make one lazy or simply give up. Or lazy itself may be the root cause.

Then for some individuals, depression/hopelessness, lazy, or self-destructive habits seem genetic or learned from parents/peers. Choose your parents, time and place of birth with great care. It is most important.

In any event, popular trends, styles, entertainment seem to be evidence that agreement and disagreement are part of everyday life. If they weren't, the internet wouldn't be needed.

[kmich]

We all create and have beliefs, and these are limited by our understandings that are derived from a complex set of conditions including our education, experience, family, and culture. Beliefs may be “chosen” in a very limited sense, but the biases that inform these “decisions” are shaped by our conditions. The stronger we adhere to our “beliefs” the more we are directed by our conditions and the more restricted our freedom becomes. In fact, studies on cognitive dissonance indicate that when information is presented that contradicts someone’s strongly held beliefs, their beliefs do not weaken, instead their convictions regarding them strengthen.

Is there a third option from choosing to agree or disagree? Is it possible to simply listen openly without doing either? Can we hold onto our beliefs lightly enough to allow that process of simple listening and clarity to go forward? IMHO, real freedom is not in choosing to agree to disagree but in permitting a kind of silent openness. People often interpret that as being wishy washy and fecklessly “fence sitting.” I just don’t buy it. They just want you to declare what prison of conditions you live in so as to compare you with their own state of confinement which they will likely view as somehow superior.

kmich,

I can't disagree with you, no matter how hard I try. Your post has convinced me. However, the notion of "silent openness" (agnostic ?) has always appealed, so I am not just agreeing with you; I'm agreeing with myself.

Agreeing with oneself is an easy danger to court. Many a PhD thesis has been completed in the manner of a man who puts a pair of gloves in a drawer and then takes them out again with a gesture of surprise.

Alex.

I agree with you, Alex, but you are quite right, it is best not to agree with myself on the issue.

There is general stereotyping, which may be the drawers in our mental file cabinets, then there are the individual files, and the stuff in the files. The mental filing process is dynamic. Each person has to choose, at each moment from past definitions, current definitions, which peer group to buy into or shun, whether to continue to gather data, or form a conclusion now.

At some later date, should we cling to the old definition(s) or re-evaluate based on new information, or our ever changing priorities?

We all construct beliefs, they are essential to our functioning, but the important thing is to understand the insubstantial, manufactured nature of belief. Beliefs are no more than our own constructions that we apply to guide us through a virtually endless set of radically contingent relations that are always changing.

As our set of internal and external conditions change, so our beliefs will be challenged to evolve whether we want them to or not. If we become too attached to our ideologies and beliefs, we create conflict within and around us as our beliefs clash with changing forces in us and in the world around us. This creates all kinds of havoc as we work to force ourselves and the world around us into the assumptions we are unable to give up.

Ideologically attached political movements of all stripes frequently end up resorting to force and terror to force the people and institutions under their authority to fit in with their treasured assumptions. In spite of the horrors of history, many fail to appreciate the necessary but modest role of politics as efforts to design temporary, incomplete remedies to recurrent human evils, not to be the agent of human redemption. Human motives are far too contradictory and changeable, social and cultural variables are much too complex and numerous, and history is far too unpredictable for such hubris to be justified.

I do not mean to imply that principles and ethics are “relative.” Relations between beliefs certainly are relative, and if one were to assume that true ethical action are the product of our “beliefs,” the inference of my relativism would be true. However, beliefs as noted above are insubstantial and contingent - too fragile, fickle, and frequently too blind and tin eared to tap the source of the moral strength necessary to adequately face the many unpredictable challenges of life.

The people I have known over the years who rescued and sheltered war refugees did not do so because they “believed” in anything. They did so because they were open to the presence of suffering before them which compelled them to unselfishly act. A decent life is not the product of indoctrinated belief, but our willingness to be fully aware and vulnerable in the face of human suffering.

