Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Beliefs are born of emotions rather than knowledge

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Beliefs are born of emotions rather than knowledge

    Hi,

    I came across this audio clip from hypnosisdownloads.com:

    http://hypnosisdownloads.com/insight...Insight-22.mp3

    The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge. Thought some references recall Socionics.

    A slightly long piece.
    Last edited by AQ; 11-25-2008 at 05:56 PM.
    NiTe

    The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AQ View Post
    The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge.
    Now quickly thinked; Yeah, or using emotions to fill the gaps in knowledge.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  3. #3
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Belief" and "Knowledge" are far from being synonimous. In fact, belief is often a substitute of knowledge (when the latter either is unuseable, or disliked by the subject) rather than a byproduct of it; the most common example is belief in God by religious people.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I disagree.
    Belief doesn't occur without knowledge; but false belief is when knowledge is incorrectly applied.
    For example, asserting an archetype of the unconscious as an entity which exists in reality.
    The belief springs from the knowledge of a structure in the unconscious, but is incorrectly applied to reality.
    Therefor the belief gives the illusion of not being based on knowledge; but what is really happening, is it's based on data of a different realm.
    Otherwise, I can't imagine a way of explaining how people accept the belief in the first place, with nothing to compare it to; and i can't see any mechanism which would keep the belief enduring and render it resistant to argument

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My thoughts on the archetypes, is they are fundamental forms of logic; and the ways in which we interpret them grant them a certain mysticism which Jung got far too caught up in. But this mysticism is secondary to the formal logic of the archetype. And contained within everyone, is the potential for comprehending formal logic.
    Of what I am attempting to suggest, God is a good example. My argument would be it's an awareness of the potential for the most ideal form. This ideal form exists as an abstraction within our minds. The mistake is when we try and apply this knowledge wrongly, saying 'he' exists in 'reality'.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fundamental difference between our positions is you're separating objects from formal logic. I am thinking formal logic is shown fourth through an object, and defines an object

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •