It doesn’t seem to matter what forum a discussion takes place in or what the topic in that forum is, the main issues always boil down to communication. My participation has dwindled as it always does when school is in session but I hope this intrusive interruption might put something about communication into perspective.

Every language, whether considered ‘common’ or not, has developed in conjunction with cultural and societal aspects of a community. The changes to a ‘common’ language which have been influenced by the mutually accepted culture of a community are called dialects.

Subcultures of a country like the USA or Canada speak a dialect of a broader common language, mathematics is associated with the sciences. The Deaf culture is a far-reaching community, yet they subsist is cultural pockets throughout the world. Philosophy also has rules of engagement which are an accepted form of communication within philosophical circles. Additionally, because the rules used in philosophy tend to inspire thorough and exacting communication, the language of philosophy and the outcomes of philosophical thought are strewn throughout most aspects of higher education and, SADLY, not so much in K-12.

In the last several pages of communication I can see very clearly the dependence that people have on their own ‘DIALECT’. It seems to the ‘belief’ of many (review posts) that a common language means that everyone has a responsibility to understand the cultural and societal aspects that drive every ‘single’ individual’s form of communication. That brings me to RESPONSIBILITY.

Responsibility in communication is the recent issue here. First of all, it seems to have been established (quite in conjunction with the thread’s topic) that people have ‘belief’ that “that a common language means that everyone has a responsibility to understand the cultural and societal aspects that drive every ‘single’ individual’s form of communication. “ Since we cannot possibly know such things, then we must define responsibility in communication from an ethical view.

Ethical communication is part of the philosophical ‘language’ and it includes presenting thorough and straight forward (sorry not PC) presentations and justification – among other things. Many posts and posters have attempted to demonstrate the language of philosophy. Unfortunately (and commonly) due to the ‘belief’ of individuals that their language is ‘common’ and therefore it is the responsibility of everyone else to accept the communication exactly as that person means it, creates an inability to communicate through justification processes.

OK – this is already too long – the point is, the responsibility for solid communication is mutual and it is based on ethical standard that depend on explanation, justification , and of course sincere attentiveness and attempts to understand and question when understanding is evasive.
Creative (as many seem to think) ‘does droll on’ because he is responsibly accepting his role in this communication process. He presents, explains, justifies. The proper response would be either question more, or to present another side, or dismantle his justifications. He then does the same. It’s a banter and in the philosophical world it’s been going on as long as recorded history.

Hi folks, just popping in and breezed through this thread and just wanted to make a comment.

As an atheist I've always disagreed with those who attemt to define atheism with the term disbelief. On many levels of definition, including synonyms, the term is associated with both, "skepticism" and "doubt."

Certainly, in this vast cyberspace of information, there will be some confliting information available.

However, my reasoning in not accepting the term 'disbelief' is rather simple. I approach matters of religious 'faith' in the same manner with which I would approach reading comic books. Young children with little knowledge or understanding of our human limitations might read the X-Men and wonder about what powers lay hidden in their own bodies. I suppose when those kids grow and no longer habor such childish beliefs that one could say they now disbelieve, but I do not, because those children were working with limited expereience, knowledge and informatin in the first place.

HOWEVER, when an adult immerses himself in a science fiction book or movie they do so by suspending 'belief' (example: imagining our world in the company of vampires or being invaded by Martians). But such behavior is not akin to DISBELIEF.

Now, let's look at religious belief. In most cases in which religious doctrine guides the belief system, the individual is required to suspend and/or modify current scientifically accepted views to accommodate their religious beliefs.

In that case I would consider that faith in religious dogmas causes the faithful to DISBELIEVE rather than a suspension of belief because accepting religious dogma over other more objective inforamtin would be to disbelieve.

On the other hand, I do not accepted religious dogma at any level higher than a science fiction comic book. I may consciously suspend knowledge or current understanding of the universe in order to enjoy the science fiction of the comic book or, in some cases, as an attempt to understand what others believe, but I cannot disbelieve something I did not believe in the first place. There is no more doubt, for me, about religious dogma than there is doubt that "The Avengers" are real. I have not changed in any significant way in response to what others believe but believers often tend to trade in one belief for another, thereby causing disbelief for themselves, not for me.