[Simple Minded]

We all construct beliefs, they are essential to our functioning, but the important thing is to understand the insubstantial, manufactured nature of belief. Beliefs are no more than our own constructions that we apply to guide us through a virtually endless set of radically contingent relations that are always changing.

As our set of internal and external conditions change, so our beliefs will be challenged to evolve whether we want them to or not. If we become too attached to our ideologies and beliefs, we create conflict within and around us as our beliefs clash with changing forces in us and in the world around us. This creates all kinds of havoc as we work to force ourselves and the world around us into the assumptions we are unable to give up.

Ideologically attached political movements of all stripes frequently end up resorting to force and terror to force the people and institutions under their authority to fit in with their treasured assumptions. In spite of the horrors of history, many fail to appreciate the necessary but modest role of politics as efforts to design temporary, incomplete remedies to recurrent human evils, not to be the agent of human redemption. Human motives are far too contradictory and changeable, social and cultural variables are much too complex and numerous, and history is far too unpredictable for such hubris to be justified.

I do not mean to imply that principles and ethics are “relative.” Relations between beliefs certainly are relative, and if one were to assume that true ethical action are the product of our “beliefs,” the inference of my relativism would be true. However, beliefs as noted above are insubstantial and contingent - too fragile, fickle, and frequently too blind and tin eared to tap the source of the moral strength necessary to adequately face the many unpredictable challenges of life.

The people I have known over the years who rescued and sheltered war refugees did not do so because they “believed” in anything. They did so because they were open to the presence of suffering before them which compelled them to unselfishly act. A decent life is not the product of indoctrinated belief, but our willingness to be fully aware and vulnerable in the face of human suffering.

Very well said again.

I would only note that the people I have known who are most charitable and generous, get a very profound sense of joy, satisfaction, and sense of self worth from helping others. Are they acting unselfishly or in their own best self interests? I tend to say the later. A fun dichotomy or sematic to discuss, but really not important to the task at hand.

Whether it is part of our hardwiring, more so than a learned morality, is an interesting speculation, but is also an entertaining distraction. Much like speculating who made the wrench as apposed to actually using the wrench.

That humans have the ability to disagree or agree with others seems self-evident.

[kmich]

I would only note that the people I have known who are most charitable and generous, get a very profound sense of joy, satisfaction, and sense of self worth from helping others. Are they acting unselfishly or in their own best self interests? I tend to say the later. A fun dichotomy or sematic to discuss, but really not important to the task at hand.

Whether it is part of our hardwiring, more so than a learned morality, is an interesting speculation, but is also an entertaining distraction. Much like speculating who made the wrench as apposed to actually using the wrench.

Yes, speculations regarding “hard wiring” vs learning, or selfish vs altruistic motives in ethics are mostly meaningless, irrelevant distractions, unless, of course, one is an armchair amateur philosopher or a callow college freshman, starry eyed about his latest foray into Atlas Shrugged.

In the face of real challenges to our ethical grounding, such as facing terrified refugees from a nearby war or hollow eyed famine victims on your doorstep, these distinctions not only are distractions, they simply do not exist. There is only immediate necessity.

[manolo]

That humans have the ability to disagree or agree with others seems self-evident.

SM,

Yes, self evidence is very difficult to disagree with for the person doing the self evidencing. Of course, much of analytic philosophy is about challenging self evidence, often by way of complex invitations to counter intuitive thought. Wittgenstein's 'private language' argument is one of these.

I could not choose to agree with Wittgenstein (because I didn't) but gave him a good reading. If I had been convinced by his arguments I would not have have been able to choose to disagree of course, because I agreed. However, given further analysis or good counterarguments from another source I might have been unconvinced again, leaving me no choice but to disagree with him again. As it happens I have remained unconvinced by the PL argument, so am not free to agree with him as the argument stands.

All this seems to leave me as a kind of objectivist (from previous debates with yourself, I suspect that subjectivism is your pleasure ).

