ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 14:16 (5533 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: "The really good question ... the hard question is "how to separate conclusions based on predisposition and which ones on evidence?" Here I must take a firm stance: It is not possible to accept an inferential conclusion without the predisposition that sits behind it."
> 
> For me this simply boils down to saying that whenever we have a choice, our process of decision-making will be inseparable from our character, and I don't see that anyone can argue with that. As far as I'm concerned, the really good question ... the hard question ... is the extent to which our character or our predisposition is within our own control. It's the same theme as identity and free will. If what constitutes my identity is a mixture of heredity, environment and experience, what exactly is the "me" that weighs up the evidence and comes down on one side or the other ... or plonks itself in the middle?
> 
> George, to take an example, says he has no "philosophical predisposition" towards atheism, but is an atheist because that is how he evaluates the evidence. Of course he's not going against his own character, and I'm sure he's comfortable with the decision. I suspect that he also thinks he is in control of the processes that have led to the decision. So what part of the self has directed his brain cells to come up with it? What, in short, is the essential "George" that conducts such intellectual operations? And can its predispositions not be changed by new experiences? Supposing he hitchhikes along the road to Damascus and has a vision, might he not take a new decision that runs contrary to his existing predisposition? How do we know what potential dispositions are inside us until experience brings them out? I must stress that none of this is an argument against your own. I'm simply trying to delve a little deeper in order to find out what constitutes the nature of the predisposition that underlies our decision-making, and I'm asking whether we do or do not have at least a degree of control over the decision-making process. 
> -You ask some very advanced philosophical questions here. How does one know "the thing in itself" without negating the subject or the object? How do I know that it is I who thinks, especially when the thoughts come unbidden and typically of their own free will, not my own? I wish I could say that the state of these questions has advanced since the 1800s. Is free will faith-based?-
> On a different subject, I had put to you the speculative concept of a God that has made us in his image, in the sense that we reflect his own mental/emotional/intellectual makeup (though on a vastly reduced scale). You say that the fiery Teuton in you dislikes "the concept of a God you cannot fear...and I couldn't fear such a creature." You have obviously never lived under a dictatorship. Perhaps the fiery Teuton in you could imagine itself as a Jew in Nazi Germany, and then imagine a dictator God that has created humans in its own image. Don't tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you!-It is clear that I sent you down the wrong path here...-The more "human-like" you make your god, the less mystical and more concrete it becomes. If its like a human, it is something that I not only can understand, but something I can also destroy pieces of. If it is something I can understand, the less mysterious its nature. If it is something I can destroy the less fear I can have towards the thing. -Knowing what I know about man, if we are created in God's image and God truly does have the power to create and destroy life, than there is no way that this God couldn't be a dictator, his presence known and felt, shackles around our feet. Looking into a mirror is like looking past yourself and into the eyes of God in this sense. I could only fear this God if I feared myself, if I didn't know my own 'soul' and its deepest depths as well as its soaring highs. Obviously, we are not in shackles; God's presence if he exists isn't one of we being shackled and therefore isn't explicit. That means that at the worst, God does not care about us at all, but he also doesn't care about us too much... or we'd have shackles of the padded and pillowed variety.-There is nothing to fear in this God.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"