posted
I can't really talk about politics so much (a mixture of apathy and a lack of information) so let's talk philosophy!
I'm taking Intro to Philosophy this semester and was wondering if you fellow Ornery Americans would be open to discussion like what Socrates and Plato were doing in 400 B.C.E.
I'd like to start by posing a simple question: Are trust and forgiveness mutually exclusive?
posted
(Big C: you can make accented characters by typing in the HTML entity code in your post; for example, 'é' is produced by typing 'é'. Just look up the code in this list of entities.)
[ February 13, 2007, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Jordan ]
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can trust me to betray you. (Oh, BTW, I'm still goin' strong.) I forgive and trust you, but I don't think I can marry you.
"I'd like to start by posing a simple question: Are trust and forgiveness mutually exclusive?"
I think the more important question is, can you trust your forgiveness? Or if you make a miscalculation, can you forgive your mistrust? Adjust your perspective and assume that the answer is yes and no.
(I'm sorry, I'm trying to grow up into a crazy old man, like Kenmeer.)
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like being Parmenides. He's the only one that has Socrates as an interlocutor. Although I'd get in a fight with myself since I want to be Parmenides and my name show devotion to Heraclitus. Parm says nothing changes and Hera says everything changes.
Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, so is there any way we can all agree not to make vague references to philosophers? I'm having enough trouble following some of the religious threads as it is.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
caladbolg1125 said he's in an intro to philosophy course and I have a degree in philosophy. I'm just razzing him about it.
If he wants to dialogue, though, I would expect him to make comments beyond the first. Or at least give a little more direction.
I admire both Parmenides and Heraclitus actually. They, IMHO (H means humble in this case) are saying the same thing from different perspectives. If everything is changing then it really is staying the same in the fact that it always changes. This plays into my view of God as the eternal dynamo.
posted
Sorry Pan. I had to get offline almost immediately after I started the thread. Let's not talk about the philosophers themselves but talk philosophy in general.
Now I too believe that trust and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive but what I say I believe and how I behave are often two different things. I try to be forgiving and I like to reference the parable of the prodigal son. The father has already forgiven the son. He has just to ask for forgiveness. That's an extremely limited paraphrase I know, but hopefully my point is clear.
So anyone care to venture a definition of forgiveness and trust?
Basic ideas of these two concepts (that is, not dictionary defs.): Forgiveness- no longer wishing ill to someone who has wronged you. Trust- expecting someone to do or not do something often based on past behavior.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From thefreedictionary.com Forgive -1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon. 2. To renounce anger or resentment against. 3. To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example). Trust -1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.(Only applicable one posted)
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been my experience that many people forgive and also mistakenly place trust back into those they have forgiven. This seems to indicate that whether they say it or not people generally think the two go hand in hand.
BTW there are a lot of Texans at this site. Woo! Go Texas!
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I took a break, went to class and come back to find no one else commenting so I will carry on the conversation with myself until someone decides to jump (back) in.
Oh, yeah! Its Valentine's Day. I guess you'd all rather be with your valentine.
That's a strange idiom "Be mine". I was under the impression that we had as a society moved passed the ownership of other people. Wouldn't it be more pc to say "Be with me"? Of course, on the personal level I think we all know its just an expression but many people are often in danger of losing their personal identity to the couple they have formed. The "I" becomes "we" and that loss eventually starts to hurt and whoever it is that is feeling the hurt will start to resent the "we" and the "you". Try to remember that you are still your own person and maybe this can be avoided.
However, I am only twenty so I imagine many of you would say, "What does he know?" and to an extent you'd be right. But, if you see truth to what I say, point it out to me 'cause I can't tell the difference between my own opinion and general human truths. I'll do my best to trust your judgements.
posted
Regarding trust and forgiveness: The dictionary definitions there look pretty good. Forgiveness need not imply trust re-given, but it can. I now wait for you to point the dialogue with another question.
Regarding love and possessiveness: I see "my" as having two meanings. One indicates a relationship to the speaker: "my sister," "my boss," "my teacher." It is not necessarily possessive. The other, of course, is. "Be mine" is much too close to the second meaning for my comfort, so I s'pose I agree with you. It needn't mean that, though; it takes knowledge of the speaker to know what s/he means. Or trust.