Understand?

Well, too hot to sleep last night so I fell asleep at the computer, decided it was time to hit the sack and this morning I realized I never exited. Does that count as 'patiently waiting for reply'?


I have to get ready for work but I had read both JR and Abra's replies. Very good, thanks. I think I'm getting a clearer picture and I also believe that both replies contain enough similarities to indicate that you are both on the same two pages of this volume.

I have a long busy day at work, going on about 4 hours sleep. While I 'intend' to respond tonight - I can't say I 'believe' it will happen.

But I will respond becuause I a long weekend (a one day reprieve from school work)and I find this interesting.

Have a good day, I'll be back - at some point.

By the way: Creative what do you think is going on here? Could it be that the terms (especially the term belief) have not been thoroughly defined or understood? Could there be other aspects such as hueristics, innate personality traits, and instinct can somehow be incorporated into the definition of belief thereby adding components that would broaden the scope of behavior based on "belief"?

As Abra indicated and JR seems to agree that the term belief (as they are interpreting it)is too narrow and restrictive to agree with your premice and conclusion.

Hi Abra


I would agree that ‘belief’ tends to include a wide array of elements which lead to abstract concepts, love, charity, and other concepts that tend guide our actions. But can you further explain how you think ‘intuitive’ notions guide your actions?



I have to disagree, mainly because your statement is too broad, I’m not even sure if you are discussing danger to one’s self or situations in which the danger to self would have effect others.

Some people seek danger – (thrill seekers), while others avoid it, and still others, for whatever reason, tend to have a very high arousal trigger and some, like sociopaths or psychopaths seek emotional arousal at any cost, without regard for the lives of others or their own.



What you call an intuitive action, as in the statement above, can also be attributed to evolution. We depend on social qualities for survival and one could argue that what you might call intuition, in this case, could be part of genetic evolution.



I think you may be correct – ethics, as I’ve presented it, involves highly abstract concepts which are generally based on what individuals place value in or on.

Your description of the woman who punched a bear in the face because it held her dog in its mouth, is a case in point. We place or attach value in or on something.

Could the value we attribute to something stem from a belief or might the belief develop through the attribution of value?

In the case of the woman who punched the bear in the face,



like many people, it could be argued that her value was either misplaced or ill-considered in comparison with the value she placed on her own life and well-being. It might also be that the woman did not actually think at all but merely acted as one who's beloved family member was in trouble.

Instinct is considered to be inherent, having evolved because of its worth to our survival. If that’s the case the woman did not act on instinct because self-preservation should have overridden her action. Rather, she acted on a belief that she created when she assigned the value she did to her dog. The value she gave the dog made it worthy of being loved or she believed the dog was worthy of her love and so attributed it. (that does not take intellect, it takes the ability to love a dog as she did).

Had she seen a wild fox in the bear’s clutches, do you think she would done the same thing?



Although you have not verbalized what your code of ethics include, I’m sure you would be able to, or at least attempt to verbalize them.

So you have obviously thought about these things and in so doing you have attributed value to these ‘ideas’. If you have gone to the trouble of assessing your ethical code and assigning values to the concepts, then obviously you “believe” them worthy of value – do you not?

Furthermore, if you allow what you value to guide your actions without thinking about those values, would you then be acting on faith or might you simply be acting on the belief you have place in what you have attached value to?



You’ve made it clear that the value some individuals assign to a god can be changed because you did it. The value you once put in god was withdrawn. Could you withdraw or otherwise adjust the value you give to your various ethical ideals? Or do you ‘believe’ them to be innate/inherent?



Perhaps intellect is not necessarily a component of the values we attribute to our concepts, or the woman who punched the bear probably would have made a different choice.



You might want to rethink the logic in the above quote. Instinct is not learned – and we DO have a reflexive instinct to move when an object is speeding toward our face. Even a baby, incapable of voluntary movement, will blink if a projectile is perceived coming toward its face.



We do learn things through experience and the fact that we continue to “act” on what we’ve learned is because we’ve considered it and given it thought (just as JR said).

However, if our assessment proves the concept to be worthy of repeated action, we assign a value to it, or we would not be motivated to continue acting in the same way, especially when our actions do not always have the expected or best scenario results.

