Young Know-it-alls

Here's an odd topic I wish to discuss.I have certain beliefs about my world. The problem I have with this is that I'm very sure about what I believe. Certain things such as hard determinism(Every physical action is caused by some prior action), agnosticism, freedom of speech UNLESS your words deliberately and needlessly harm (Muhammed cartoons, anyone?), evolution, etc.If I run some of these beliefs through brutally honest critique, like I often do, they still seem to hold. I am 23 and have a Bachelor of Fine Arts. Common sense tells me that I should not have final answers regarding anything.My concern is that I see myself as a headstrong and naive guy who's got alot to learn, but at the same time, I cannot find flaws in my thinking.I know I must be wrong about some or all of my beliefs, but currently, I don't see how. I'm worried I might not have any more intellectual revalations as I age.Have any of you been in this position? Can you remember a time when you were so headstrong about your beliefs and how it affected your interaction with the world? Should I worry? What can I expect in the future?If this gets promoted at all, I'll be happy with any category.

First, nemesis juggernaut:

quote:

---

Just because we don't see our own flaws doesn't negate their existence.

---

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that I thought I was flawless! I'll just as readily list off my problems and the things I do not understand about the world. Like I said, I highly value objective criticism, even of myself.crashfrog:

quote:

---

... you'll have experiences that directly contradict what you think is true about the world. If I were you I'd seek those out as soon as possible. Foreign travel, perhaps? Or read a book on a subject you haven't studied extensively.

---

Way ahead af you! When I worked in Malaysia last summer for a few months, I fully embraced the Muslim culture and also eagerly learned about the Indian and Chinese ways of life (Which is why I was so interested in Buddhism a while back).I am fairly camera-shy, so I purposefully go out and join plays, audition for tv and movie roles, etc. (I got a part as an extra in a local tv series and I got some screentime as an extra in Brokeback Mountain, etc) I do it because it terrifies me and I want to experience what I would otherwise avoid.I no longer hold any religious beliefs, but I've watched and enjoyed The Nativity Story, The Ten Commandments, Passion of the Christ, etc. I read these forums and try to be as fair as possible when reading a post written by someone I disagree with. I'll even read a bit of the bible now and then (I have 3 versions) for reference.So as you can see, I'm actively looking for new views on my life.

quote:

---

quote:

---

(Muhammed cartoons, anyone?)

---

​

What harm was caused by that speech? And can't enforced censorship cause harm, too?

---

I'm actually referring to this: The 12 Danish editorial cartoons. And I believe the saying goes "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" <-- to.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Certain things such as hard determinism(Every physical action is caused by some prior action)

---

​

Well, that's mostly true, but there are exceptions. For instance, atoms decay at random.

---

I should probably post this back on my Randomness thread, but I'll briefly say it here. Just because no cause for atomic decay can be found, it does not prove that none exists. For everything in existence to follow the rules of determinism except for atoms themselves is a bit strange. But like I said, that's off topic.

quote:

---

but i can tell you at the end of my degree, i don't feel that i've learned anything significant at all.

---

The most valuable things I learned were in my philosophy classes. The importance of these things overshadows what I learned about making art by miles.[/quote]

quote:

---

they haven't taught me any of the skills i had hoped to learn. i still can't paint worth a damn. all they talk about this damned conceptual art stuff, as if skill doesn't matter.

---

As far as I could tell, the professors were there to give you conceptual guidance, that's all. They might advise on how to hold a pencil or what colour harmony is, but you can't expect skill to be handed to you, that's the part you have to work for.(It's all about the homework.)

quote:

---

quote:

---

I cannot find flaws in my thinking.

---

​

That's your first flaw.

---

Exactly!Although that statement was referring to only a handful of beliefs, not all of them. So it wasn't too much of a mistake for saying so.For example, I'm sure none of you can find flaws in the logic of "2 plus 2 equals 4" (Though I know some would disagree just to spite me or something)

Well, I thank you all for your input. I think I'll revisit this thread in about 10 years, maybe 20 - and we'll see just what kind of fool I will call myself for having started this thread in the first place!Edited by Drewsky, : Spelling

Ambitions? Dreams? It's odd: I have a future, probably a good one, but I have no real preference as to what it might be. Do you know what I mean?My actions are habitually short-sighted and I'm notoriously lazy and against planning. I literally live my life one day at a time. lol.I've been offered a job at a motion graphic design house in Kuala Lumpur, so I guess I'll do that. That's about as long-term as I tend to think!This probably works against me, though.@Archer Opterix:

quote:

---

2 plus 2 is 22.

