Guilty!

Guilt is difficult to analyze because it is ‘dumb’. It is a feeling of being blocked and frustrated without knowing why we feel that way. This develops when embraced by powerlessness while clutched by the unknown. Guilt is a bind of life.

A feeling of guilt emanates from our peculiar ability to apprehend life’s totality but unable to move in relation to it. “This real guilt partly explains willing subordinacy to his culture: after all, the world of men is even more dazzling and miraculous in its richness than the awesomeness of nature. Also, subordinacy comes naturally from man’s basic experience of being nourished and cared for; it is a logical response to social altruism.”

There are many ways in which we feel this “bind of life”:
* When ill or injured we are cared for by a cultural system
* Not achieving all one can be
* Recognition that we are the source of a serious accident
* Inability to meet responsibility to family
* Displaying certain accomplishments
* Evolution’s bounty to me
* Fate’s bounty to me
* Sticking out in a crowd for some biological reason
* “There, but for the grace of God, go I”

Social organization helps the individual expiate guilt by sharing guilt and a symbolic confession of it. “This is why the main general characteristic of guilt is that it must be shared: man cannot stand alone.” Primitives seem to be more honest about these things, probably because they were more realistic about our desperate situation vis-à-vis nature. You cannot fool Mother Nature. Modern man seems more arrogant as regards nature.

Hubris is another word signifying a forgetting from whence real power comes. We seem like sophomores, not yet comprehending the source of real power; imagining it is in our self.

Quotes and ideas from “Escape from Evil”—Ernest Becker

GUILT... AND FEELING IT.... is a good thing.

without it... i would probubly be a bank robber, and revolutionary madman.

its is shame and guilt ... which keeps me in check.

-MT

GUILT... AND FEELING IT.... is a good thing.

without it... i would probubly be a bank robber, and revolutionary madman.

its is shame and guilt ... which keeps me in check.

-MT

Well, than it is probably good that you feel ashamed and guilty.

Me, concern for other people and my own safety keep me from doing these things. Two broad areas of feeling: empathy/love and fear keep me from being a bank robber and a madman of any violent kind.

Coberst:

What about guilt stemming from personal moral conviction?

Prince

I think that reason is the cause of a feeling that derives from a personal moral conviction. Guilt is an emotion like instinct and is not a result of rational decisions. I think that like many words we have more than one meaning for a word. Therein the cause for much confusion. Therein the need for intellectual sophistication.

Guilt is difficult to analyze because it is ‘dumb’. It is a feeling of being blocked and frustrated without knowing why we feel that way. This develops when embraced by powerlessness while clutched by the unknown. Guilt is a bind of life.

“Guilt happens” would make for a very informative bumper sticker. No matter how we try and how smart we become the felling of guilt happens. There are multiple ways in which it appears and we cannot stop it nor comprehend it, most of the time anyway.

This feeling causes us to do behave in certain ways. Our lives are a constant struggle against helplessness.

To comprehend some domains of knowledge one must hold in abeyance their common sense perception of the world. We must do this when we study such matters as philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, mythology, etc. because if we do not go beyond common sense we cannot comprehend these matters that common sense ignores. These sciences look behind the curtain. With these sciences we can begin to comprehend what makes us tick.

Physics must do this as it tries to comprehend what goes on in the inner world of the atom. Expert scientists in the field of physics will admit that the world of every day intuition must be abandoned if one is to comprehend the nature of the atom. Our comprehension of the inner world is framed in a virtual world of mathematics; thereby we can predict the mechanics of matter even though it is via a virtual world created in our imagination.

coberst said

“Guilt happens” would make for a very informative bumper sticker. No matter how we try and how smart we become the felling of guilt happens. There are multiple ways in which it appears and we cannot stop it nor comprehend it, most of the time anyway.

If you go into guilt you generally find feelings locked in place by a judgement or a thought. I am angry at them, but I understand why they did that so I shouldn't be angry, for example. Often we feel quitly about actions that had an impulsive component. The feeling was held back for along time and was expressed in a way we do not feel good about.

Guilt is a thought form stuck in our heads by families or churches, etc.

A rule about what we must not feel or do.

We take those rules seriously. We should not.

