|
|
Post by srijaninja on Jan 1, 2018 10:13:27 GMT
If the interpretation of an idea is not accurate and it leads to greater pathology in the world than originally intended, is it justifiable to criticize or even eradicate the idea or the ones to be criticized are those who misinterpret the idea? If you believe that the latter is at fault, how would you then propose to approach the problem?
|
|
wyattearp
New Member
Posts: 26 
Likes: 14
Ethnicity: West Eurasian
Location: Planet Earth
Taxonomy: Caucasoid
|
Post by wyattearp on Jan 1, 2018 10:15:37 GMT
Depends what kind of Idea if it is extremely harmful and dangerous then eradication of this said idea could be justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 1, 2018 10:22:24 GMT
Personally, I think that before going with an idea that can affect the world one must evaluate the idea first and make sure they understand the idea in full before proceeding. Otherwise it shows the person lacked listening skills and effectively planning to carry out the idea as intended. When one makes that mistake they must work backwards to undo it while still striving for the intended outcome with the original idea. This once again involves careful evaluation and planning before proceeding. Otherwise you create bigger problems not only for yourself but others too.
|
|
wyattearp
New Member
Posts: 26
Likes: 14
Ethnicity: West Eurasian
Location: Planet Earth
Taxonomy: Caucasoid
|
Post by wyattearp on Jan 1, 2018 10:24:07 GMT
Personally, I think that before going with an idea that can affect the world one must evaluate the idea first and make sure they understand the idea in full before proceeding. Otherwise it shows the person lacked listening skills and effectively planning to carry out the idea as intended. When one makes that mistake they must work backwards to undo it while still striving for the intended outcome with the original idea. This once again involves careful evaluation and planning before proceeding. Otherwise you create bigger problems not only for yourself but others too. Excactly. In short form, Think before you act. |
|
marduk
Junior Member
Posts: 83
Likes: 43
Country: India
Location: Pune
Politics: is sophistry so no
Religion: all of them :D
Hero: Carl Jung and Marduk
|
Post by marduk on Jan 1, 2018 18:13:09 GMT
i think people who misinterpret the idea and take the misinterpretation forward without questioning their understanding are functioning to blindly fuel their hypothesis based on biases, i think it comes down to awareness and meta awareness which can be developed by simply questioning all fragments of yourself which are attached to the idea so that the idea can float on an island detached from yourself in full view rather than holding it close and voluntarily blinding us to the side facing us
think before you act yes, also question everything so that the perspective is malleable rather than rigid
|
|
|
|
Post by thebigbado on Jan 7, 2018 23:23:07 GMT
Ideas should be open to critical evaluation but not to ridicule per se. No one is to be held to blame for a bad or misunderstood idea. If human understanding or knowledge is the result of a bad idea or a misinterpreted idea, why criticise anyone or anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 7, 2018 23:53:34 GMT
Ideas should be open to critical evaluation but not to ridicule per se. No one is to be held to blame for a bad or misunderstood idea. If human understanding or knowledge is the result of a bad idea or a misinterpreted idea, why criticise anyone or anything? I agree 100%! |
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jan 8, 2018 0:03:09 GMT
Ideas should be open to critical evaluation but not to ridicule per se. No one is to be held to blame for a bad or misunderstood idea. If human understanding or knowledge is the result of a bad idea or a misinterpreted idea, why criticise anyone or anything? I agree 100%! I think everyone has the right to make a mistake! But if a person is not right, he needs to clearly indicate clearly so that he realizes his mistake! |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 9:26:16 GMT
Personally, I think that before going with an idea that can affect the world one must evaluate the idea first and make sure they understand the idea in full before proceeding. Otherwise it shows the person lacked listening skills and effectively planning to carry out the idea as intended. When one makes that mistake they must work backwards to undo it while still striving for the intended outcome with the original idea. This once again involves careful evaluation and planning before proceeding. Otherwise you create bigger problems not only for yourself but others too. And most of all it is strongly necessary to do it such way. All people must be agreed about the idea. If there is some disagreements, we should start 'nother rounds of searchings. Like in boxing - there might be many rounds but once time discussion will be finished. Too pity, though, there's many unborn people yet. They're not asked. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 10:26:10 GMT
//If the interpretation of an idea is not accurate and it leads to greater pathology in the world than originally intended, i//
if your idea is just from the imagination of your mind, then it is totally wrong.
There should be some framework for epistemology and it must be quoted.
I guess you are from India.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 10:15:11 GMT
If the interpretation of an idea is not accurate and it leads to greater pathology in the world than originally intended, is it justifiable to criticize or even eradicate the idea or the ones to be criticized are those who misinterpret the idea? If you believe that the latter is at fault, how would you then propose to approach the problem? I think this problem is not just in interpretation, but rather in identification. With whom someone identifies himself? With Lenin, Napoleon, Bush or maybe J. E. Hoever? So, the question is whose mask the idea proclamator wears? |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 11, 2018 0:18:13 GMT
Eradicating ideas is censorship, so no. But any nontrivial idea will be misinterpreted because people are generally stupid. Logical criticism of any kind is useless. The solution is a sound religion to tell average people what to believe.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 7:33:17 GMT
Eradicating ideas is censorship, so no. But any nontrivial idea will be misinterpreted because people are generally stupid. Logical criticism of any kind is useless. The solution is a sound religion to tell average people what to believe. But to claiming that people are stupud and logical criticism are useless you require being sure that your statement about it is true. But how can you do it being in presumption of entirely wrongless of any statements of human? Here's a paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 11, 2018 8:46:32 GMT
Eradicating ideas is censorship, so no. But any nontrivial idea will be misinterpreted because people are generally stupid. Logical criticism of any kind is useless. The solution is a sound religion to tell average people what to believe. But to claiming that people are stupud and logical criticism are useless you require being sure that your statement about it is true. But how can you do it being in presumption of entirely wrongless of any statements of human? Here's a paradox. As a skeptic, I am not sure of anything. All I can do is make an educated guess, the key word here being "educated". So for example when I see Muhammad turn a small group of dysfunctional arabs into a world-conquering army, I am impressed. The Quran has almost no logic, it simply tells people what to do. And that is what works. How do I judge ideas? I judge them based on their historical record. Those ideas that produce good results, I support. I don't care if the ideas are true. As for me being being human, I think everyone who knows me would agree that I am a freak. Even my mother called me inhuman to which I replied "thank you". |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 8:53:44 GMT
But to claiming that people are stupud and logical criticism are useless you require being sure that your statement about it is true. But how can you do it being in presumption of entirely wrongless of any statements of human? Here's a paradox. As a skeptic, I am not sure of anything. All I can do is make an educated guess, the key word here being "educated". So for example when I see Muhammad turn a small group of dysfunctional arabs into a world-conquering army, I am impressed. The Quran has almost no logic, it simply tells people what to do. And that is what works. How do I judge ideas? I judge them based on their historical record. Those ideas that produce good results, I support. I don't care if the ideas are true. As for me being being human, I think everyone who knows me would agree that I am a freak. Even my mother called me inhuman to which I replied "thank you". I don't think you're freak and I respect your methods of making results based on history not on abstractions. But as a logician I usually pay attention to kind of structures. So, I think we are different and it is good.  |
|
