‘righteousness itself is divisive’.

[_Z_]

thomas, hail

Yes, it separates the just from the unjust.

1. that is to take the whole person and their entire life/lives and call them unjust upon a given action or set of actions. it is not to look at the causes of such actions.
2. it is to not give them the chance to change.
3. it is to blame the born innocent individual for the environment.

OK. But many kinds signifies one ontology ... this does not infer that truth as such does not exist, nor that Truth does not exist, only that people are fallible. Nor have you demonstrated that everyone is wrong

.

everyone is neither right nor wrong, they are comparative positions. the truth is naked it cannot be extrapolated from itself and given to a second party, it is in doing so that we divide our paths. this is the essence of why there are so many versions of ‘the truth’.

the thread meaning is also concerned with the ‘effect’ of both truth [even if so], self righteousness and demonisation ~ the duality of.
The same with scientific theory ... else it would never have moved on.
so the truth moves on ~ it didn’t stay in the time of jesus? science is a way of describing the describable yet it to remain only partially as the truth. it is a good example of why truth changes but never settles.

There are two witnesses to an event ... and no doubt their testimonies will not concur on every point ... but an event did happen, and it is possible that one of the witnesses is absolutely right in every detail.

they can be right on the holistic level or in a vague description, yet the further we look the more we find other truths, then ultimately we find there are no absolute truths ~ because nothing can be observed to the absolute. in this ‘truth’ about the universe can we not see something of its ultimate wisdom. ...and in monotheistic terms the wisdom of god?

There are other orders of truth not governed by empirical methodology.

indeed! yet no order of absolute or ultimate truth, if for no other reason than it is to fine/subtle/profound.simple to be described by words or symbols nor idols.

It can have the right meaning, according to the originator of the idea

i disagree, there is no originator! it has to be extracted from its source or as is usual it follows a train of thoughts and ideas all of which are equally vague references to a given exponation of truth.

but you have not proven, and cannot prove, that everyone in receipt of the idea is wrong, according to the idea

ok let us do an experiment; say an idea that is true [or that is not true]. ideas are by nature non specific pertaining only to examples of the given which itself is tangental to itf primary source. the whole thing goes around in a kind of circle.

Furthermore, you cannot possibly make that statement, because you own idea is possibly erroneous, by your own argument.

it is a philosophical notion explaining why that is so, it isn’t ‘the truth’ or gods truth nor an empirical truth.

Straw man argument. Ad hominem, etc.

here i am talking about self righteousness as we all ordinarily know it, it is not the knowing of truth but the belief and the ego of that which causes problems. would christ believe in religious wars? no because it is wrong to kill, thus people who give reason for such things or demonise others for being different are being self rightious ...not righteous!

I have heard many scientists laughingly complain that the one thing that refuses to observe empirical method or measure is their own inspiration.

good point.

Such as scientists who insist they are the arbiters of all truth. Prof. Dawkins, for example. Personally, I think secular fundamentalism is the worst and most insidious sort.

another good point. i wouldn’t say it is worse, i would say it suffers the same flaw as posited by the meaning of the thread title.

BTW — Aristotle, Aquinas would not agree — and they have not been ‘disproved’. If you want a current model, Bernard Lonergan’s General Empirical Method, and Congitive theory, etc., disagree with your line of reasoning, I think.

if they don’t then they are wrong, if we examined their reasoning i am sure we could show as to why. examples for the uneducated? [happily so ]

Generally I think I am not far off the mark if I describe your theory as within the philosophy of AngloAmerican Analytical? I favour the Continental modes ... Murleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, Derrida ...

i don’t know to be honest, i also don’t think we can categorise things so? i get this kind of thing on philosophy forums, they are always sticking labels on everything.

thank you thomas for an informative and intersting reply.

 

[cyberpi]

Would it, or would the fact that you stod there and claimed to be right and Z to be wrong proof that he was right?

