It has been a number of years since I sat in or read my husband's course on Science and Faith, as it affects society. He won a John Templeton award for it a number of years ago. So, I don't remember many details, as I have been doing my own thinking and coming to terms with faith and reason.
I think coming to terms with one's faith, is addressing many issues that concern one personally, as well as the meaning of these concepts. How these all "fit together" is a quadmire of "mystery", at least, to me.
I understand how our environments are "supposed" to affect us, but how is it possible to assess that each and every individual processes information the same way? There are so many variables concerning our choices, understandings, and the prioritizing our values.
I think that if I spent the rest of my life trying to understand this subject, I would never exhaust the subject, but possibly I would exhaust myself. But, isn't the pursuit of truth what man was made to pursue? The reality is that it takes courage to face what one thought was "real and true" and universal is somehow questioned and questionable. This is the way of learning, and growing and enlarging oneself, so that one can "be" and "become".
I do agree that one's faith "fills in gaps" in a person's psychological make-up, if one has not been brought up to identify with a certain tradition. The basic needs of man are understood and met within the different frames of of understanding. This is where the psychology of religion meets the philosophy of religion, as it answer the question of how one understands or comes to "faith", at least this is how I am thinking it 'happens".
We all have early images that make up the meaning of life. These images are represented by "words". And since our experiences with these images and thier meanings have different understandings, depending on our "connections", then we react or respond differently to the same stimuli.
Reason understands things in "flat language", or "one dimensional language", as each discipline is "one language among many" and each language, even within a discipline has many "languages". It has almost become impossible to communicate between the specialties because of the difference of focus of the discipline.
Understanding an individual takes a lifetime, as any married person knows. There are so many aspects to the personhood of the person, that is negated and missed when one trivializes "meaning" and value. This is why it is so hard to bring about reconciliation between those that see things so differently, as each has their own reality and to deny that reality, is to deny a basic tenet that makes up their personhood and identity. But, how in the name of "reality" or "real history" is there to be a reasonable resolution to those who insist the Holocost did not happen. Or we ask those who have been denied a voice in their life to deny their very "need" for a voice, to deny it for the other? This is human cruelty, and yet, the world must function on some basis of understanding in formulating foreign and domestic policy.
I have found that the questions and quandaries are greater than any answer where it concerns faith and reason. But, it is a fascinating endeavor to pursue "truth" anywhere one finds it.
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Truth is Political
I think that truth is political. Although science discerns facts, which facts are used and how they are used to form the policy that determines reality, is what determines "truth" or "reality" for the average person.
Anyone in leadership is responsible for what facts are offered, how they are heard and understood and then implemented into practice. Any policy is a practical philosophy. And philosophy is where the discussion of truth lies.
In the Biblical text, many understand that the context of the book is an important determination, as the context determines what the interpretation is. Context is the political domain, nothing more nor nothing less. Therefore, the bibilcal text is a product not just of the author's political context, but the Church's in its canonization.
I think it is shallow to argue for the "bible", as in "battle for the bible", as it undermines the human contexts and the human authors. The text of scripture is a human construct. It was an attempt to rationalize and theologize about God, Jesus, and the human condition.
It is unfortunate that more people are not aware of how limited their life is, by living passively and restrictively because of an anceint text, such as scripture.
Anyone in leadership is responsible for what facts are offered, how they are heard and understood and then implemented into practice. Any policy is a practical philosophy. And philosophy is where the discussion of truth lies.
In the Biblical text, many understand that the context of the book is an important determination, as the context determines what the interpretation is. Context is the political domain, nothing more nor nothing less. Therefore, the bibilcal text is a product not just of the author's political context, but the Church's in its canonization.
I think it is shallow to argue for the "bible", as in "battle for the bible", as it undermines the human contexts and the human authors. The text of scripture is a human construct. It was an attempt to rationalize and theologize about God, Jesus, and the human condition.
It is unfortunate that more people are not aware of how limited their life is, by living passively and restrictively because of an anceint text, such as scripture.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Two Sides of Suicide
Suicide is taking one's own life. There are two ways to group the identifications factors of those who commit suicide. One believes in complete individuality apart from the social or the other group has a complete identification to the social.
The social structures were made to bless life, be a support system and bring a sense of belonging. But, when social structures are used as a means of control of identity or are ignored altogether, then there will be a disvalueing of the individual life.
Our culture affirms the strong, independent, and brave person who can "go it alone". We understand this type of attitude as "manly",. We condone men when they are strong in bearing up under stress and we condemn or look down upon those men who express a need, or desire for community. These men are considered effeminate, or immature.