​

This statement is as impeccably logical as yours.
Premises make all the difference.

---

While I see the point your making, I really think arguing about semantics has little to do with the fact that the value of Two added twice still equals Four.@Quetzal:

quote:

---

Everyone knows 2+2=5, at least for sufficiently large values of two...

---

He's right. I checked on windows calculator. "Standard" mode? "Scientific" mode? Bah, my calculator has an "Arbitrary" mode, how about yours?

quote:

---

We don't reject old 'truths'. We just understand them in a broader context with additional meanings, nuances, and limits.

---

I really like that. And I'm starting to see how that may really be true. I'm currently reading CS Lewis' Mere Christianity for the first time. It isn't fundamentally changing my mindset: I already shared many of his views (though my own seem simplistic and juvenile in comparison!)It is, however, shining light on my beliefs about morality from a whole new angle. To sum it up: I'm understanding morality in a "broader context". Maybe this is what I can continue to do with other areas of my knowledge.

quote:

---

Yes, this logic is flawless but incomplete because 2 +2 also = 1 modulo 3. (And it equals 0 modulo 2, as in binary arithmetic.)

---

Oi vey! Semantics, people! lol. I regret not writing that as "the value of Two added twice equals Four." in the first place, because that's all I meant from the beginning. Nothing more.

I was pretty arrogant in this thread, and not one of you called me out on it? Tsk tsk!Now, nine months later, I'm starting to believe something I never thought I'd catch myself believing. I'm starting to see why some people choose to disbelieve in materialism and secularism. Sure, it's the truth, but it sure isn't uplifting! Appeals to emotion don't seem so foolish after all.I sometimes find myself wishing I could be ignorant, deluded and happy rather than analytical, right and depressed. Odd, no?

Sorry, I'm not sure if you noticed that this thread has been 'necroed', so to speak. But in defence of my statement, the key words are "deliberately harm". Offence as a result of ignorance is obviously more forgivable, in my eyes. It's when someone purposely sets out to harm/offend that I take issue with, naturally.Edited by Dubious Drewski, : better quote

Forgive me for saying so, but I get the feeling you are being a bit 'smart' with me here. But I understand your desire for clarity.I'll bet you know very well what the prefix 'necro' refers to. Then considering the context, that this thread 'died' many months ago and that I brought it back 'from the dead'. The term 'necroed' should be easy to decipher, even if it is a made-up word. (Is there a rolling-eyes emoticon?)And regarding your request to specify whether I feel it is 'offence' or 'harm' that I oppose; does it matter? No, they are not synonyms, I know. My point was: don't be a jerk. I'm not sure why you're asking for clarification on that.Anyway, we're both getting a bit asinine here. I would like to avoid any sort of unconstructive debate on semantics.

Not foolish if your goal isn't to convince. Not foolish if all you're after is personal mental health. You're not seeing it from the point of view of a "blissfully ignorant" person, but from a person who has already discovered it for the facade it is. It doesn't matter if it was never true in the first place; an ignorant person would never know that, and might remain content.And NJ, You've understood me nicely. Thank you for elaborating on what I was saying.Although I don't understand your reply here. It seems counter to the rest of your post: A false hope is indistinguishable from a real one for someone who's not in the know, and a person could potentially gain equal happiness from either one.

What a fascinating direction this ol' thread has taken!Now Stile, I would like to make clear the fact that I do agree with you that bliss/happiness/contentment based on truth is far more valuable than any other kind, of course. I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree. What I'm trying to point out is that it is easier for an ignorant/deluded person to be happy. Real happiness based on truth is rarer, and is the tougher of the two paths.What is commonly heard from the mouths of religious folk after some tragedy, like a death? "It was God's plan." and "He's happier now where he is". Can you see what I mean?