Am I advocating allt he behaviors we think we would engage in if we were free from guilt? No.

If we listen to ourselves we will find other reasons than guilt to not do certain things.

ALOT OF CRIMINALS..... dont feel any guilt.

there is one thing in this world... THAT TEACHES GUILT.
ITS RELIGION.

-mt

If you're smart and strong, nothing will ever hurt you!

Guilt happens when we realize we have done something wrong, when we knew what we should have done. Or, when we do something that endangers us rather than what was most beneficial.

Of course, if a person is mistaken about what is right, or what he has done, or what he was responisble of, he will feel guilty for no real reason (that's why I added smart to the first sentence).

Also, THERE IS NO WE HERE.

Wait...

Guilt ... is a feeling of being blocked and frustrated


I can't agree with this. Just no way. Guilt is (to me!) more like a stab in the gut, or feeling miserable. Like(...) I did something bad. Not like something is blocking me from doing what I want. That I call "being constrained", and it is vastly diffrent.

And this seems to me completely natural. After all, you feel guilty AFTER you've done something; You feel caged when you are PLANNING on doing something.

It's not guilt that ties people down, that's like saying "rope tied me up". It's "I was tied using rope", and in context, it's "someone used my guilt against me".

As stated, you feel guilty when you THINK you've done something wrong; all someone has to do is make you believe that something is right and you will always pursue it, and feel guilty when you do not. Guilt is right where it needs to be, the brain of someone who managed to get brainwashed, is not.

ALOT OF CRIMINALS..... dont feel any guilt.


I doubt that. A few sociopaths, sure. But just because some people do horrible things and deny the guilt they feel, does not mean that guilt is performing some useful service in me.

A serious question here.

When we study the human sciences we often run into concepts about which we have a common sense attitude. When the facts discovered by science are contradicted by our uneducated opinion what should we do?

Such problems do not arise when we are in school or college because we are taught to take the teachers word as gospel and it does not often happen in matters of the natural sciences because we do not have a forceful opinion about objects in the way that we do about humans.

bleh. Of course you believe what you will. Science is based on solid facts, but it ignores any anomalies and any theory it cannot prove. It's nice, but always dragging behind. Like the stuff you are taught at school is always outdated by the time you get out (still, if you didn't go through school you wouldn't know even that much..).

Second; Such problems DO arrise at school when someone with actual brain comes in.

Third; I find the thought that the speed of light is constant NO MATTER from where you observe it ridiculous. That's just one example of gut instict rebelling against "known sciences".

A serious question here.

When we study the human sciences we often run into concepts about which we have a common sense attitude. When the facts discovered by science are contradicted by our uneducated opinion what should we do?

Such problems do not arise when we are in school or college because we are taught to take the teachers word as gospel and it does not often happen in matters of the natural sciences because we do not have a forceful opinion about objects in the way that we do about humans.

It is not clear who you are responding to or what your position is.
It sounds like you are saying that since Becker said this and he is our better we should listen to his opinion.
But his definitions and ideas are not shared by other experts, so, of course, we must use our own intelligence, experience, deductive reasoning and intuition to decide.

Self-learning.

Since no one guessed the correct answer I will tell you what the correct answer is.

To comprehend some domains of knowledge one must hold in abeyance their common sense perception of the world. We must do this when we study such matters as philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, mythology, etc. because if we do not go beyond common sense we cannot comprehend these matters that common sense ignores. These sciences look behind the curtain. With these sciences we can begin to comprehend what makes us tick.

Physics must do this as it tries to comprehend what goes on in the inner world of the atom. Expert scientists in the field of physics will admit that the world of every day intuition must be abandoned if one is to comprehend the nature of the atom. Our comprehension of the inner world is framed in a virtual world of mathematics; thereby we can predict the mechanics of matter even though it is via a virtual world created in our imagination.

Becker does not express new ideas. Becker expresses a scholarly synopsis of the past accomplishments of many sciences and then draws insightful conclusions regarding this knowledge and how we might use it to restructure society to better fit our nature.

To comprehend some domains of knowledge one must hold in abeyance their common sense perception of the world.

Which positions do you see as common sense perceptions of the world so far in this thread?