The question is, are we then acting on the belief that we have built around the value placed on a particular idea?

So let me ask you AND JR, what do you think we are doing when we are assigning value to our thoughts and ideas?



And how much value do you place in your own perspective? Would you be motivated to make a judgment call against the perspective of others without a thorough understanding of those perspective?

It seems that you have done so here. Doesn’t that sound like a fundamentalist view? I think we both consider fundamentalism to be based on misguided “beliefs”.

I’ve only just entered this discussion because I had a question I could not answer given JR’s perspective. There’s no need to be insolent or argumentative.

Kindly put your ethics on its best behavior if you intent to answer my response to you. I have offered alternate views, NOT NECESSARILY beliefs. I appreciate it when you offer you views from a calm and clear perspective.

OK – MOVING ON.

In reading the end of your response I’ve noticed that you keep referring to something you call “intellectual beliefs.” I responded once (I think) to this term above trying to take its meaning from the context. Now however, I don’t think I know what you are referring to with the term “intellectual beliefs”.

I never mentioned such a thing so I want to make it clear that some people go about placing value on things without much of an intellectual component being involved, which is why some people have a problem verbalizing what they truly value or what motivates their actions.

If you think there is a place for your term in the discussion, you will need to better define it so we all understand what it is and how you are using it.

JR - I've read this thread and have been trying to understand your point of view. Like you, I try not to use the word 'believe' unless I follow it up with 'based on the information I have'. Because like you, I don't know everything but I also don't think we need to have the experience of - say, weightlessness, to understand how it occurs and thus 'believe', through the experience of others, that weightlessness is a real phenomena.

At any rate, not wanting to be agumentative, I have thought of a question for you and your answer may help me, and maybe Creative, better understand your point of view.

What drives your code of ethics?

In other words what stops you from driving recklessly, or from skipping out on debts you owe, or from steeling or other scrupulous activity? In summary, it comes down to one simple question...

What drives your code of ethics?

Speculating about events or phenomena is part of how science begins a search for answers. To some, however, the simplest answers are those with the highest science fiction factor but unfortunately the least probability factor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41927089/ns/technology_and_science-space/



It’s still fun to speculate and maybe someday an interesting science fiction novel will come of it. So have fun and read a lot of science fiction and maybe one day you’ll read about these ideas in another authors book – or write a book let others read the interesing ideas presented.

So as of Monday Morning (8/22/2011) gold had reached an all time high.

At $1890.00 an ounce, will you be selling or hording your gold?

If the American dollar totally crashes, think the international market will return to the gold standard?

If Max were able to speak, in what ways might Max complete the sentance:

I AM ...

The quote above is a good example of why Robbin’s idea fails.

What does it mean to be successful? According to Robbins every person attributes their own meaning to what success is. All we can actually discern from the quote is that Robbins thinks that success occurs when a person thinks only positive, empowering, and happy thoughts.

To me, that’s not success, that’s just annoying, not to meantion that Robbins is not making good use of the English language.



The suggestion in this second quote is that WE give meaning to things. Who is We?

The image that is conjured by an individual when the word ‘CHAIR’ is used may be completely different than the image that was in the mind of the person who invoked the word, yet there is no question of what the word means.

Regardless of what image any individual holds when hearing the word, chair, there is STILL a common understanding of the word which gives the word the same meaning to everyone. Therefore, the WE referred to, is all people for whom the word ‘chair’ is part of the vocabulary.

The meaning is NOT different, it is based on the ‘utility’ which the word invokes regardless of the image that any person may visualize.

I don’t know much about Robbins, but from what has been posted here, he seems to be as lax in his use of the English language as he is in the logic he attaches to it.

Thus Max is a label, as Bushi said. We know to whom or what the label refers only by process of deliniation (or further identity).

Therefore, as Bushi said, Max includes "a set of properties that make up an entity or object."

What particular issue do take with that explanation?

This sentance, identity not withstanding, is false.


There you go, I fixed it.

Max is a man and he's my neighbor. Max is man, Max is s neighbor, Max is sometimes Maxwell.

Max is not dog, Max is not man, Max is not neighbor.

What is Max?

