Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
There seems to be a ring of truth to what you say. At least that's, as the judge in the baker/gays case put it, at first blush. The problem with your being saddened is that it is not just SOME people who can't think for themselves, MOST can't. And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us. In an uncertain, relative world there is nothing substantial to think about except in relation to something else. In such a world you cannot "think for yourself." You can only perceive through points of view. And those may be endless. And, in the end, they all amount to nothing more than imaginary thoughts. So, even in such a world, for our simple finite minds, we need a guidebook. The question, then, is how do we accommodate such a diversity of perceptions? Should the guidebook be dictated by a regime of thinkers we perceive to be experts on what and how we should think? Should we resolve the uncertainty by submitting to being cast into a one-size-fits-all mold? Or can we accommodate our massive spectrum of differences in such a way that we can all agree (whatever agree means in a relative world) to exist in some form of free harmony which allows our unique perspectives to flourish? Is there room in such a world for different religious perspectives, and atheistic perspectives, and agnostic perspectives, of mystical or artistic perspectives, of strictly rational scientific perspectives? Or must all but one be stamped out for the sake of creating a world which makes us secure against our ultimate ignorance?
Hey, the Founders had an idea. Just a thought. It was a friendly and imaginative guidebook.