As an objectivist I would not feel free to disagree with the proposition 2+2=4, although I also agree with the proposition "Anything is possible". I can imagine circumstances in which either or both of the above propositions is true or false, but I do not feel free to agree with the proposition that both, or either, of these propositions is both true and false (because I don't). Of course it may be possible that the proposition "Anything is possible" is both true and false, which would make the proposition "Anything is possible" true and not false and also true and false. Under these circumstances I feel the need to choose "Anything is possible" over 2+2=4 as the way out of cognitive dissonance.

In conclusion, from an objectivist viewpoint, I would say that it is likely that there are objective facts and a general state of affairs in the universe, which are and is the case. I find an agnostic peace in the thought, perhaps of a religious nature.

Alex.

[manolo]

There is only immediate necessity.

kmich,

With that thought, I shall get out of bed.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

I would only note that the people I have known who are most charitable and generous, get a very profound sense of joy, satisfaction, and sense of self worth from helping others. Are they acting unselfishly or in their own best self interests? I tend to say the later. A fun dichotomy or sematic to discuss, but really not important to the task at hand.

Whether it is part of our hardwiring, more so than a learned morality, is an interesting speculation, but is also an entertaining distraction. Much like speculating who made the wrench as apposed to actually using the wrench.

Yes, speculations regarding “hard wiring” vs learning, or selfish vs altruistic motives in ethics are mostly meaningless, irrelevant distractions, unless, of course, one is an armchair amateur philosopher or a callow college freshman, starry eyed about his latest foray into Atlas Shrugged.

Actually, I would recommend The Virtue of Selfishness as a primer.

[

In the face of real challenges to our ethical grounding, such as facing terrified refugees from a nearby war or hollow eyed famine victims on your doorstep, these distinctions not only are distractions, they simply do not exist. There is only immediate necessity.

True enough. The recipients of aid don't care about the motivations of the helpers. Was Mother Teresa motivated by self interest (a desire to get into heaven, personal satisfaction, self-image, Puritan work ethic, performing work that makes one happy, the approval of an audience) or some unselfish reason? Only she will know. She did a lot of good is the end result.

Speculation about motivation is a privilege only granted to the insulated observer. As you noted previously, most of this speculation is performed only with a motivation of establishing one's superiority over the observed. In a word, vanity.

The old saying, regarding human vanity "You are what you are only when no one is looking." would not seem applicable to any who believe in God.

IME, Ayn Rand only torques up those individuals who claim to have achieved selflessness yet still maintain a modicum of vanity.

I'm not sure how they do it!

[Simple Minded]

That humans have the ability to disagree or agree with others seems self-evident.

SM,

Yes, self evidence is very difficult to disagree with for the person doing the self evidencing. Of course, much of analytic philosophy is about challenging self evidence, often by way of complex invitations to counter intuitive thought. Wittgenstein's 'private language' argument is one of these.

I could not choose to agree with Wittgenstein (because I didn't) but gave him a good reading. If I had been convinced by his arguments I would not have have been able to choose to disagree of course, because I agreed. However, given further analysis or good counterarguments from another source I might have been unconvinced again, leaving me no choice but to disagree with him again. As it happens I have remained unconvinced by the PL argument, so am not free to agree with him as the argument stands.

All this seems to leave me as a kind of objectivist (from previous debates with yourself, I suspect that subjectivism is your pleasure ).

As an objectivist I would not feel free to disagree with the proposition 2+2=4, although I also agree with the proposition "Anything is possible". I can imagine circumstances in which either or both of the above propositions is true or false, but I do not feel free to agree with the proposition that both, or either, of these propositions is both true and false (because I don't). Of course it may be possible that the proposition "Anything is possible" is both true and false, which would make the proposition "Anything is possible" true and not false and also true and false. Under these circumstances I feel the need to choose "Anything is possible" over 2+2=4 as the way out of cognitive dissonance.

In conclusion, from an objectivist viewpoint, I would say that it is likely that there are objective facts and a general state of affairs in the universe, which are and is the case. I find an agnostic peace in the thought, perhaps of a religious nature.

