PhilosophyGround >> Philosophy of Racism
|Add To Favorites | Share | Email | Subscribe | Edit Thread Title | Admin | Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs|
|4/11/08 12:56 AM|
Edited: Apr 11 2008 12:00A
Member Since: 6/14/02
Beliefs are not neccessarily true. That's why they need faith generally. My point is that once we are adults I think we're obliged to examine our beliefs with our rational adult minds and if they don't bear scrutiny, then take the punlishment, endure the pain and undo it.
So in this application, Race as a belief would suggest that a responsible, adult course of action is to:
- acknowledge it as a belief and
- ask yourself, "what is that based on," especailly as the consequences are discrimination,
- facing and taking responsibility for pain caused by living out unthought-through, bigotted actions in the past (which is not possible for some people). (It was suggested to me that racists' inability to face the pain they casue is the reason why they keep their racist beliefs.)
... hope this is a bit clearer.
I like the idea that people are hard-wired with beliefs. That conveys how seriously implanted irrational beliefs are, how difficult they are to challenge or get perspective on. I'd challenge you on when these beliefs become hard-wired though. If we were born this way then there would be no possibility of anyone being unracist. However, thought, meaning what we choose to think about, is a voluntary function. We are not vicitms of our feelings or born to be compulsed to think particular ideas. The choice is yours once you realise it. The painful part is doing it, taking up and using the power to choose what you think.
"Science tends to favor the later." This reads as an unsubstantiated throw away line. The implications would seem to be that we have no choice in what we think, feel or believe but rather, science chooses for us. Obviously some of us choose to think and consequently believe and feel otherwise.
Calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact. To be a fact and thing needs proofs. That's what I mean by where it falls over. Asserting that something is a fact by calling it a sociobiological fact while offering no proofs is to make a groundless assertion. Because it is groundless it cannot stand up. It thence falls over.
The way you use the term, "molded," is another good example of the difference between our arguements. Again I argue that we aren't vicitms or controls by our feelings, long-held beliefs or history. Sure if we choose not to choose and just be buffeted along by chance happenings then environment has a bigger impact on us then if we choose to act on our power to make choices for our own outcomes. You have ignored this user.
You have ignored this user.
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.