Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 77 guests online.
Online usersPollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 84% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 9% Total votes: 76
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Panikkar's "Four Attitudes", which one are you? Submitted by NickOtani on Wed, 2007-08-08 06:12.
These attitudes are taken from Raimundo Panikkar's essay on "Four Attitudes," and they can apply to personal philosophies as well as religions. Case I is Exclusivism: My religion is true; others are false. Strength- Many religions actually make this claim. It can lead to a certain confidence and clear purpose. There is a sort of heroic passion shown by some people who have strong convictions. Weakness- It is potentially intolerant, arrogant, contemptous of anyone who doesn't share this view. Case 2 is Inclusivism: My religion is best. Others are inferior, but not necessarily false. Strength- This is more tolerant without being eclectic or relativistic. Weakness- It's rather hubristic, judgmental. It's condescending to other religions, as if they are merely being tolerated but not embraced. Case 3- Parallelism: My religion is one path to truth, but others are equally viable. Strength- This is tolerant and avoids eclecticiasm or "blending." It's a seperate but equal approach. Weakness- It leaves religions in isolation. There is little guidance for interrelation. Case 4- Interpenetration: My religion is one imperfect path amongst many, each of which has something to learn from the others. Strength- It is tolerant, ecumenical, cooperative, open-ended. Weakness- It doesn't stand for much. It could be too relativistic. It's "bimbo" like, nothing there. It could also be dismissive of all other religions and be a super religion, including all other religions. Which one are you? bis bald, Nick
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
What am I?
"...people who take the trouble to explicate their philosophical views are, at least in their own view, open to having those beliefs criticised and will hopefully amend them if they later encounter information that contradicts what they think."
I'm not sure about that. Many people toss out anything that doesn't fit their integrated views. This is a coherence truth test. The weakness is that it is self-confirming. That one piece which doesn't fit could bring down the whole edifice.
I’m not sure where I belong here. Perhaps on some issues, I'm exclusivist, while on others, I'm something else. (These positions are talking about religions, but I use the term to refer to any philosophy or belief system.)
I value some views which differ from mine. I don’t condemn all people who disagree with me in any small way. Perhaps Ayn Rand did. I do condemn some obvious bigots, hypocrites, and relativists. I think not to condemn predators is condemning their victims, and that is too hypocritical. Not to have any stand at all is to have no meaning, no reason to live. My philosophy represents my stand. It is a naturalistic philosophy based on the assumption that all humans are, as humans, equal; and, as such, have an equal right to pursue a flourishing existence within the parameters of allowing others that same right. If I am persecuted for having this view, then so be it. I am pursuing my own idea of a flourishing existence within the parameters of allowing others that same right.
Bis bald,
Nick
Those were the kind of words I was looking for.
yes, nicely put.
I'd have to agree with Matty.
Number 1 is closest to what I think, but it's prefaced with the phrase "as far as I know." I think that these four attitudes apply a great deal more to religious attitudes than to philosophical ones just because people who take the trouble to explicate their philosophical views are, at least in their own view, open to having those beliefs criticised and will hopefully amend them if they later encounter information that contradicts what they think. There are, of course, many people for whom this is not true, but at least they err in good faith. Religious people admit that they do not know the mind of their God, but nonetheless take it upon themselves to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't be doing with their lives.
hmm
I really don't think any of those apply to me spiritually or politically. If I had to pick I guess I'd say number 1 but It implies intolereance to other view points which I certainly don't have.
What is your answer?
I'd like to see some comments here, not just blinks.
bis bald,
Nick
.
*blinks*