I have basically been advocating that guilt is not necessary, even that it is harmful. This goes against much of the Western secular and religious traditions. I don't think most people agree that it is common sense.

We must do this when we study such matters as philosophy, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, mythology, etc. because if we do not go beyond common sense we cannot comprehend these matters that common sense ignores. These sciences look behind the curtain. With these sciences we can begin to comprehend what makes us tick.

For example. What specific common sense belief do you think WE need to go beyond?


Becker does not express new ideas. Becker expresses a scholarly synopsis of the past accomplishments of many sciences and then draws insightful conclusions regarding this knowledge and how we might use it to restructure society to better fit our nature.

In other words you agree with him.
One could describe the work of many thinkers as doing this. The last quote here of yours really is an appeal to authority. It does not have content.

A serious question here.

When we study the human sciences we often run into concepts about which we have a common sense attitude. When the facts discovered by science are contradicted by our uneducated opinion what should we do?



You have to understand. This question comes off as an indirect way of STATING that anyone disagreeing with you or, really, your interpretation of Becker is disagreeing because they have a common sense view of the world and are resistant to the truth. That may not have been your (conscious) intention, but that's how it comes off in the thread.

The human sciences have a lot of experts and they say contradictory things. Some of these things are common sense.

So let throw back the question to you:
By what criteria did you decide that Becker was the THE expert and what do you do when you encounter other experts who have differing opinions from his?

Granty

Common concepts such as ‘guilt’ have all kinds of common opinions as to what the concept means. Science establishes stable definitions of these concepts in the attempt to comprehend the deeply embedded human character. When the person who has no educated comprehension of the concept reads or hears what science has concluded about the word, rejects the scientific definition in favor of their own idea will never develop a more sophisticated intellect. We need to recognize the difference between what is a common uneducated opinion versus what is a scientific judgment.

When one decides that the educated comprehension of a matter is superior to the uneducated opinion one is appealing to authority. It is not true that any opinion is as good as any other. To hold such a view will condemn a person to a life time of ignorance.

A person has to learn how to make intelligent judgments. I suggest that learning the knowledge, skills, and attitudes contained in Critical Thinking is a very good beginning.

Making good judgments is an important and complex matter. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. To make better judgments requires many kinds of knowledge, skills, and character traits all working together.

Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach these things but it is an effort that is just beginning and it is a difficult one to accomplish.

This info was taken from the Internet:

A. Affective Strategies
S-1 thinking independently
Thru
S-9 developing confidence in reason

B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities
S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
Thru
S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills
S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
Thru
S-35 exploring implications and consequences

S-1 Thinking Independently

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to "divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

S-15 Developing Criteria for Evaluation: Clarifying Values and Standards

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that expressing mere preference does not substitute for evaluating something. Awareness of the process or components of evaluating facilitates thoughtful and fairminded evaluation. This process requires developing and using criteria or standards of evaluation, or making standards or criteria explicit.

S-16 Evaluating the Credibility of Sources of Information

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the importance of using reliable sources of information. They give less weight to sources which either lack a track record of honesty, are not in a position to know, or have a vested interest in the issue. Critical thinkers recognize when there is more than one reasonable position to be taken on an issue; they compare alternative sources of information, noting areas of agreement; they analyze questions to determine whether or not the source is in a position to know; and they gather more information when sources disagree.

S-17 Questioning Deeply: Raising and Pursuing Root or Significant Questions

Principle: Critical thinkers can pursue an issue in depth, covering various aspects in an extended process of thought or discussion. When reading a passage, they look for issues and concepts underlying the claims expressed. They come to their own understanding of the details they learn, placing them in the larger framework of the subject and their overall perspectives. They contemplate the significant issues and questions underlying subjects or problems studied. They can move between basic underlying ideas and specific details.

S-18 Analyzing or Evaluating Arguments, Interpretations, Beliefs, or Theories

Principle: Rather than carelessly agreeing or disagreeing with a conclusion based on their preconceptions of what is true, critical thinkers use analytic tools to understand the reasoning behind it and determine its relative strengths and weaknesses. When analyzing arguments,critical thinkers recognize the importance of asking for reasons and considering other views.

