Thinking for one’s self?

[fhansen]

'zactly.

Think of an engineer building a bridge who does not kneel to mathematical and physical truths.

What is Truth is that which coincides with reality.

:yup:

Probably not. :nope:

Your “therefore” is a non-sequitur, D_Martin.

We as human creatures have not been given the right to “judge for one’s self what is good and what is evil.” That is above our pay grade. The task we have been given is to discern what’s already been judged as good and evil by God.

This is true-and/but it still requires thinking for ourselves to get even there! Adam thought for himself, and, based on a wrongly directed will, whether due to foolishness, lack of wisdom, weakness, etc, he chose wrongly. We’re now, with the benefit of time, experience (the knowledge of good and evil), revelation, and grace, to think for ourselves to the tune of willing rightly, turning from evil fully towards the good, God, himself, having come to recognize the supreme perfection of His will.

 

[PRmerger]

This is true-and/but it still requires thinking for ourselves to get even there! Adam thought for himself, and, based on a wrongly directed will, whether due to foolishness, lack of wisdom, weakness, etc, he chose wrongly. We’re now, with the benefit of time, experience (the knowledge of good and evil), revelation, and grace, to think for ourselves to the tune of willing rightly, turning from evil fully towards the good, God, himself, having come to recognize the supreme perfection of His will.

If we “think for ourselves” and decide: the truth is but I am going to think for myself and decide that I want to state that is true, then we will be creating an illusory reality.

I don’t advise that.
If we “think for ourselves” and come to the conclusion: the truth is therefore I believe it, then our reality will be quite satisfactory.

 

[fhansen]

If we “think for ourselves” and decide: the truth is but I am going to think for myself and decide that I want to state that is true, then we will be creating an illusory reality.

I don’t advise that.
If we “think for ourselves” and come to the conclusion: the truth is therefore I believe it, then our reality will be quite satisfactory.

You are correct there PRmerger

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct there PRmerger

 

[jimmy]

You are awesome prmerger.:bowdown: (had to contribute while thinking for myself.)

 

[PRmerger]

You are awesome prmerger.:bowdown: (had to contribute while thinking for myself.)

Clearly, I am all for opinions of me that are lofty and elevated!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Could thinking for one’s self be over rated? Truthfully, thinking for one’s self would only qualify in the self justification of one’s self, in the presence of one’s self. As in what we think is only justified by ourselves, and no one else, unless of corse some one else agrees to think the same.

(Hope that was said clearly)

My definition of ‘self’ is reflective consciousness. The self, I maintain, is a sort of illusion. Think twice before listening to you ‘self,’ the same way you cautiously listen to inner voices.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My definition of ‘self’ is reflective consciousness. The self, I maintain, is a sort of illusion. Think twice before listening to you ‘self,’ the same way you cautiously listen to inner voices.

Then who is your real self? The one doing the listening, the one being cautious, the voice doing the bidding or the one making the final choice?

Some are of the opinion (Peter Kreeft, I think, being one) that the “self” is not so much an illusion but more a malleable or “fluxable” entity that we are in the process of making through our choices and actions.

He has some interesting things to say about identity in this talk:
peterkreeft.com/audio/30_lotr_identity.htm

 

[D_Martin]

Then who is your real self? The one doing the listening, the one being cautious, the voice doing the bidding or the one making the final choice?

Some are of the opinion (Peter Kreeft, I think, being one) that the “self” is not so much an illusion but more a malleable or “fluxable” entity that we are in the process of making through our choices and actions.

He has some interesting things to say about identity in this talk:
peterkreeft.com/audio/30_lotr_identity.htm

It seems in the schools of philosophy, the “self” is some what sterilized, and lays there like a instrument for dissection. Where as it could be possible that “self” is merely and image or likeness that is ether true based on truth, or delusional based on desire and or denial of the truth. Kind of like a human being is like a deck of cards every card is in the deck, but they are arraigned differently from deck to deck.

The relationships between child and parent breeds a knowledge of self that is some what honest. If one is rased by his biological parent, that person comes to realize that he is just like his parents, and a parent can see himself in his child. It seems that being is one thing, and “self” is an image or likeness that is perceived, which is another.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Then who is your real self? The one doing the listening, the one being cautious, the voice doing the bidding or the one making the final choice?

Some are of the opinion (Peter Kreeft, I think, being one) that the “self” is not so much an illusion but more a malleable or “fluxable” entity that we are in the process of making through our choices and actions.

He has some interesting things to say about identity in this talk:
peterkreeft.com/audio/30_lotr_identity.htm

All that exist within us are voices, with the self the ‘one’ who does all the analyzing. I believe we are spiritual beings and that our inner ‘voices’ come from afar.

 

[Midwest88]

In the way you put it, yes. But I would say that type of mentality is extremely narcissistic and dare I say mentally lazy. The “ends justify the means,” and “do what makes you happy,” is often said by those who think their minds can do no wrong - they’re basically living in an echo chamber of their own voice.