(Edit: Oh, whoops--I missed your second part. I don't entirely agree. Sure, it takes two "I"s to make a "we," and losing sight of that can make a dysfunctional "we." But that's as far as I'd go.)
quote:It has been my experience that many people forgive and also mistakenly place trust back into those they have forgiven. This seems to indicate that whether they say it or not people generally think the two go hand in hand.
That there is an error to what people generally think does not make something less of an error.
Forgiveness implies a judgment has being made, something was wrong. Good judgment incorporates discernment. With discernment we set healthy boundaries.
To forgive and forget – is to remember without dwelling on – like the new ‘memory pill” to discern the emotion from the event and respond according.
Should Victim impact statements have an impact on the sentencing? In my view they should not. Whether the victim statement is one of revenge or forgiveness the penalty of the law is required by society not the victim. Forgiveness IMO is the forbearing of revenge not accountability. Forgetting
Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right next philosophical question: Should one always tell the truth? Should one always be truthful?(a slight difference but an important one.)
Of course you can site occassions during the WWII when lying actually help save lives but under what other circumstances if any would it be ok to lie?
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To forgive and forget – is to remember without dwelling on – like the new ‘memory pill” to discern the emotion from the event and respond according."
I like that you specified what you mean by "forget" but I don't necessarilly agree with you. Our emotions are there for a reason (evolutionary not devine) and they need to be taken into acount when making decisions based on trust and forgiveness.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Emotions should be felt and acknowledged; they direct our attention, however they can also take us for a ride. To learn from our emotions we need to be able to identify them and not mistake the emotion for the event. To discern the difference between the emotion and the event is not always easy but does not mean we become unfeeling robots the reverse actually.
It has been my observations that we tend to reacted to emotion instead of responding to them
Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see, and thanks for speaking more simply. I have a fairly extensive vocabulary myself, but I sometimes miss the point when someone uses an unfamiliar not necessarilly unkown word.
I've not given much thought to seperating emotions from events and would like to discuss it further... on another thread. Please start one if there is still interest.
Back to philosophy and my current question regarding truth.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, think about it, discuss it at length, and as need or desire dictates move on to other questions. I will be signing off for now. I look forward to what y'all have to say. Until tomorrow,
posted
Truth is a measure of how close something comes to the way things really are.
To trust one who has hurt you would dictate to a certain extent not putting yourself in the same position to get hurt as before least they prove also that they are up to the task.
Trusting generally requires accurate knowledge of the nature of the thing trusted.
Accurate knowledge is what makes trust and truth such a difficult thing to have.
Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should one always tell the truth? Should one always be truthful?
One should always be truthful with oneself, as much as that is possible the first person we deceive is usually ourselves.
On forgiveness I wasn't indorsing the use of the “memory pill”, IMO forgiveness is the natural way to achieve the results of disconnecting the emotion with the event but with the added bonus of learning and personal growth.
Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Plato the only truth was the metaphysical, the abstract. (Was he high?) He thought that since the physical world was in a continual state of flux that that could not be the ultimate truth. Ultimate truth HAD to be static according to him.
I say sure the world's truth changes but that doesn't make it any less important than the abstract forms Plato was obsessed with. In fact one could look at change as a sort of permanence. (Though, if one wants to be really pedantic one could say that even the way change happens changes.)
BTW rl I didn't think you were but I think it would still be an interesting psychological excercise, that is without chemical aid.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Plato was talking about "Knowing" Truth, the existence of TRUTH, and truth – one we reach for but cannot obtain/Know (to many variables) I don't think he was applying "less or more important" categories.
Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps that is a misinterpretation on my part. I've been studying the guy for the past few weeks and its starting to get to me
We're reading the Republic right now and someone in my class likened it to "Brave New World". I've not actually read it but I get the general idea and there is one major difference I see. Plato/Socrates only intended for the rulers to be self-regulating in that they always had to engage in philosophic reflection. There is no provision as far as I can see in the Republic where the government should drug the masses in order to rule. Their ideal city would be so good that it would do a fine job of regulating itself without much government interference anyway. I think Huxley's fiction is seperate from Plato's in that respect.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem with Socratic dialogue is that everyone wants to be Socrates!
He gets all the good lines.
No kidding! Otherwise you're limited to "Oh yes Socrates", "Quite right, Socrates", and my personal favorite, "It is obvious, even to the blind!" Apparently Greek didnt' have any word for "yes" so they had to make up all these different ways of assenting, at least that's what my freshman philosohpy class taught us.
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[FootInMouth]](graemlins/footinmouth.gif)
![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)