S-19 Generating or Assessing Solutions

Principle: Critical problem-solvers use everything available to them to find the best solution they can. They evaluate solutions, not independently of, but in relation to one another (since 'best' implies a comparison).

S-20 Analyzing or Evaluating Actions and Policies

Principle: To develop one's perspective, one must analyze actions and policies and evaluate them. Good judgment is best developed through practice: judging behavior, explaining and justifying those judgments, hearing alternative judgments and their justifications, and assessing judgments. When evaluating the behavior of themselves and others, critical thinkers are aware of the standards they use, so that these, too, can become objects of evaluation.

S-21 Reading Critically: Clarifying or Critiquing Texts

Principle: Critical thinkers read with a healthy skepticism. But they do not doubt or deny until they understand. They clarify before they judge. Since they expect intelligibility from what they read, they check and double-check their understanding as they read. They do not mindlessly accept nonsense. Critical readers ask themselves questions as they read, wonder about the implications of, reasons for, examples of, and meaning and truth of the material.

S-22 Listening Critically: The Art of Silent Dialogue

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that listening can be done passively and uncritically or actively and critically. They know that it is easy to misunderstand what is said by another and hard to integrate another's thinking into one's own. Compare speaking and listening. When we speak, we need only keep track of our own ideas, arranging them in some order, expressing thoughts with which we are intimately familiar: our own.

S-23 Making Interdisciplinary Connections

Principle: Although in some ways it is convenient to divide knowledge up into disciplines, the divisions are not absolute. Critical thinkers do not allow the somewhat arbitrary distinctions between academic subjects to control their thinking. When considering issues which transcend subjects (and most real-life issues do), they bring relevant concepts, knowledge, and insights from many subjects to the analysis.

S-24 Practicing Socratic Discussion: Clarifying and Questioning Beliefs, Theories, or Perspectives

Principle: Critical thinkers are nothing if not questioners. The ability to question and probe deeply, to get down to root ideas, to get beneath the mere appearance of things, is at the very heart of the activity. And, as questioners, they have many different kinds of questions and moves available and can follow up their questions appropriately.

S-25 Reasoning Dialogically: Comparing Perspectives, Interpretations, or Theories

Principle: Dialogical thinking refers to thinking that involves a dialogue or extended exchange between different points of view. Whenever we consider concepts or issues deeply, we naturally explore their connections to other ideas and issues within different points of view.

S-26 Reasoning Dialectically: Evaluating Perspectives, Interpretations, or Theories

Principle: Dialectical thinking refers to dialogical thinking conducted in order to test the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view. Court trials and debates are dialectical in intention. They pit idea against idea, reasoning against counter-reasoning in order to get at the truth of a matter. As soon as we begin to explore ideas, we find that some clash or are inconsistent with others.

S-27 Comparing and Contrasting Ideals with Actual Practice

Principle: Self-improvement and social improvement are presupposed values of critical thinking. Critical thinking, therefore, requires an effort to see ourselves and others accurately. This requires recognizing gaps between ideals and practice. The fairminded thinker values truth and consistency and so works to minimize these gaps.

S-28 Thinking Precisely About Thinking: Using Critical Vocabulary

Principle: An essential requirement of critical thinking is the ability to think about thinking, to engage in what is sometimes called "metacognition". One possible definition of critical thinking is the art of thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, more fair.

S-29 Noting Significant Similarities and Differences

Principle: Critical thinkers strive to treat similar things similarly and different things differently. Uncritical thinkers, on the other hand, often don't see significant similarities and differences. Things superficially similar are often significantly different. Things superficially different are often essentially the same.

S-30 Examining or Evaluating Assumptions

Principle: We are in a better position to evaluate any reasoning or behavior when all of the elements of that reasoning or behavior are made explicit. We base both our reasoning and our behavior on beliefs we take for granted. We are often unaware of these assumptions. Only by recognizing them can we evaluate them.

S-31 Distinguishing Relevant From Irrelevant Facts

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to tell the difference between those facts which are relevant to an issue and those which are not. Critical thinkers focus their attention on relevant facts and do not let irrelevant considerations affect their conclusions. Whether or not something is relevant is often unclear; relevance must often be argued. Furthermore, a fact is only relevant or irrelevant in relation to an issue. Information relevant to one problem may not be relevant to another.

