I prefer the label of DEIST over ATHEIST.
I prefer TAOIST over DEIST.
And I prefer LOGICZOMBIE over TAOIST.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I prefer the label of DEIST over ATHEIST.
I prefer TAOIST over DEIST.
And I prefer LOGICZOMBIE over TAOIST.
We could invent another billion description words I'm sure, but does a thought really change the description word of something?
Or is it, a human who believes he is an atheist, a human who believes he is a Deist, a human who believes he is a Taoist.
In different times a man or women could be all of those words, when he or she was a kid, he thought of himself to be atheist, after that he became a theist, in later years became a deist. this is why I prefer the term "thinking man".
We are all just 1 thing alone and that's "Human". What we do or think is irrelevant, that description word should never change.
That being said, you are a logiczombie. 🤣🤣
When someone asks, "what are you?" it's generally a question of "what do you value" or more specifically, "what do you prioritize".
Although, yes, we are all "human", we as individuals do tend to gravitate towards "like minded people", and some sort of categorization can facilitate this tendency.
Well stated. I agree that we are all somewhat fluid in our "self identification schema". Another way of expressing your terminology might be "skeptical-free-thinker" (scientist).
As humans we always build on our three basic impulses (1) protect yourself (2) protect your family (3) protect your property.
I do appreciate your question. All too often we tend to dismiss people's right to "self-identification" and simply leap to our own conclusions (without realizing how much we'd hate it if someone did the same to us).
That's the best part and highly misunderstood in modern times. 🤠
How would you explain it?
The process of thought, a process of evolution, thought.
A process of logic?
Ok, let's say it different, if we haven't even figured out the first word yet, fully. How can we apply even more labels which we hardly understand?
It can take a man years to study just 1 of those words correctly.
Words are fluid.
Words only have "meaning" in context.
Imagine that each person is a universe unto themselves.
Each person is a country unto themselves.
Each person speaks a unique language.
Each person has their own dictionary.
For example, in modern day India, there are over 19,569 spoken languages (sometimes called "dialects" but many people consider most of these "dialects" incomprehensible).
Just dial this down to the individual.
Each and every person learns words slightly differently than others.
If you want to communicate effectively, you must be sensitive to the subtle linguistic variations specific to that person.
Watch about 4 minutes to get the idea,
So I'm saying we make it less fluid so we understand some basic things first. When you build a building and your missing the proper foundation, what happens?
Foundational concepts are similar for all languages. The abstractions we take for granted today were all built upon concrete real-world objects. For example, in ancient Chinese the word most often translated as "good" is actually a combination of two pictograms (hieroglyphics), (1) the symbol for sheep, and (2) the symbol for fat, which is also often translated as "succulent" or "delicious".
Our modern term "good" seems sterile and almost meaningless when we forget the original concepts upon which they are built.
Foundational concepts are also difficult to detect because MOST people don't even know they have PRIMARY AXIOMS.
Most of our lives we are speaking to people we learned our language from, and so, quite naturally, we find it easy to communicate with them. The language itself contains (implicit) PRIMARY AXIOMS, but even the people who taught it to us usually don't even recognize this.
And so, our linguistic tool-box of word-tools is (often unintentionally) deceptively limited.
Our word-tools only lend themselves to building limited conceptual frameworks (thought castles).
The funny thing is, we often simply think that our word-tools are the ONLY word-tools (we don't miss the tools we've never even heard of, it's difficult to imagine something if you never even knew it existed in the first place).
We know there are "other languages" but we just imagine that these other people use different labels for the same set of tools.
This is not exactly the case.
Let me give you an example of something what I call "Confusion words"
Biggest example: Left & Right They subdivided every factor into just 2 groups
As 1000 different people what confusion words means, you will get 1 thousand different answers. Non Existent, just somebodies viewpoint, maybe smart in a a way, but is it accurate?.
Otherwise you might end up with Idiocracy......................
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
yeah....... but what's the good of all of that if 99% doesn't understand you and it's inaccurate, incomplete and overly complicated?
And honestly, everytime somebody in the US invents or promotes some kind of new term that kinda feels right, but isn't, we feel a wave of this in Europe.
Intravert and Extravert, Man spreading or what ever the latest stupid trend is, like pronouns and 6 genders next. Or how about this one "Banning the word Man" And you get people thinking weird things man, He is a that, she is a that, they are "Whatever".................... Idiocracy.
Slow down please. Let's make it good, not best of the best of the of the best, because in this guest, you lose it.
Now don't get me started of all the fake terms in the DSM database and our medical world. A lot of real ones too. But a percentage of the words used are non existent, so it concludes to being WRONG. You probably know what DSM is too :)
"Back to the drawing board"