Alex.

alex,

This post reminds me of several discussion with Philosophy professors that convinced me not to pursue a degree in philosophy. It might be a talent, or a taste, or an intelligence, I don't have. But in any event, I don't have the desire.

Kinda like discussing religion with my in-laws. They found something they think works for them. I'm happy for them.

The only thing I could address in the above is that I'm pretty sure that 2+2=4 is not a proposition, but a series of definitions. Anyone can disagree, but it simply means they don't buy into the definitions. Same reason circles can't be square.

nother thought: The fact that you are using the terms "I agree" or "I disagree" implies that you not only know what the words mean, but that you know you have a choice. You can either agree or disagree.

The title of the original post "Can we choose to disagree?" is a much deeper subject. With a simpler answer? Obviously no. Once we disagree, "we" are no longer "we."

Last thought: Can a selfless person choose to agree or disagree? You said your wife was selfless. Have you two ever a greed or disagreed?

Silly fun.

[kmich]

Actually, I would recommend The Virtue of Selfishness as a primer.

Read it, to my general disgust. To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself, he or she will do that readily. Expanding one's world beyond the narrow confines of self interest is far more challenging to character than lazily feeding our own conceits.

IME, Ayn Rand only torques up those individuals who claim to have achieved selflessness yet still maintain a modicum of vanity.

I'm not sure how they do it!

I suppose like Rand and her dutiful followers have, particularly when they enjoy the conceit of pointing out the vanity of those with altruistic motives and the fact that they are so much more “objective” than such irrational fools.

In any case, human motivations are extremely complex and whether one styles oneself as a humanitarian or as so-called self-interested objectivist. There is no inherent value to either pretense; the results they bring into the world are what really matter, “by their fruits, you shall know them” kind of thing. Never witnessed much of value coming from Libertarian/Randian types. I suppose the enjoyment of their own rational superiority and selfishness has its own value in a sense, at least for them. Yes, I have done good things for others with both vain and altruistic motives. So what? I guess I'm not sufficiently "rational," sniff, sniff. What supercilious bullshit.

All “systems” of thought and belief greatly oversimplify human motivations and are prone to pretentiousness and blind spots. In my own reflection, contradiction lays within the complex nature of what drives our lives. Capacity of cruelty emerges with kindness, evil is intertwined with our good as dark is to light. No systems that try to simplify these complexities can seriously face the challenges of evil in the world, not merely moral evil, but the pain and the suffering of life. The Book of Job is the revolt against any facile solutions or "rational" evasions.

[manolo]

This post reminds me of several discussion with Philosophy professors that convinced me not to pursue a degree in philosophy. It might be a talent, or a taste, or an intelligence, I don't have. But in any event, I don't have the desire.

SM,

What I like about philosophy is that we are only doing it on the edges of understanding. All the clear stuff is just going over old ground. I used to take my (very young then) daughter to Uni tutorials. She called it "rubbish talking". She had and has a keen mind, like yourself.

The only thing I could address in the above is that I'm pretty sure that 2+2=4 is not a proposition, but a series of definitions. Anyone can disagree, but it simply means they don't buy into the definitions. Same reason circles can't be square.

https://www.quora.com/Is-1-+-1-2-a-defi ... roposition

I think of 2+2=4 as a deductive proposition, but it may also be only a tautology, bringing us neatly to your point about definitions. For the purpose of my post I was thinking of propositions (which can be true or false), so used it in that way. There is debate however, which was part of my wider point in the post.

nother thought: The fact that you are using the terms "I agree" or "I disagree" implies that you not only know what the words mean, but that you know you have a choice. You can either agree or disagree.

This is the nub of it. What do we mean by "agree"? I have suggested that "agree" may be a realisation (objectivist) and you seem to suggest that "agree" is an act of will (subjectivist). My feeling is that 'agreement' by act of will, without realisation, likely involves denial.