Just today it was reported that there were 24 suicides this month according to the Pentagon. There was a discussion about it on NPR. It seems that 1/3 had been deployed, 1/3 were deployed and 1/3 had not been deployed. It was suggested that the military encourage soldiers to seek help when they find it difficult to bear the stress. There didn't seem to be any universals as to "reasons". But, our culture does not affirm men "with problems" they can't handle alone.
Just recently, a man lost his job and killed his wife, himself and his 5 children. And we wonder why such despair? Some would consider this to be a lack of faith. Others would wonder about his personal life. There seems to be little understanding in our culture of a need for deeper relationships. We don't have the time, nor do we value them that much. The relationships we do have are those we find at our jobs, as we have little time to even know our neighbors.
On the other side of the spectrum, is the emmeshment of one's identity so deep that there remains little left of the individual. These are cultures that breed dependence, have strict social norms and enforce them with oppressive social control. God is useful to bring about a "controlling force" of obedience, or submission. These types of cultures do not value the individual or the creative, as this threatens the very identity of these groups. These groups survive in isolated contexts and have isolated views about life in general. Truth is known as special and independent to any "truth out there".
While one group will commit suicide because of a lack of social connection, the other will do so, because they think they do God service by annihlating themselves for "God's Kingdom", to prove their ultimate dedication to the deity or to the group.
Social structures are to be nurturing and safe environments, without domination, control of the individual's identity. Otherwise, it is a cult. Get out quick!
The social structures were made to bless life, be a support system and bring a sense of belonging. But, when social structures are used as a means of control of identity or are ignored altogether, then there will be a disvalueing of the individual life.
Our culture affirms the strong, independent, and brave person who can "go it alone". We understand this type of attitude as "manly",. We condone men when they are strong in bearing up under stress and we condemn or look down upon those men who express a need, or desire for community. These men are considered effeminate, or immature.
Just today it was reported that there were 24 suicides this month according to the Pentagon. There was a discussion about it on NPR. It seems that 1/3 had been deployed, 1/3 were deployed and 1/3 had not been deployed. It was suggested that the military encourage soldiers to seek help when they find it difficult to bear the stress. There didn't seem to be any universals as to "reasons". But, our culture does not affirm men "with problems" they can't handle alone.
Just recently, a man lost his job and killed his wife, himself and his 5 children. And we wonder why such despair? Some would consider this to be a lack of faith. Others would wonder about his personal life. There seems to be little understanding in our culture of a need for deeper relationships. We don't have the time, nor do we value them that much. The relationships we do have are those we find at our jobs, as we have little time to even know our neighbors.
On the other side of the spectrum, is the emmeshment of one's identity so deep that there remains little left of the individual. These are cultures that breed dependence, have strict social norms and enforce them with oppressive social control. God is useful to bring about a "controlling force" of obedience, or submission. These types of cultures do not value the individual or the creative, as this threatens the very identity of these groups. These groups survive in isolated contexts and have isolated views about life in general. Truth is known as special and independent to any "truth out there".
While one group will commit suicide because of a lack of social connection, the other will do so, because they think they do God service by annihlating themselves for "God's Kingdom", to prove their ultimate dedication to the deity or to the group.
Social structures are to be nurturing and safe environments, without domination, control of the individual's identity. Otherwise, it is a cult. Get out quick!
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Problem of Exclusivist Claims
In all of my reading and sifting, struggling and I'm sure not understanding all of the complexities as it regards the tradition of Christian faith. One thing is for sure, there is no consensus, in regards to the text's understanding whether its hisoricity, it's meaning, and how the Church came to be.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.
I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.
I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.
The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.
I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.
Faith in Text, Tradition, or Life?
Dysfunctional systems are rampant within the Old Testament Scripture. Names such as Esau and Jacob, Saul, David and Jonathan, and Samson and Delilah all conjure up images that send messages about "meaning".
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Memory Is Fleeing...and Sometimes Fabricated
This morning while talking with a family member, I was amazed at their recollection of events in the past! I basically did not say anything, as what was meaningful for their point was important to affirm (for their sake). And the value to both of us was what had transpired since the remembered (or "dis-remembered") historical events.
After hanging up the phone, I told my husband what was said and he agreed that what was said was a figment of the imagination (embellishment of the facts) and an attempt to make one's "mistakes of the past" pale into oblivion. We all tend to do this unless we are held accoutable and/are self-reflective enough to recognize certain tendencies or weaknesses. And we all tend to do this is we have low self-esteem.