S-32 Making Plausible Inferences, Predictions, or Interpretations

Principle: Thinking critically involves the ability to reach sound conclusions based on observation and information. Critical thinkers distinguish their observations from their conclusions. They look beyond the facts, to see what those facts imply. They know what the concepts they use imply.

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

{This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm

Granty


When one decides that the educated comprehension of a matter is superior to the uneducated opinion one is appealing to authority. It is not true that any opinion is as good as any other. To hold such a view will condemn a person to a life time of ignorance.

You tend to appeal to one authority at a time. Authorities whose ideas are not held by science in general. You can't consider the latest book you read to be the universal authority opinion. Second, authorities have been wrong, even in general, about a wide range of issues. Cultural and other biases are still going strong out there.

A person has to learn how to make intelligent judgments. I suggest that learning the knowledge, skills, and attitudes contained in Critical Thinking is a very good beginning.

Do you apply critical thinking to the books you reading. It does not come across that way. It seems like you paraphrase and quote the ideas adn than react to dissent by saying the other person must be wrong because you are reading an authority and they are expressing common sense or lay opinion.



Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view;

What are some of the strengths of the views that differ from the ideas of guilt presented here? Can you role model this facet of critical thinking?

I'm sorry but it seems like you want other people to aim critical thinking at their own ideas but to take the ones you paraphrase and quote on authority.

I am a retired engineer and self-actualizing self-learning is my hobby. I moved here to the Smoky Mountains of North Carolina seven years ago and the first thing I did was to visit the library at a local college and to acquire a “Friends of the Library” card. For a yearly fee of $25 I can borrow any book from this great library.

I suggest that everyone acquire such a library card when their school days are over. If a person is to become a self-learner after their school daze are over they need access to a large library so that when they find something that interests them they can easily find what the best thinkers in the world thinks abut these matters.

I apply Critical Thinking to everything in my life. CT is a way of life for those who take the effort to learn it.


For a 12 to 18 years period from the age of 6 to our mid twenties we have lived constantly in an educational system wherein we seldom if ever learned to function intellectually independent of outside direction. We have never learned how to learn!

How is it possible for such an individual to develop the internal processes (bootstrap) that allow him or her to become an independent critically self-conscious thinker? Bootstrap is defined as: designed to function independently of outside direction—capable of using one internal function or process to control another.

Like the PC setting in front of us we seem to have an automatic default position. Our default position is ‘reject’ when encountering any idea that does not fit in our already learned patterns and algorithms.

Somehow the individual must find a way to change that default position from ‘reject’ to ‘examine critically’. Of course—how do we every not reject this message?

These following definitions come from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/articles/glossary.shtml

critical listening: A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying. By understanding the logic of human communication-that everything spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has implications, etc.-critical thinkers can listen so as to enter sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought, intellectual empathy.

critical person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking.

critical reading: Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text, to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought.

critical society: A society which rewards adherence to the values of critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to imagine a society in which independent critical thought became embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly formulated the ideal:
The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators and are never deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. (Folkways, 1906)
Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge.

critical thinking:
1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking.
2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities.
3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish" or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought, domains of thought, intellectual virtues.

critical writing: To express ourselves in language requires that we arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of language.

I apply Critical Thinking to everything in my life.

So do I. I still don't spew several pages of nonsense. PER DAY. PLEASE. If I want to read this stuff I'll buy the book. I'll read about it in the advertisements. PLEASE post something not copied from some other source.

Isn't guilt just fear ?
The fear of what others will think when they find out what we did
............. and thus who we really are.

ALOT OF CRIMINALS..... dont feel any guilt.

there is one thing in this world... THAT TEACHES GUILT.
ITS RELIGION.

-mt

MT
I finally have found something for which we are
in total agreement.
I hope you think this is a good thing.
[not the agreement, but that religion gives us a moral compass]
Cheers

Yeah... somethin atheists dont generally get... that it helps a culture, and whether its true or not, doesnt matter.... its benefits are very real.
secular humanism... destroys all moral fabric and reasoning and replaces it with a ''hey, why not'' attitude.

