vineri, 14 septembrie 2012

Hearing for Hearing

The discourses are issued both for being heard and for being used for hearing your own discourse. In the second case, it is clearly intended their understanding: we cannot understand something alien to us otherwise than by rethinking it through our own mental capacities and acquisitions.

As it is testified by the experience of listening to the music (we do not listen only musical notes), the hearing brings to us more than the plain meaning of the discourses.

Evidently, there are all the elements of rhetoric and of the context in which the discourse was held.

Still more, it is the indefinite feeling of meeting something different from us.  Maybe as a consequence of the Darwinian struggle for existence, the human individual who is preoccupied with his personal existence and strives for his social prestige needs also to find something different from him on which base he can build his personality. In loosely terms, such a reality different from him is the world.

Though we all live into the world, we rarely know it as something different from us. Therefore, that sense of receiving something different from us only by hearing encourages us to believe even into the discourses which are not really understood. Thus, the apparent slavish situation of someone who embraces misunderstood discourses is an act of self-esteem or the result of a strong wish for self-affirmation into the world.

Nonetheless, many skilful speakers are interested rather in producing discourses for hearing and not for understanding. Moreover, the speakers hear themselves and have the same sense of conquering a reality as different from them as the world. Thus, there are many well intentioned preachers, but they are affected from that natural and common need of finding something different from us.

joi, 13 septembrie 2012

The Force of the Weak Arguments

Where do the prejudices lay? It is easy to consider the memory as their place, but they do not come out as some recalled memories. The memories track back the subject to his past experiences. Meanwhile, the prejudices have rather an offensive character which makes the subject to move himself against a new or adversary belief. His retirement into the net of beliefs which form the prejudices is a secondary step.

Therefore, it is more adequately to place the prejudices in the fluctuant context of the meetings with other beliefs. And the prejudices are more clearly defended when such context is humanly connoted, that means when the new beliefs are defended by other persons.

For this reasons, we may classify the addiction to prejudices as a matter of human interrelations, and not a matter of intellectual wrong beliefs which need to be intellectually rebuked.

The prejudices are rather displaced by the peaceful or warm relations between men than by a perfect and cold demonstration of their errors.

Even the hierarchy of arguments can be changed for such purpose. Contrary to the belief in the certainty of the deductive arguments, the inductive arguments that give to the conclusion merely probability seem more fruitful.

The loosely structure of an inductive argument and the weakness of its conclusion could be taken into account as means for an agreement with a person who is reluctant to new beliefs. Differently, the stronger conclusion of deductive arguments is closer to prejudices, since it restrains the debater to his own position.

For instance, it is quite possible to formulate a strong deductive argument against the belief in the existence of a moral order of the world, but more convincing is the simple inductive enumeration of moral cases which are not backed by such a belief. And the personal moral example convinces even more.

If we admit that our cognitive purposes are subordinated to the need of social relations and to that of making people free from prejudices, we must strive for discovering the manners by which we can hold the truths through weak arguments.

miercuri, 12 septembrie 2012

Hastily Making Truths

When someone unexpectedly interrupts the conversation with another person, it is probably that he has many words still to be said to the interlocutor.

Those words were be available in the context of conversation for the simply fact that they could be uttered. By availability, we mean an unquestionable right of words to be formulated and it is a state where the problem of their truth or falsity cannot rise.

Differently, when they are not spoken out, the problem of their truth spontaneously comes up. Because we are forced to keep on those words or to discard them according to our judgment that they are true or not and, therefore, worthy or not for being spoken out in the future. The same situation occurs when we did not use some opinions in conversations, but we are waiting for doing so.

In these cases, many of our opinions are considered as truths just for the fact that they has not been spoken out, yet. The supposed false opinions have rather a short existence, being refuted in the exercise of self-deliberation.

Meanwhile, the criterion of availability does not totally lack, even if a conversation is not initiated. It is a kind of availability which depends on us. We may feel as inadequately or adequately to formulate some opinions. And it is required a sort of a science of feelings for discriminating which of them really belong to ourselves. Usually, we misunderstood as being our feelings what we hypothetically believe as being the feelings which others would instill in us in a conversational context.

Our feelings are to be found behind the imaginary conversations, in a monologue which stays under the demand of not lying ourselves. It is a moral demand that cannot leave our opinions to go astray in hastily claiming their truth. With such criterion of availability, it is probable that most of our opinions will be qualified by ourselves as not being able to pretend a value of truth.

luni, 10 septembrie 2012

Short-Time Conscience

There is a deep gap between a wrongdoing and the conscience of your fault.

The first one entails a series of facts and judgments which cannot be reduced only to the wrongdoer, though he is the most important protagonist. On the contrary, because he is the most important factor in producing the wrongdoing, he consumes his action in that wrongdoing and has a pale contribution into the next steps after its end.

He leaves out the scene on behalf of his action that becomes the subject matter of outer reflections to him, even if he himself thinks of it.

Therefore, the guilty conscience, where the wrongdoer is the main agent in a continual manner, cannot directly derive as a direct consequence of his wrong action.

Thus, the guilty conscience has other sources than the action itself: the religious education, the social reprobation, the inclination for self victimization, etc.

