the theory of the infallibility of man

[Funka Genocide]

I was at Starbucks today when I had a thought. Children have an inate desire to believe everything told to them by an adult, when they first learn to read, the words themselves seem to have power by the simple fact that they are written. A child hardly ever seems to question the veracity of the written word. However somewhere along the way we all invariably lose our faith in the "infallibility of man" as I called it at the Starbucks. And yet, the opinions formed during childhood are often kept by the adult, with little or no meditation on whether or not they are indeed correct. The comfort they provide us, as well as the basis for our perceived self, seem to preclude them from being disproven in our minds. Despite our capacity to question everything, we find ourselves fencing off areas of our mind so as to protect those things at the beginning. Without the concept of an infallible humanity somewhere along the way, we could never truly define ourselves properly. Without a definite self, we cannot define anything else normally, as our referance would be skewed. To sum it all up, our self images are based on the divinity within man, just a thought.

[Fujikoma]

Very deep...

Yet... It is a given... What is a human to do but flounder about in the waste he/she calls their life? Of course we beleive what we are given, what we are taught... An interesting thing to contemplate is how to do away with such knowledge in the mind of another, thus destroying the origional conditionaing residing about the consciousness of said individuals or groups....

I fall prey to certain concepts, as I like to consider myself "moral" upon occasion... Nevermind that I am nowhere near the concept, but there are certain things one does not do, and in accordance with such I do not do them... Simply an artifact of society, which, in certain cases, serves its purpose, and in others, destroys that purpose all-together... But please go on...

[Funka Genocide]

yes, I believe you may have seen a little close to my true meaning in this than I thought anyone would. You take it a different direction (destruction as apposed to creation) but the principle is the same. I hope to make people question to the point where they destroy the Self snd rebuild it based not on tradition and ritual, but on logical interaction with themselves and physical reality. I think a lot of potential is wasted by the concept of an unsupported societal norm. This passage is just a facet of my evolving world view, one in which I try to represent hope as apposed to hatred. I find that despising something accomplishes nothing.

Sorry for my uncoordinated thoughts here, I just woke up and am in a state of metabolic stasis.

[M1H0]

I believe we beleive what we are told for two reasons.
1) If we were to question EVERYTHING we were told, we would probably end up spending our entire life re-inventing the wheel.
2) We learn from mother saying "Don't touch a the stove, it's hot and you'll get burned" and then we question it and do it anyway, and low-and-behold it was hot and we did get burned.

Most things are learned on a physical scale when we are younger. After a few times we are taught that it is better (and less painful) to listen to superiors than learn for ourselves, we willingly listen and obey them.

It is not until we get to be older and our brains more "developed" (not the word I want to use, but the closest I can muster at the moment) and the "do not do's" become more abstract that we tend to question them. This can be exemplified by teen-smoking and rad-killing unicorn motorcycle use.

Why do kids smoke more often than not? Because their parents said not to, and when they tried it, it felt good instead of bad. The same can be said for homosexuality, but I'm a bit bias on the matter (;D) so I won't go there.

So in summary, we listen and obey our superiors without question because our logic has told us from an early stage that it is best to listen to them to avoid pain, and because it is required in order for society to progress.

[Sithdarth]

To take this in a slightly different direction. Does the questioning nature of adult hood make us lose are ability to truly believe in something. Its easy to convince yourself you belive in something but you can never be sure if you really do subconsciously. Meaning if one where to destroy his deep seated childhood beliefs could he really rebuild them?

[Martyr]

At a certain age, we do question everything.

You're talking about things we fence off and don't question? Like what?The neurological system of a hippopotamus? Is it so wrong to assume that the creatures do exist AND are conscious at the same time?
I don't now what else you could possibly be referring to.

My childhood beliefs only withstood until they could be tested. And they were all tested. Do you have an example of a belief that you haven't questioned?

Anyway... There may be concepts like theft and murder and sex etc... If you want to debate that with your mind, then we degenerate into all the mroal subjects that, quite obviously, are heavily debated.

It is safest to believe in the infallability of man because everybody asks these querstions, and still, after many years, we have come to the same conclusions. So it is pretty safe for chiuldren to take for granted things like: Gold is precious. Pain hurts. Death is something to be avoided. Stealing is wrong because it hurts other people. DO unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Blah blah blah.

If you leave this sense of thinking and chase some over-educated prick kind of ideal, then you lose your mind. You no longer fear death, you no longer become an active membver for the support of the survival of the human race. If you try so hard to prove that humanity is fallable, than you'll succeed. We are. Humans do not have to survive. It's just been the general cumulative consensus that surviving is a good thing and, kind of, what we want.

So don't go trying to be so non-conformist as all that.

And if this isn't the attitude you're talking about, then you'll have to be more specific. because maybe it's just you who is late in questioning things that need to be questioned.


As for Sithdarths comment:
It probably takes a whole lot of work. Like somebody else said, you gotta rebuild the wheel. You have to re-understand the entire world before you can replace it with something new and effective for mass acceptance.