-MT

Yeah... somethin atheists dont generally get... that it helps a culture, and whether its true or not, doesnt matter.... its benefits are very real.
secular humanism... destroys all moral fabric and reasoning and replaces it with a ''hey, why not'' attitude.

-MT

You are an idiot. Normally I would't be so harsh but in this case I just thought "hey, why not"

You are an idiot. Normally I would't be so harsh but in this case I just thought "hey, why not"

If you are joking .... nice one.

If not you have proven his point.
"Hey what the heck, why not" is an attitude that destroys culture.
Just look at your first sentence.

If you are joking .... nice one.

If not you have proven his point.
"Hey what the heck, why not" is an attitude that destroys culture.
Just look at your first sentence.

That does not prove his point at all. hej why not tell someone they are spouting garbage, if they are, is not a sin. Not even for Christians. Christians in fact have a nasty history of killing people who say things they do not like to hear. As do other monotheists.

To say that secular humanists have no morals, which was what the other guy is essentially saying, is just garbage.

I am not an athiest, or a monotheist, but every athiest I have ever known has led, basically, a good Christian life (except for the prayer and belief part). Some of that came naturally to them, some of it came out of their sense of right and wrong.

It was well spotted garbage.

If you are joking .... nice one.

If not you have proven his point.
"Hey what the heck, why not" is an attitude that destroys culture.
Just look at your first sentence.

No I am not joking only speaking the truth (the "hey, why not" bit was a backhanded joke). Listening to MT blabber about immorality and secular humanism is like taking chinese lessons from someone who doesn't speak chinese.
He, like many theists, cannot get his head the fact that morality exists with or without religion. I am sure he enjoys hearing atheists tell him how evil religion is ;)

Just for good measure here are the simple by laws of the norweigan Human ethics society.


The By-laws of the Norwegian Humanist Association state:

1. Objective
The Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their life stance on human values. The Association will work to develop humanism and contribute to ensuring that people may practise their humanist life stance.

2. Humanism
Humanism is a life stance in which the understanding of reality and ethics is based on reason and experience, rational and critical thinking, feelings and human compassion. Humanism is devoid of religious conceptions. In humanism, the independent and responsible human being is placed in the centre. The objective of humanism is therefore to offer every person an opportunity to develop independence, freedom and responsibility. The humanist approach includes a commitment to human rights as an expression of core values and ideals. Human rights are a good protection of human dignity and diversity.

3. Activities
The Association will work:
- For a state professing a neutral life stance, freedom to choose any life stance and respect for human rights in a pluralistic society.
- To ensure that everyone will be able to choose humanist ceremonies.
- To develop humanist life-stance and welfare services.
- To offer members a social and organisational framework for life stance identity and a sense of community.
- To spread knowledge of humanism and the organisation's activities"

Now if I am supposed to take MT even a little bit seriously then he needs to at least do the minimum of research before spouting lies and disinformation.

did moral exist in ancient rome????

they had built colliseums... armys to conquer the world... grand cities..

but they were all having gay sex... and worse.... incest with their parents.... and or brothers and sisters...


they had no morality.

until christianity took HOLD.

-MT

AND YOU CAN ORGANIZE HUMANISM anyway you want and give it any title..

the end result is a people in the streets... that are morally free..

in many european countries.... child porn... IS LEGAL.
SO ARE MOST DRUGS...

SO IS GAY SEX... on tv... for all to see.


oh yes... europe is the best example to use for moral rightousness.. hahahahaahahaha.. what a joke.

-MT

Thank you for proving my point. You are not only an idiot you are also hopelessly ignorant. To even begin with you I would need to hold your hand and start from square one and I don't have the time.

First step for you, try backing up some of your idiotic claims start with these.

in many european countries.... child porn... IS LEGAL.
SO ARE MOST DRUGS...

SO IS GAY SEX... on tv... for all to see

The only gay sex I see on TV here is from the states.

This is like talking to a child.

Edit: while you're at it why don't you take a comparative look at violent crime rates in the states and europe.

did moral exist in ancient rome????

they had built colliseums... armys to conquer the world... grand cities..

but they were all having gay sex... and worse.... incest with their parents.... and or brothers and sisters...


they had no morality.

until christianity took HOLD.

