So today I found out my dad is chaos aligned.

#51IlluminaZer0Posted 1/27/2013 12:28:33 AM
Horsemanwar 2000 posted...
The biggest flaw in all religious and philosophical debate including SMT is that they always take a very extreme polarized view. There is no room for all the differences in interpretation...

When meaning is so fluid as to be so open to "differences in interpretation," the ambiguity renders all following discussion meaningless. I find the "differences of interpretation" when it comes to religion; especially when it comes to differing time periods, more than a little odd.

I find the most constructive discussions to me are those without ambiguity. In the context of philosophy: Concise principles. I think if anything, there is too much of a desire to compromise principles for the sake of personal convenience. All too often those that are "extreme" are simply those that are making an effort at being consistently principled.

Any instructive material that spawns so many "differences in interpretation" seems inherently flawed. If the reference material is not instructive in nature, why treat it as such?
---
Official claimant of Mem Aleph for the theoretic cause of promoting Shin Megami Tensei IV of the 3DS.
#52KittenLinaPosted 1/27/2013 12:51:55 AM
My mom wants to watch the world burn. I am less inclined to want to see that happen.
---
Currently playing: Runescape, BL 2 (PS3), BO2 (PS3), Diablo III, SH, BoM (Vita)
The Official Succubus of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board.
#53Dark_EpathyPosted 1/27/2013 9:49:31 AM
Any instructive material that spawns so many "differences in interpretation" seems inherently flawed. If the reference material is not instructive in nature, why treat it as such?

In that case, any instructive document is probably flawed on some level. We all bring different ideas to a text when we read it, and we all probably tweak things we read or skip steps when following instructions. Even something as supposedly highly authoritative as the Bible--which isn't even consistent, because, like you said, it's not entirely meant to be instructive--can be interpreted differently based on experience and context. Not to mention it's over a thousand years old and written and redacted by multiple authors, and we're still trying to extrapolate it to fit modern issues.

It's a different story when everyone in a society is raised, from birth, to believe in one version of a law and nothing else. But that's not the work of the law so much as it is the work of the lawmaker. It was a lot easier to control the masses when they were illiterate, after all. : P
---
~@_@~
Why are you people so hung up on what's canon or not? - freakazaa
#54BlueSophiaPosted 1/27/2013 10:25:54 AM
Dark_Epathy posted...
Any instructive material that spawns so many "differences in interpretation" seems inherently flawed. If the reference material is not instructive in nature, why treat it as such?

In that case, any instructive document is probably flawed on some level. We all bring different ideas to a text when we read it, and we all probably tweak things we read or skip steps when following instructions. Even something as supposedly highly authoritative as the Bible--which isn't even consistent, because, like you said, it's not entirely meant to be instructive--can be interpreted differently based on experience and context. Not to mention it's over a thousand years old and written and redacted by multiple authors, and we're still trying to extrapolate it to fit modern issues.

It's a different story when everyone in a society is raised, from birth, to believe in one version of a law and nothing else. But that's not the work of the law so much as it is the work of the lawmaker. It was a lot easier to control the masses when they were illiterate, after all. : P


It is when the philosophies are designed with extraneous detail. Times change and in that sense, so do the validity of those codes. When you create a philosophy, they should always be ready to stand against the tests of time. For those with such weak links to hold it together, the more biased they become when they need to defend it.
---
The official Ardha of the SMT IV board.
So much sodium against the WiiU!
#55IlluminaZer0Posted 1/27/2013 3:24:24 PM
Dark_Epathy posted...
In that case, any instructive document is probably flawed on some level. We all bring different ideas to a text when we read it, and we all probably tweak things we read or skip steps when following instructions.

If you bring interpretation into math such that you reach differing conclusions you generally fail. Would you trust an engineer to build a bridge if he had personally resolved that 2+2 does not in fact equal 4?

BlueSophia posted...
It is when the philosophies are designed with extraneous detail. Times change and in that sense, so do the validity of those codes. When you create a philosophy, they should always be ready to stand against the tests of time. For those with such weak links to hold it together, the more biased they become when they need to defend it.

The weak links should just make fallacies clear. If it's false it should be discarded.

Personal bias has no bearing on how "weak" or "strong" an idea is. It has more to do with how they identify with such ideas. In other words: They aren't really defending the idea but their ego. Someone identifying with a strong idea can be just as bias as those identifying with the weak.
---
Official claimant of Mem Aleph for the theoretic cause of promoting Shin Megami Tensei IV of the 3DS.