How often do you change a fundamental belief you’ve established after say… the age of 20?
Every year or so
Every 10 years or so
0voters
Ok… my question is spawned from the general angst that seems to be a common theme for people my age as the world really seems to come into view. Hopefully I can find an answer before I get too old…
I think it’s pretty much accepted that the more you excersize a thought… the stronger the neural net regarding that particular concept is strengthened. So for example I play basketball and everytime I shoot the ball it strenghens my ability to shoot the ball exactly as I did before when I sunk the basket. I heard it takes something like 2000 repititions of something before it become ‘second nature’ much like my basketball abilities. I can learn new moves and stuff… but I can’t fundamentally relearn the style of play I have… I don’t know anyone who can.
Now… getting closer to my question I’m gonna ask those of you reading this to translate my basketball example into something like… religion, or even opinion.
One time I asked my grandfather ‘why do you only type with 2 fingers… it’s so slow’ and he told me ‘When you get my age… it’s hard to change some of the things you do’. I see what he means now as I type alot better than he does… but it’s still a very complicated form of hunt and peck with me using like 5 fingers instead of all of them like properly trained secretaries… will I change how I type? Not likely.
The world changes and so does the ‘truth’ of it… I don’t want to get old and not be able to see the forest from the trees just because I’m stuck in an ancient way of processing thoughts. I feel like the more I buy into something… the more I let my mind accept it… the harder it will be to break free of that if the time comes. Some of the people I talk to (and there are some on here) simply cannot let go of some of their beliefs… it is too hard for them and their mind simply won’t accept it. They yell at me for preaching to them like what I’m saying is the ultimate truth… I don’t think it is the ultimate… but I do think it’s a more modern, refreshed way of thinking compared to some… some of the time.
You see it all the time with married couples… one of them dies or something, and it’s so hard for the living one to move on… They miss their wife/husband for the person that they are… that’s a given, but I also feel like they actually miss what they’ve become accustomed to… the smell of the toast one of them would cook on sunday morning… etc. They don’t miss the toast… they can make toast whenever… they miss the routine.
So if you’ve followed me this far… my question is twofold:
Is there any good that comes out of this dependance we seem to have with the familiar… the accepted? Is it good that I can’t learn to not act goofy and humorous even if I wanted to?
Is something like Nihilism the only way to block against my aforementioned fears? Do we have to sacrifice appreciation (not sure if that’s the best word) to maintain this theoretical status as a philosopher in the truest sense of the word. No one can completely suspend their beliefs… but is Nihilism the closest we could come to this?
or
Is this slow march forward inevitable… must we sink into our beliefs to provide the next generation with a building block to look back and ridicule us in order to produce their own better theories. If everyone could flip flop around would we really ever get anywhere? Perhaps all the arguing we do… and all the frusteration we feel towards the people we’re trying to convice to no avail is needed…
[size=59](If you really wanna get ambitious tackle the following: Is this slow march forward a pale slit of evidence for determinism? )[/size]
or
Am I out of touch with how I think the brain works… and basing this too much on my own personal experiences?
I think the reason we lock onto beliefs is relativly simple in a evolutionary prospective, if say we all flip floped around, we wouldn;t be able to change our minds at the drop of a hat on major issue, groups would fall fast and regroup all the time, if this was happening in areas, when in other areas there were people who didn;t have the ability to change their fundamental beliefs, those people would remain a unit thus controlling more power over the rest. in time the ability to change your mind with easy gets cut out, it has no chance to survive.
I don’t think its a good evolutionary step we took, but evolving doesn;t always mean becoming better, it simple means change. Humans need to learn humility, especially in todays world.
In order to be capable of thought we need to be positioned somewhere. There is no presuppositionless thinking; only thinking which understands its own lineage and is able to wield it.
That is my position anyway. I can tell you what it’s based on, and that it is not ‘rigid beyond possibility of change’. It is what allows me to think at all - in the sense that thought comes from somewhere, and moves to somewhere else. The only possibility for thinking in a manner which is not unreflectively caught up in the ways of thinking you have inherited, is to understand those ways themselves - with the hope of going past them. It is not about viewing the world without a lense, but approaching the lense from the right angle, so that the glare from the sun does not obstruct your view.