A man and a woman are physically different... agree? Does being the same unite, and being different thus divide? When are a man and a woman united or divided? Marriage? Divorce? Does ignorance of each other unite and knowledge of each other divide?

If a man says to his woman, "This is right, that is wrong", and the woman conversely says to her man, "That is right, this is wrong"... does it mean they are divided? If anything they are more united. One or the other might be right or wrong, but until each said something then neither of them knew the other. How do you divide what is not yet united? In the ignorance of their differences they were still divided... in knowing their differences they were united. Whether right or wrong, knowing a difference unites. Or... do you still think women are identical to men?

 

[_Z_]

A man and a woman are physically different... agree?

no they are the same except for the sexually derived differences. only a 'part' [or so] is different.

i think women are very similar to men, all the differences are very much on the surface, they are not distinct entities. it is truer to say that there is humans, then that in the main they are male or female which affects their behaviourisms, added to which are societal conditioning. all in all apart from talking more women are very similar to men.

 

[cyberpi]

no they are the same except for the sexually derived differences. only a 'part' [or so] is different.

i think women are very similar to men, all the differences are very much on the surface, they are not distinct entities. it is truer to say that there is humans, then that in the main they are male or female which affects their behaviourisms, added to which are societal conditioning. all in all apart from talking more women are very similar to men.

Yet I chose someone from a different sex to be united and have children with.

Every single person is different... even the twins and triplets. Two cars of the same make and model are different. Two computers from the same factory are different. Two installations of the exact same software on the exact same computer are different. Every single particle and every collection of particles is unique and different. It is good to learn the differences... it unites. Learning differences brings a symmetry. It is your choice whether to be united or divided over a difference.

 

[_Z_]

different is not the same as separate!

 

[cyberpi]

different is not the same as separate!

Hence why righteousness is NOT itself divisive or dividing. Differences exist whether or not a person knows them or shares them, and whether or not a person separates or divides by them, and whether or not a person can choose to alter them.

 

[_Z_]

why ‘hence...’? believing you are right and others are wrong is divisive its that simple at the crux of the matter. we can and do create differences moreover we enhance the differences that are already there ...hence people still demonise and still go to war over differences rather than understand them. its all jungian really.

 

[cyberpi]

why ‘hence...’? believing you are right and others are wrong is divisive its that simple at the crux of the matter. we can and do create differences moreover we enhance the differences that are already there ...hence people still demonise and still go to war over differences rather than understand them. its all jungian really.

Why do you say 'WE'? Since I know some other people who are different from me, and think independently, with a different body and a different life, I recognize that I can not and nor do I even want to speak for others or their beliefs. Individuals have their own soul and body. So I am not going to make the error of false assumption by thinking and using the word 'WE'. You are applying your own generalizations across every individual... and that is an error. Unless you have met and known every individual, you can not truthfully speak for them... can you? If you want to speak for what another person thinks or will do... you might want to first talk to them. I submit the error of 'WE' leads to wars. 'WE the people' is a SHAM. A lack of communication and relationship allows division to further itself. A lack of shared righteousness (or even wrongness), leads to division.

Believing that I am right and others are wrong, or vice-versa, does not cause me to create differences or to enhance differences. I can choose to entertain both a similarity and a difference with someone and to then do something the same or to do something entirely different. My choice. Until I know the other person though it is a coincidence if 'we' do anything similar or differently. Therefore any presumption that I am causing or am caused by someone to do something different, or to become separated, or to become divided... is false. I have a soul. I have a choice. I am not in your 'WE'... I do not think the same, and I question just how many individuals think they belong to your 'WE'.

The individuals I have expressed the most amount of differences with, and similarities, often for both what is righteous and for what is wrong, or good and bad, and other personal likes and dislikes, etc... are my closest family... the parents, a wife, children,... none of which are separated or divorced. All of which disagree on something. Each of which are unique individuals with differing talents and personality. None of which are demonized or at war with each other.