Closed-Mindedness Summed Up In Few Words (Picture Fixed).

The below quote from a xanga blog reminded me of the above cartoon.

“I read philosophy so that when I encounter an atheist in a philosophical argument, I can have the power and tools to destroy the opponent; or at least formulate a deconstructive perspective on their often not well thought out but at the same time egotistic viewpoints.  I have no interest in destroying my opponent’s argument with Biblical citations as they can simply say that Bible is false.  But more with their own secularly weapon of philosophical critique.

Therefore, for me philosophy is equally an interest as well as a weapon.  That’s why I read philosophy. ” 

I would be ashamed to utter such a sentiment.  I replied:

“Philosophy means ‘love of wisdom’.  What you’re describing is the opposite.”


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Closed-Mindedness Summed Up In Few Words (Picture Fixed).

  1. Can’t see the “above cartoon.” Who uttered this quote?

  2. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – The picture loads fine for me.  And I’d rather not say who the quote is from, I’m not trying to harass anyone.

  3. TheBillion says:

    Can’t see the cartoon either :-What a horrible reason to study anything. And those metaphors are disconcertingly violent.

  4. This person is not studying philosophy. To do so, one must look without seeking. A goal – least of all one so spiteful – is sure to corrupt any knowledge one might inadvertently be exposed to. 

  5. jmallory says:

    May I ask how this person was describing the opposite?

  6. agnophilo says:

    @GodlessLiberal – Fixed the picture.@TheBillion – I agree.@Tokillthepanther – True dat.  Reminds me of the tao, “Can you love people and lead them without forcing your will on them?”

  7. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – That his position is right is a foregone conclusion.  A philosopher looks for wisdom and knowledge and understanding everywhere, he or she doesn’t lash out at anyone who doesn’t agree with his/her views.  A wise man enters a debate with the attitude of being equally pleased at their position being refuted as with the other person agreeing with it, because the goal is truth, knowledge, and understanding – not ego-stroking, chest-thumping bullshit which just gets in the way.

  8. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – If you love wisdom, in other words – you actually seek it.  I am a collector of ideas, and have amassed a large collection of beautiful, profound and useful notions from every philosophy I have been exposed to – including christianity.  I even have christian music in my playlist.  That is the attitude of philosophy.

  9. jmallory says:

    @agnophilo – Ok… I see your point.. especially concerning the idea that a philosopher doesn’t lash out at conflicting points of view. I would say though, that philosophy, although a love of wisdom, does not have to exclude a conclusion. In his case, maybe he came to the philosophical conclusion that the path of Christ is indeed the “right” path, as I have.But, after rereading your post though, I think I missed the point. I see he is not a student of philosophy for the sake of loving knowledge, but a student of philosophy to use knowledge as a weapon.

  10. YouToMe says:

    I agree. Using philosophy as weapon not good. Sounds very proud. One should seek without corruption.

  11. Totally wrong reason to study philosophy. All religions and paths have something to offer, as do all secular views. A better end goal of philosophy would be to better one’s self, not to attack one’s enemies.

  12. heckels says:

    I always find it funny that overly religious people always say that we Atheists are arrogant, egotistical and close minded. Yet, they pass off their God as fact and they refuse to even consider any other religious view points. And at the same time, they literally go door to door to try to shove their beliefs down others throats. I write this as Cake’s wonder Sheep Go to Heaven plays.

  13. liquor90 says:

    It really is fun for me to argue for God though. I reach all across the table for my wild claims. I argue in that way because I consider debate about God between opposing viewpoints like atheists and Christians to be pointless. I don’t take myself very seriously.

  14. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – Yuppers.  Though I don’t think the idea of “faith” is philosophically sound, whatever worldview you point it at.@estadquietos – Yup : )@prettynpink628 – I agree.@heckels – Heh, yeah I love when the perfect song happens to be playing.  And to be fair atheists have done that too – I am reminded of the ending of religulous where bill maher is criticizing religions for arrogance or something and he has the most condescending look on his face, lol.  Though he seems generally reasonable, but whatever.@liquor90 – I’m not sure what you mean.

  15. jmallory says:

    @agnophilo – I think “faith” is philosophically sound- that’s why it’s got it’s own category in the realm of metaphysics, specifically theodicy. It is even a topic in “ontology”… However, if you are talking strictly about epistemology, you might be correct. But it does depend on one’s worldview.

  16. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – Something has to exist to be categorized, not be rational.  Faith is just believing something for no good reason – or as mark twain put it, “faith is believing something you know ain’t true”.  Philosophy is pursuit of wisdom, faith is  saying “I’m gonna believe this whether or not it’s correct or wise.”

  17. jmallory says:

    @agnophilo – There is much wisdom in faith. Again, it all depends on worldview, but faith is well within the bounds of philosophy. To make a claim that faith is “believing in something for no good reason” isn’t philosophical at all, nor is it wise. In the realm of philosophy, nothing is sacred, but everything is permitted. 

  18. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – “There is much wisdom in faith.” No, you take that on faith.  Which is why you give no argument or reasoning to back it up.”Again, it all depends on worldview, but faith is well within the bounds of philosophy.” It really isn’t.  Philosophy can deal with religious questions, but just believing is a waste of time if you’re seeking truth.”To make a claim that faith is “believing in something for no good reason” isn’t philosophical at all, nor is it wise.” Spoken like a true person of faith.  No argument, no reason, no logic, just a dogmatic assertion of fact.  Faith is belief without evidence.  How is that not believing something without a good reason?  To me beliefs are an attempt to find reality, not a way to distort reality to control one’s emotional state.”In the realm of philosophy, nothing is sacred, but everything is permitted.”Arbitrary bullshit is generally frowned upon.  Philosophy is self-critical, saying “This is true because it’s true” is not philosophy.

  19. jmallory says:

    @agnophilo – I do take that comment on faith… and it’s ok that I do because I’ve come to a philosophical conclusion that there is much more to the world around me than what I can see and what can be tested. By definition, metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) is outside of the physical world. If it is outside the physical world, it does not have follow the same laws our physical world follows. I’m no apologist, but I don’t buy into the “faith is a waste of time” bull crap. No offense. I agree that “just believing” is a waste of time if you are searching for truth. I searched for truth. I’ve come up with enough evidence to believe in a God. I don’t “just believe”. I’ve done my research, and I am no man to be wasting my time (getting in these petty arguments on Xanga seems to be an exception, although, I hate that too!) Faith doesn’t say, “just believe!” In the case of Christianity, we are called to test, to discern, to know our history, etc… We don’t “just believe”… well, many of us do, but I don’t. I’m no Mormon. You are right when you say “Saying that ‘this is true because it’s true’ isn’t philosophy.” No where did I ever say that either. Again, I’m no Mormon.

  20. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – So tell me, how do you have evidence of things that cannot be observed or tested in any way?  You are literally saying you have good evidence in support of things that evidence can’t possibly support.

  21. jmallory says:

    @agnophilo – Perhaps my wording was a bit off. What I mean is, the spiritual impact of things can be witnessed, but you can’t prove that it was God whose behind it. The reason is, God is spirit. He can’t be seen, only witnessed. 

  22. agnophilo says:

    @jmallory – This is gibberish to me.  God can’t be seen but he can be witnessed?  What you’re talking about is reading things into events based on assumptions about how the world operates.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s