The recollection of events was not interesting to me because of some need to be "right", but a reflective and aware moment that this person's reality was skewed as it concerned what I had remembered...This is often the case and is why in our courts, the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, this experience of memory has value in understanding anything about the past. And in ancient texts, which could or could not be remembering history, it has value. Scriptures have been evaluated upon the mythological and the historical. The facts don't matter if one is only interested in "theological" understanding. But, it is important if there is value in ancient texts that impacts our society today....
Christian faith has no foundation, but Christ. And Christ is not even recognized as a historical figure by all scholars. But the history of Christian faith is within the Jewish tradition, not an isolated "Roman cult". Blood does nothing to "cleanse from sin", except if one chooses to believe some mystical revelational message that has no historical value, other than making someone feel better about themselves.
This is the main reason why I think that reason has to be engaged for there to be development of the individual. And it is not in some mystical faith tradition. It is the development of reason which is separate from faith. And yet, reason cannot be separated from faith because we are finite beings, that have limitations of understanding, and contexts.
While our memory is fleeing before our eyes, we all need to remember what is important and of value. These are values of commitment to the ideals of justice, truth, and value, tempered by mercy, because we recognize the fragility of life and memory, itself.
After hanging up the phone, I told my husband what was said and he agreed that what was said was a figment of the imagination (embellishment of the facts) and an attempt to make one's "mistakes of the past" pale into oblivion. We all tend to do this unless we are held accoutable and/are self-reflective enough to recognize certain tendencies or weaknesses. And we all tend to do this is we have low self-esteem.
The recollection of events was not interesting to me because of some need to be "right", but a reflective and aware moment that this person's reality was skewed as it concerned what I had remembered...This is often the case and is why in our courts, the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, this experience of memory has value in understanding anything about the past. And in ancient texts, which could or could not be remembering history, it has value. Scriptures have been evaluated upon the mythological and the historical. The facts don't matter if one is only interested in "theological" understanding. But, it is important if there is value in ancient texts that impacts our society today....
Christian faith has no foundation, but Christ. And Christ is not even recognized as a historical figure by all scholars. But the history of Christian faith is within the Jewish tradition, not an isolated "Roman cult". Blood does nothing to "cleanse from sin", except if one chooses to believe some mystical revelational message that has no historical value, other than making someone feel better about themselves.
This is the main reason why I think that reason has to be engaged for there to be development of the individual. And it is not in some mystical faith tradition. It is the development of reason which is separate from faith. And yet, reason cannot be separated from faith because we are finite beings, that have limitations of understanding, and contexts.
While our memory is fleeing before our eyes, we all need to remember what is important and of value. These are values of commitment to the ideals of justice, truth, and value, tempered by mercy, because we recognize the fragility of life and memory, itself.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Some Believe....
Some believe that one has to submit to circustances at all costs, otherwise, you will miss the opportunity to "learn" from it. There premise is that God controls all events. And theirs is passivity to anything that transpires, as the Greeks understood "fate".
Others believe that we should promote our views at all costs, even to the point of revolution, because it is our right and duty to inform others of what we think is most important.The premise in this view is an absolute "truth" or "value" that cannot be tolerant of diverse viewpoints.
While I think there is much to be discerned concerning one's personal beliefs., how does one understand life and all of its complexities is a caldrum of many things. There is much that needs to be addressed contextually, but there are broad principles that hold "truths" that cannot be compromised without compromises what defines "who you are" and the values you want to commit and hold to...In this sense there is no "god" teaching outside, although you will learn through any experience, and there is not one "truth", as there are many and various ways of understanding life, God and other...
It becomes a matter of personal choice and commitment, which cannot be determined from the outside.
Others believe that we should promote our views at all costs, even to the point of revolution, because it is our right and duty to inform others of what we think is most important.The premise in this view is an absolute "truth" or "value" that cannot be tolerant of diverse viewpoints.
While I think there is much to be discerned concerning one's personal beliefs., how does one understand life and all of its complexities is a caldrum of many things. There is much that needs to be addressed contextually, but there are broad principles that hold "truths" that cannot be compromised without compromises what defines "who you are" and the values you want to commit and hold to...In this sense there is no "god" teaching outside, although you will learn through any experience, and there is not one "truth", as there are many and various ways of understanding life, God and other...
It becomes a matter of personal choice and commitment, which cannot be determined from the outside.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Faith and Truth
Some think that truth resides outside of their understanding or interpretation. Their understanding is in propositions that correspond to the real world. Their is an easy faith to judge, as theirs is written in black and white or on tablets of stone.
Some think that truth is not so much what is written outside of oneself, but what one conceptualizes as real through their faith in reason and experience. They formulate their own way of understanding faith and truth and the mix can be in many forms.