And finally: Where's Waldo????

Sorry, in my haste I did not make my points very clear. Let me try again.

Intrinsic meaning:
If you find meaning in the sight of dark clouds, is it due to intrinsic (your own) application of meaning or extrinsic meaning (your interpretation of the particular property of the clouds themselves? )

Since you are discussing intrinsic meaning, it would seem that dark clouds themselves can be misinterpreted by our intrinsic application of what dark clouds mean. Not all dark clouds culminate in a storm; so is the intrinsic application of meaning a belief developed in the mind or due to an intrinsic biological function such as instinct?



BY THE WAY - HI ARTGURL, wonderful to see you again "nice shoes", but I'll just keep going for that 'comfy' look not that I'm trying to fit any particular stereotype.

Running late, so I haven't read ALL the responsed, but I will. If the point I'm going to make has already been suggested or argued, just ignore it, I'll figure it out when I get back to read the rest of the thread.


Creative wrote:


What causes the sky to look "ominous"?

What causes a person to have brown hair?

What causes a Sun to emit heat?

Are the answers due to 'intrinsic meaning'?


There is no universal meaning, there is only causation which is usually the effect of physical interaction. The interaction causes a reaction based on the internal or 'intrinsic' values that each object holds. These values include material construct of object, not just human 'values'.

Meaning is no more than a definition of symbolic representations used for communication.

(these are not beliefs rather, this is what Artgurl calls, thinking out loud).

The most effective solution when questions persist, is to look it up. I have provided the first reference source, the rest may be time consuming but most things worth learning take effort and involve time.

Can you list the legal benefits of civil marriage and explain why you thing the government should have NO intrest in providing such benefits?

The reference provided in my last post included a more thorough review of the laws:

Your lack of knowledge of these laws or how they work does not mean that the United State General Accounting Office is confused about those issues.

Reference:
Office, U. S. (1997, January 31). archive. Retrieved 10 6, 2007, from www.gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

On January 31,1997 the United State General Accounting Office fulfilled a request by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Here is an excerpt of the 58 page document that was supplied.



The letter provides an accounting for these laws that discriminate against the GLBT community. Keep in mind that the list is 'topical', there are many relevant laws that link directly to these topics.

Remember, also, these are laws whose benefit is determined through marital status. Marriage union contracts that GLBT are excluded from.

In the U.S.A. there are well over 1100 Federal laws in which marriage is taken into consideration. These laws help to determine eligibility for many kinds of entitlements and very often these laws are the safety net for individuals, offering general legal direction when those individuals cannot afford to hire legal representation.

Same-sex couples can tell you that the cost to have all the necessary legal paperwork for the most fundamental of these protections is generally prohibitive. This means that many in the middle class and all of the poor could not afford to protect themselves or their families in the same way that heterosexuals are protected by way of civil marriage.

It may seem simple enough to say: ‘The government’ has no business involved in marriage at all.” But marriage is often a consideration that MUST be dealt with when these situations come up and that is the purpose for these laws.

Most individuals could only describe a handful of the laws that might affect them, as they take the rest for granted because the protection goes hand-in-hand with marriage and individual no longer thinks about these things. Gays and lesbians do think about these things because they are adversely affected by them everyday.



Reference:
Office, U. S. (1997, January 31). archive. Retrieved 10 6, 2007, from www.gao.gov: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf


SO in answer to the OP:
There are two types of marriage, One involves religious traditions and the other involves civil law. Heterosexuals who are married through a recognized religious tradition currently have the right to opt out of the civil law marriage, thought I've never heard of anyone doing so.

The reason is that the law offers such great protections that it would be foolish not to submit this dual commitment to the state registry, thus accepting the rights to this legal coverage.

It might be useful to keep this information at hand as those who have a distain for sharing legal protections can opt out of receiveing them simply by telling your religious sponsor (priest, pastor, whomever) that you are not intrested in civil marriage rather, your intrest lies completely in the religious ties to marriage.

So that I'm not accused of making wrong assumption again, I would like to ask - are you having an issue understanding what is meant by "state of affairs?"

I know I did when I first started getting into philosophy. Maybe, (if you would like,) creative would be kind enough to supply an understanding (he's more capable than I.)