Anyway, it has been good to do some serious and substantive philosophy, which can be a rare thing among interweb pontifications. Thanks for that.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

This is the nub of it. What do we mean by "agree"? I have suggested that "agree" may be a realisation (objectivist) and you seem to suggest that "agree" is an act of will (subjectivist). My feeling is that 'agreement' by act of will, without realisation, likely involves denial.

Anyway, it has been good to do some serious and substantive philosophy, which can be a rare thing among interweb pontifications. Thanks for that.

Alex.

Alex,

Thanks for the kind words.

IMSMO, You are correct, this My feeling is that 'agreement' by act of will, without realisation, likely involves denial.
is the nub of it. Oddly enough, it appears some disagree with me......

Any thought process or decision making process that is not consciously undertaken, with the goal of attaining a result, does not fit "the" (or at least "my") definition of thinking. It is merely going with the currently dominant flow or path of least resistance (peer pressure, culture, society, etc.).

Hopefully, clarifying my earlier post. I think agree or disagree are choices individuals make. The individual's free will allows or enables one to make those choices. Those who don't think, are often the victim or benefactor of fads.

Back in the mid 80's I was fortunate enough to spend a fair amount of time outside of class with a couple of philosophy professors. One of my favorite was on a short term assignment here from Ireland, IIRC. He taught a class called "The Great Thinkers" (Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Kant, IIRC). At one social event, one of the other philosophy professors approached him and asked "Bill, what can you tell me about The Great Thinkers?" He thought for a moment and replied "They're all dead!"

I was a bit surprised that the professors in the philosophy department could not even agree of the pronunciation of "Nietzsche." Maybe I should not have been?

I recall coming across a quote decades ago "It is only your sense of self-importance that allows you to feel offended." It made sense to me then and still makes sense now. The expectation of consensus, or desire for consensus seems to be a precursor to self-inflicted pain. IMSMO, life is too short for me to do things like that.

cheers.

[manolo]

I recall coming across a quote decades ago "It is only your sense of self-importance that allows you to feel offended." It made sense to me then and still makes sense now.

SM,

I agree with you to the point that taking offence and self importance are often closely connected. I would like to disagree, but unfortunately I am not free to do so since reading and being convinced of the same by Dostoyevsky.

Alex.

PS, I asked our visiting daughter the thread question. She quickly said "Yes, we can!" then "Hang on; no we can't" and finally "I don't know". Lovely.

[Simple Minded]

I recall coming across a quote decades ago "It is only your sense of self-importance that allows you to feel offended." It made sense to me then and still makes sense now.

SM,

I agree with you to the point that taking offence and self importance are often closely connected. I would like to disagree, but unfortunately I am not free to do so since reading and being convinced of the same by Dostoyevsky.

Alex.

PS, I asked our visiting daughter the thread question. She quickly said "Yes, we can!" then "Hang on; no we can't" and finally "I don't know". Lovely.

Evidently, even people climbing different mountains can agree on some things.

I think now that "The Great Thinkers" are all dead, the undisciplined herd has greater latitude.

Regarding your daughter, as they say "The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree." I like her already.

At first I thought she was quoting the Obama path of maturation and self-realization from candidate for POTUS, to first term POTUS, to second term POTUS.

but maybe it was a summary of the whole journey of life in a few brief words and a few seconds? She might be deeper than you think! Tell here a kindred spirit says "Hi!"

[manolo]

SM,

An excellent segway into Obama.

Alex.

[Parodite]

The present never agrees with the past. Can we at least agree on that, for now ? One tiny moment of bliss... that's not too much asked oh Lawd.

[noddy]

The present never agrees with the past. Can we at least agree on that, for now ? One tiny moment of bliss... that's not too much asked oh Lawd.

haha, ymix and mr p are the resident experts on how settled history is.

[Simple Minded]

The present never agrees with the past. Can we at least agree on that, for now ? One tiny moment of bliss... that's not too much asked oh Lawd.

haha, ymix and mr p are the resident experts on how settled history is.

"Birds of a feather climb the same mountain in cyberspace together." as they say.....