Others don't think there is any real truth to have faith in, as their faith is understood as life itself. Faith to these is not defined in written form, or conceptualizations, but in the heart of humanity. All of humans in their experience of life given and gifted by God is a journey of expression, which is the unique manifestation of God's image within. We just don't have the eyes to see. And many have not been developed to self=expression.
So, which faith do you relate to...? A faith that is primarily written in sources and understood in absolute form?
Or, is your faith a struggle to understand and conceptualize how you understand life, experience, meaning, God and humanity. And one's responsibility in it all?
Or, is your faith about life itself? Is faith an artistic expression of your very self in giving back to God what he has gifted within?
One faith can be gauged, judged and taught. Another faith is a journey of learning and struggle, while the last is a life of restful expression and acceptance of life, self, other and God...
Some think that truth is not so much what is written outside of oneself, but what one conceptualizes as real through their faith in reason and experience. They formulate their own way of understanding faith and truth and the mix can be in many forms.
Others don't think there is any real truth to have faith in, as their faith is understood as life itself. Faith to these is not defined in written form, or conceptualizations, but in the heart of humanity. All of humans in their experience of life given and gifted by God is a journey of expression, which is the unique manifestation of God's image within. We just don't have the eyes to see. And many have not been developed to self=expression.
So, which faith do you relate to...? A faith that is primarily written in sources and understood in absolute form?
Or, is your faith a struggle to understand and conceptualize how you understand life, experience, meaning, God and humanity. And one's responsibility in it all?
Or, is your faith about life itself? Is faith an artistic expression of your very self in giving back to God what he has gifted within?
One faith can be gauged, judged and taught. Another faith is a journey of learning and struggle, while the last is a life of restful expression and acceptance of life, self, other and God...
Monday, January 12, 2009
Religious Identities, Tradition and the Authentic Self
Last night I was scrolling the T.V. channels when I came across the last bit of "talk" on CNN. One was a Jew, the other ?, but they were talking about identities and how the authentic self comes "after tradition".This understanding would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Views of Truth
There are three ways of understanding "truth" or reality; correspondence, coherent and pragmatic. These understanding relate to the Quadralateral in different ways.'
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Truth and Values
I came upon an article that discussed the interface of truth claims based on history and value claims based on personal conviction. The article sounded as if there was no interface, but two distinct realms, vying for affirmation. One starts with history's historical analysis and lays a foundation of True or False. The other lays claims to relativity of personal choice, conviction, and commitment. Which is true?
Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.
But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.
The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.
In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!
I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!
Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.
But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.
The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.
In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!
I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Images
Images are appearances. That we can all agree upon. The difference lies in what do the images represent? Do images represent the absolute REAL? If so, is there numerous ways of understanding the real, through the interpretaion? These interpretaions are evaluated based upon our experiences in education (life, formal, cultural, familial). These are social constructed interpretations. Therefore, our understanding would be limited by our education.
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Relative and Absolute
Before I begin my remedial exploration of the above subject, please see kenschenck@blogspot and exploringourmatrix@blogspot and antiquitopia@blogspot.
I am amazed at how God has made us. We can develop beyond where we are today, thanks to the educators that have taken the time.
I recognize that the limited understanding I have as a human being within a certain context, is not to determine who I can become. Education is necessary for this.
Those who believe that the religious realm is the epitome of Truth are really at a disadvantage, for they are allowing an outside Source to determine their "fate". An outside Source, may be needful for the child, but the adult needs to develop beyond dependence on these limited frameworks. Responsibility must begin with the individual and must be developed within the social structures. Reason is man's friend, as it is only reason that develops the individual's gifts most clearly. While reason is necessary, reason is no absolute, as Job understood, "things that are too wonderful", things beyond man's ability to comprehend. This is wisdom and humility. And it is what the ancients called the "good life". A life of virtue.
I am amazed at how God has made us. We can develop beyond where we are today, thanks to the educators that have taken the time.
I recognize that the limited understanding I have as a human being within a certain context, is not to determine who I can become. Education is necessary for this.
Those who believe that the religious realm is the epitome of Truth are really at a disadvantage, for they are allowing an outside Source to determine their "fate". An outside Source, may be needful for the child, but the adult needs to develop beyond dependence on these limited frameworks. Responsibility must begin with the individual and must be developed within the social structures. Reason is man's friend, as it is only reason that develops the individual's gifts most clearly. While reason is necessary, reason is no absolute, as Job understood, "things that are too wonderful", things beyond man's ability to comprehend. This is wisdom and humility. And it is what the ancients called the "good life". A life of virtue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