-MT

As a matter of fact they did have morality not the same as we do today but what they had worked for a long time, eventually got corrupt and the social fabric imploded. Because that is what will happen to social creatures like human beings if their moral concensus breaks down a social group will cease to function if thier moral constructs no longer function (been that way since long before christianity)

Army's to conquer the world? and what the US doesn't have?

The foundation for western jurisprudence, science and thought were laid down by the romans and the greeks before christianity arrived.

You really should get out more to lose some of that prejudice.

did moral exist in ancient rome????

but they were all having gay sex... and worse.... incest with their parents.... and or brothers and sisters...

-MT

That is not true, unless you just want to believe the sensationalism of the media.

This stems from a "look how much better we are" mentality, not to mention they are the whipping boy for the politically correct media who pick and choose villians to sell movies. Lets all attack those who scream and cry about it the least.

You wont see them bashing other cultures simply out of fear.

im sorry... but anyone who knows anything about history know....

knows... europe is full of incest.... and gay sex... it was normal.


why was it normal??

because their pagan religions didnt say it was wrong.

its wasnt wrong.... until Moses, and then Jesus said so.

and it was only adopted... due to the large scale adoption of christianity.


if it wasnt for Jesus... they would still be doing it.

and in many ways....

they still are.

HBO... loves to show european tv...

and ive mett several youths from amsterdam... and they confirm the openness of their society.

Believe what you want...

but if your beliefs are based on secular humanism...

you probubly think gay sex is perfectly acceptable.

-MT

im sorry... but anyone who knows anything about history know....

knows... europe is full of incest.... and gay sex... it was normal.


why was it normal??

because their pagan religions didnt say it was wrong.

Utter uneducated NONSENSE not unsuprisingly unsubstantiated too. History is what I know obviously alot better than you

its wasnt wrong.... until Moses, and then Jesus said so.

and it was only adopted... due to the large scale adoption of christianity.


if it wasnt for Jesus... they would still be doing it.

and in many ways....

they still are.

Utter uneducated NONSENSE not unsuprisingly unsubstantiated too




HBO... loves to show european tv... and ive mett several youths from amsterdam... and they confirm the openness of their society.

Believe what you want...

but if your beliefs are based on secular humanism...

you probubly think gay sex is perfectly acceptable.

-MT

The only thing I can say about gayness is that it is a damn sight more acceptable than ignorant bigoty. So yeah, I prefer to speak to an educated gay person rather than an uneducated religious bigot any day.

MT don't be an uneducated dolt your whole life, that black spot on your soul will just keep getting bigger and blacker

I forgot to help you get started in discussion 101

step 1, discuss a topic.

poster 1The bees are dying out

poster 2 that's ridiculous

poster 1 No it's not here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6438373.stm)

poster 2 Oh I hadn't heard that but I don't think it means All the bees

See when you make a claim or an accusation as an adult you need to substantiate it, otherwise your just spouting your own opinion.

such are the responces of people... who have lost the argument... haha

Oh have you argued? Haven't seen it only some temper tantrum sounding something like europe is gay europe is gay Apparently debate is beyond the scope of your abilities

religion good.... promotes feeling of guilt and shame... which are good... it keeps young boys from raping and robbing and killing....

secular humanism.... does not promote guilt or shame...
it says... all are welcome... all sex is cool... if you like it...
its says... dont feel bad... just go with it.
its says.... your guilt... is a lie taught by religion.

so which is better for society?

-MT

religion good.... promotes feeling of guilt and shame... which are good... it keeps young boys from raping and robbing and killing....


The facts...... don't back you up on this.....research the crime rates in europe.... and...... the US.
The US.....for example has a higher murder rate....than ANY.....country in europe.
Therefore..... your entire premise falls flat.....on its face...... just like you.

SPP

Voila I shall now demonstrate for you how one backs up statements one makes....pay....attention


Assaults per capita

US 6th highest in the world higher than any western european country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita)

Rapes per capita

The US ranks 9th in the world higher than any western european country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita)

Murders per capita

Murder per capita the US ranks 24th higher than any western european nation (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)

Now...there it is.....you....can't argue with the facts.....obviously humanism...... is better........ for society.......than religion :cool:

If you are joking .... nice one.