Some people seem better at critical reflection than others, granted. But to imply we can in some way ‘never see the big picture’ precisely because we approach it in some way, seems to me analogous to arguing that we cannot see, because we happen to have eyes.
But yeah I agree with the physiological examples. I never did perfect my ‘Hakeem the Dream’ skyhook…
Though I have tempered my physiological aversion to certain things, by keeping at it - what you might call ‘re-wiring on the run’ or ‘re-tying your laces in the middle of a lay-up’ - or something like that.
When it comes to the association of physiological responses (emotive habit connected with certain conceptual sectors), it is difficult to quantify the amount of effort required to ‘overcome’ a given connection - like, say, a feeling of nausea when thinking reflexively about what it would mean to become a Christian. There is nothing there which it can be said requires 2000 repetitions in order to fix. Especially when it comes to identity associations.
I actually think identity associations warrant a seperate category or sub-category. Plenty of thinkers will happily change and mix beliefs, except for those with which they self-identify; like for instance if John the Thinker fashions himself as a ‘lover of freedom’, he may have trouble reflecting critically on the ideological presuppositions which may or may not ground this self-conception. It will just ‘feel wrong’.
So what is the solution? Probably this; avoid self-identification.
Besides the fact I love the lens analogy… I see what you’re saying
The cannot see b/c of eyes is not a weak argument… if our conceptual framework is ourconceptual framework then we can never see the real truth… I think Dunamis wrote about this the other day but I’m not sure… either way I think that I do suscribe to this… I don’t think any of us can really ‘see’ beyond ourselves in the complete sense of the concept.
I agree with you about this… I think that is the best way to ‘move beyond’ as you originally stated… but I don’t think any of us can truly and competely… move beyond our own aquired mental attributes.
My point was this;
I do not think there is a ‘real truth’ in the sense you have described it. But I think it is meaningful to describe the ‘truth’ that we do get as being ‘real’, in spite of the fact that it does not exist outside of a given conceptual schema, other then, you might say, as a kind of ‘chaos’. If it we reserve the term ‘real’ for something so rare that it never actually is exemplified, then the division between ‘real’ and ‘non-real’ becomes vacuous, as everything would be equally both.
So when you say; ‘it does not give the “real truth”’, I think - well, what then does it give?.. I bunch of ‘lies’ or ‘false truth’? That this is equally not the case alerts us to the need to be rethink our conceptual categories.
The dilemma here is that there is no view from nowhere. It is always from a perspectival point. This point is constantly moving as we interact with all of our experiencing. I suppose that as long as we hold to a static one-behind-many view of the universe, we can generate the illusion of a static knowing, but it is illusion nonetheless.
Conversely, acceptance of a processual universe says that at any given time we can construct a ‘knowing’ that is similar to that which we have held previously, but it is never the same construct.
As I see it, “good” can only be defined by your personal goal and how you value freedom. What you are describing is inner slavery. Acquiring inner freedom is very unpleasant. Is it worth the effort? This is a personal question. It depends on your “need” for inner freedom.
I would say it is the inner calling of the “pearl of great price” or the experience of human meaning. We don’t experience it because of our inner slavery and escapism. The desire to experience human freedom and purpose doesn’t block fears but when it becomes strong enough, it replaces them with the impartiality of openness which is the opposite of Nihilism which is becoming impartial from becoming closed… Nihilism only exists because of inner slavery closing one off to meaning. It is not something that can be proven because it requires first becoming less of an inner slave in order to compare.
The need for inner freedom gradually dies in most and inner slavery is perpetuated in societal influences such as education.
Inner slavery serves society. For many it serves their own needs as well since they do not have the drive for anything better. Of course on a collective basis this slavery also results in mass madness such as war which can only result from inner slavery.
At one time being master of oneself was a respected human goal. It has largely been replaced by master of the remote where the most agreeable illusion replaces reality.
So this “good” that you refer to will be different for all and is a personal decision.
)[/size]