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

If in childhood, like M1HO said, we find out that a parent is right about something like "the stove is hot" then we are likely to believe the next thing said to us without question. There is also a diffrence betwene facts and oppinions. When we are taught to accept facts, we may also accept some oppinions of our parrents in the same way.
Yes, it is true that some people feel that some ideas and beliefes are "right" like Killing is wrong, but everyone has had their understanding built in a diffrent way.

[Funka Genocide]

as far as being an overeducated prick goes, I got kicked out of high school in the ninth grade, and became a short order cook at sixteen, so maybe you should rephrase that...

anyways, My point in this theory is to prove a basic belief of mine, that human inspiration and achivement are just that, human. I wish to give people a sense of themselves as the pinnacle of creation. I appreciate all the criticism, it helps to see alternate views.

and to reply to sithdarth, you make an interesting point. If a man is forced to remove his foundation, he may be forced to destroy all that was built upon it as well. Perhaps it would make more sense to build a new foundation before abandoning the old one. To take life from a certain point where we achieve a proper awareness, and then transfer all our knowledge before that point into our new system of thought, becoming enlightened. I believe this is the goal of most people who seek their own truths.

To further explain, the concepts I refer to are not the ones which can be proven, as most of those are invariably tested at some point. What I am speaking of are the more ephemeral aspects of life, what is consciousness? Where does it come from? Is there an enduring soul? What is god? What is right? What is the self? these questions are typically either never asked or answered by some dogmatic principal which, conveniently, requires only faith to be true. A faith that is derived not from a true belief, but from a desire for comfort. that's my take on it anyways.

[Martyr]

That's called philosophy.If you want to avoid "dogmatic principles," then it means that you're looking at these questions from a scientific point of view. Also, you're looking at it from the only POV thaqt requires the questions to be asked.

This isn't anything new. You want to know what life is, right? Well, as I said, transcendence over life isn't immortality, it's death. You decide what you want more.

Geez, I can answer all those questions right now.
As far as the soul/God questions, those ideas are mostly originated in religions or are focused on religions. They should not be included in this questioning. So stop about that. Remember though, if there is a God that requires you to answer these other questions about life etc... Then the relevance of that God is absolutely trivial.

You are yourself. Because the ultimate meaning of life is selfishness, then what is right or wrong, from a POV absent from common law and religion, is determined by whatever is healthiest for you in any given circumstance. Mostly, your "self" is determined by your brain and thought process. When you see something happening, you probably feel something in relation which turns out to be your "opinion." How you act on that opinion determines what is right or wrong.All you have on your side is foresight, and, sometimes, an erroneous decision can only be realised as a wrong decision in hindsight.

But, otherwise, there is no universal right or wrong without a God. I mean, why would there be? You're going to die in 75 years. Faster is you work against the flow of humans and their society. So who the hell cares.

And consciousness? Maybe I can't answer that question. I think that falls into the section of currently unsolved, yet solvable, mysteries of neurology.

------------------

Anyway, this stuff is considered, and very frequently. Usually by over-educated pricks (Thus, I didn't call you one. I informed you that this is the topic of discussion for many an over-educated prick. They are a breed for whom I carry a great deal of resentment.). Most people who don't spend their entire lives in a University, absent from the real problems of the world, will debate this stuff. I suggest that you simply start thinking as practically as possible, because none of this information will help you.

-----------------------

On the next hand... You want to think outside the box. Give me an example of your creative views that may thrust us into a new enlightenment because, frankly, I have no idea how else these questions can be answered. I mean, what can you say? Our consciousness may be granted by some Overmind on Alpha Centauri? That our perception of right and wrong is completely inaccurate? That we should spend our lives lusting for sheep and training our stomachs for the ingestion of plastic? I really have no idea what you're trying to fathom here.

Ah, or is it the "technology question?" IS this about whether or not human technological advancement is the healthiest decision for the species. Are we depleting out resources too fast? Are we destroying ourselves by limiting our abilities to machine dependancy? This probably requires a whole new topic.
Perhaps you need separate topics to debate the actual separate schools of philosophical debate. Because I've never taken a class in philosophy, and I'd like to learn what some of the questions really are. (I've only asked the tech question because I hate obesity, and that was a long time ago.)

[Illuminatus]

Your stance on education irritates me Martyr. Learning is GOOD not BAD, but thats a discussion for another day. And I'm not an "over-educated prick" yet, so don't go there.

The infallibility of man is by no means a neccesity for our continued survival. John Calvin believed very much that humanity is evil, but he was one of the most influential reformers (this touches on religon, sorry).

I believe very much in the opposite of what you say. Humans are inherently evil, (and stupid) and we must fight that every step of our lives. Everything good that is produced by humans is done at great cost and takes much more time and effort than it would if we were infallible.

I'm sorry if I'm missing the point of the discussion, some of the posts here are difficult to decipher.