If not you have proven his point.
"Hey what the heck, why not" is an attitude that destroys culture.
Just look at your first sentence.
Why does "what the heck" destroy culture? Being a pussy maintains culture? Or just stability in society? Fuck that. Isn't that the opposite of culture? Doesn't culture evolve under the stresses of instability just like everything else? If not, what makes culture different from everything else in the universe? Why is culture not charactertised by change including(especially) social or moral change?did moral exist in ancient rome????Yes. So did Greece. However, I believe that they both had religions withing their societies, so what's your point?they had built colliseums... armys to conquer the world... grand cities..Yes. but they were all having gay sex... I'm not sure all of them were. Anyway, what's wrong with that? they had no morality.Because it was different from your version of morality? So wouldn't they say the same thing about you? until christianity took HOLD.Did you take that form Sparticus? the end result is a people in the streets... that are morally free..Isn't that human nature? in many european countries.... MOST DRUGS... ARE LEGAL.I don't see the problem. The people who aren't on crack or some other crazy drugs can take advantage of the others if drugs do bring any disadvantages. Then there's someone to do all the work for the aristocracy; society functions perfectly. SO IS GAY SEX...
So..? oh yes... europe is the best example to use for moral rightousness.. hahahahaahahaha.. what a joke.Why isn't it?religion good.... promotes feeling of guilt and shame... which are good... it keeps young boys from raping and robbing and killing.... Shame and guilt are the only things that can keep little boys from hitting licks and shooting people? I thought shame and guilt were the reasons that little kids started smoking crack. Isn't it usually a group of poor crackheads who rob a gas station or shoot an old lady? Doesn't shame and guilt create crack-sellers who are ashamed of being poor and who feel guilty because they can't feed their kids? Also..religion? IRA, KKK, al-Qaeda, et cetera are full of upstanding religious peoples?

ahh... i see the problem here...

you guys seem to think .. this is us verses you...

no...

the usa is the modern sodom....

its just that europe is like old gomorrah.

they are both knee deep in sin.... and most of it has been legalised.

and.. the doctrine that says its ok...

for western cultures.... is secular humanism.

the 'hey why not religion of self indulgence.'

-MT

ahh... i see the problem here...

you guys seem to think .. this is us verses you...

no...

the usa is the modern sodom....

its just that europe is like old gomorrah.

they are both knee deep in sin.... and most of it has been legalised.

and.. the doctrine that says its ok...

for western cultures.... is secular humanism.

the 'hey why not religion of self indulgence.'

-MT

Amazing how well the monotheistic cultures have always done with cliterodectomies, genocide, colonialization, purges, buring of heretics adn witches, violence against women who dare to think they are people, holy wars, slavery all in the name of God.

Anyone who thinks widespread sin started with rise of secular humanism does not know history.

Anyone who thinks that the rise of the monotheism reduced barbarity does not know history.

Just cause they though God told them (and continues to tell them) to kill, maim, radically control, teach self-hate, destroy cultures, and put women in their secondary place does not mean their actions were not sins.

ahh... i see the problem here...

you guys seem to think .. this is us verses you...

no...

the usa is the modern sodom....

its just that europe is like old gomorrah.

they are both knee deep in sin.... and most of it has been legalised.

and.. the doctrine that says its ok...

for western cultures.... is secular humanism.

the 'hey why not religion of self indulgence.'

-MT

You monotheists came and destroyed cultures that had strong family values. And you wonder why you are hated.

ahh... i see the problem here...

you guys seem to think .. this is us verses you...

no...

the usa is the modern sodom....

its just that europe is like old gomorrah.

they are both knee deep in sin.... and most of it has been legalised.

and.. the doctrine that says its ok...

for western cultures.... is secular humanism.

the 'hey why not religion of self indulgence.'

-MT

No it's not us vs them as I am as american as you can get.
It is about your claiming that religion leads to better morals with NOTHING in the way of documentable evidence.
I presented you with the fact that the US that arguably most religious of western nations has higher rates of crime and
a greater (recent) proclivity to make war than the more secular nations of western europe.