Such discordance is responsible for the easy disappearance of the guilty conscience. The wrongdoer is not accustomed to prolong his responsibility more than the duration of his wrong act.

The discourses about an everlasting fault and eternal penalties do not succeed over a wrongdoer, if they are not formerly prepared by his moral and religious education. Otherwise, they cannot fake the fact that human beings feel just a short-time responsibility.

luni, 3 septembrie 2012

Love against the Meaning of Life

The human love discourages the attempt of conceiving men as beings which follow a superior goal or meaning of their life.

When it is still not achieved, the ideal of love seems to be a form of longing for a higher state of life together with the beloved ones.

But when the love is actually lived, it proves to be a form of refuting from the common life all that attracts any of the individuals who love each other for a higher state than their actual state of love.

The renouncements to the personal ideals for a peaceful common life and the care for the beloved ones are two salient instances of living together without the need of discovering a personal meaning of life.

Since man is a social being, we have all the reasons to define it as a being which searches for protecting its existence against the doubts raised at once with the problem of a personal meaning of life.

Though there are many who keep themselves wondering about the meaning of life, we have not a convincing argument for saying that it is a natural preoccupation of human beings. On the contrary, we might say that they are defective exemplars of human race or that they have not well developed the natural feature of loving others.

duminică, 2 septembrie 2012

Believing in an Ordered World

In a large sense, all the men are confident that they live in an ordered world.

In fact, we have minimal conditions for declaring that some things are in a state of order. Ultimately, we take as an ordered state the simply coexistence of things in the way we used to know that they have existed.

For instance, we never pretend that the furniture from our room must follow precise geometric rules in filling the space and that the people around us must behave according to precise rules of politeness. But we feel confused when one piece of furniture is not longer in the same place or when some of our relatives change their usually way of greeting. Nonetheless, we are still far from declaring that those are states of disorder, because we are familiar with various similar experiences when things and people change their manner of being.

However, we are often repulsive to the idea that our life must be clearly ordered according to some principles. Because our confidence in an ordered world is never a precise belief, as it is required to be the guidance of life according to some principles. And that accepted order never attains the precision of a principle.

Therefore, those who want to instill in others’ minds the belief in a rational or divine ordered world seem to follow to modify the human behavior, not to prove a confidence in order which already exist. They claim a much ordered world than all we know about it, so that they could persuade others to live in an ordered manner.

Even if the defenders of a rational, divine, or moral order of the world would be right in their claims, the only order of world that counts for us in our daily life is that represented by the object of our loosely confidence.

Immortal Lies

The end of a well built argument which defends a true statement is saved into the argument itself.

Since the end of an argument is represented by its conclusion, it is confined to the boundaries of the premises and proofs brought into the argument.

Though such an end could be farther used for building other arguments, its real power of persuading is limited to the body of the argument it finishes.

Besides, the end of an argument supposes that the authority of the author of the argument comes to its end, too. Since his true conclusion is meant to establish an objective truth, the authority primarily belongs to that truth.

Meanwhile, the wrong argument with a false conclusion never ends into itself. Its premises and proofs are too weak for supporting the false conclusion in a repetitive way. They can support it at best only that time when it is issued. Otherwise, it will be discovered their falsely, too. Therefore, the lies are easily disentangled from the net of the premises and proves and become subject matters for preaching, where the arguments are only partially followed.

Because it can end into itself, a false argument never really ends. It delivers its conclusion to the liar who makes from it a personal feature of his authority. Thus, the lie will be alive as long its author and its followers are alive. It is easy to understand why false doctrines persist for centuries. 

sâmbătă, 1 septembrie 2012

Being Afraid of Aging and God

The phenomenon of aging is not fully apprehended by our conscience.

Nobody has the ideas that he is a child, a young or an old man fully developed in his conscience. We partially develop such ideas when others remind us about them or when we look to our own body as if we be other persons than us. For when we look to our bodies by ourselves, we do not see anything else than that it is our body; a child cannot personally feel that its body is still immature.

In fact, our conscience is aware of the phenomenon of aging as a state of turmoil that someone else or we as if we would be different than us could question our whole personality concerning its age. We are really afraid of the questions like ‘Am I really a young man and have all the possibilities of choosing my life?’ or ‘Am I really one of those old men I used to scornfully or indulgently treat?’ The real personal uncertainty about our age proves itself in many of our experiences of life when we act inadequate to our age.

The feeling of unrest concerning the process of aging spreads over the moral domain, too. We also are unquiet that someone else or we as different persons could judge our actions in a definite way. Though, as like as the bodily processes, we cannot be fully aware of the moral value of our actions by ourselves. The questions like ‘Am I not just a deceiver, a greedy person, etc.?’ and the possibility that others will judge us explicitly in this manner are constant features of the psychology of moral life. We quiet down only as much as we can look to our actions as such, in which the involvement of our body makes futile or secondary the moral judgments.

For the religious person, such inquietude manifests itself as the fear of being judged as a sinner. When he clearly has before his eyes the perspective of dissolution of his body, he knows that he will not have any defense against the judgment of his behavior. He has no more help from the neuter bodily life. Therefore, he fears about the divine judgment not for the punishment he could receive, but rather for the fact that he could be precisely judged for facts he could not see by himself as being wrong. All the fears of aging and of moral judgment are concentrated in the fear of God.