An introduction worth reading

[Demitri]

[Edit added: I have no idea what the block of html stuff is at the top or how to get rid of it. It sure is annoying tho.]


Hello FDR forums!



I figured my first post should be an introduction, so here goes.



I'm a 30-something polymath with multiple degrees and
certifications in various fields (see my profile for the "short
list").

I was unschooled in my teens, and have been a philosopher (one
who seeks universal truths thru logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence) for
as long as I can remember.



I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but left them at age 16 to study
every other religion I could; including but not limited to: Catholicism,
various branches of Christianity, Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Judaism, the
main branches of Islam, Hindu, and Wicca.



For about 13 years I actively sought the answer to the question, "Why
do people believe the things they do?"

After arriving at the answer of, "People believe what they are taught to
believe, what they want to believe, or what they fear might be true."
I discontinued my search, and focused on other areas of life.



I would like to share my definition
of a "stupid person" (aka: sheeple): An otherwise
intelligent person who, when presented with evidence (defined as: empirical
evidence and/or sound, rational logic) that is contrary to their current belief(s),
chooses to be willfully ignorant and dismisses or denies the evidence instead
of presenting counter evidence of their own which supports their belief(s).



I enjoy debate, but will not debate with someone who opts to fit the criteria
of a "stupid person"; it is pointless to do so.



My core belief is the foundational belief upon which all my other beliefs
are based; in turn, it is based on a universal truth (defined as:
non-subjective truth which anyone and everyone must agree unless they are
mentally deficient, and thereby unable to do so.) Here is how these are for me:



Universal Truth: No-one knows everything, therefore it is impossible
for me to know everything.

A ludicrous argument against this universal truth has sometimes been said to
me: "God knows everything."

My reply to this ludicrous argument has always been, "Perhaps your God
knows everything; but as I am not your God, I can still conclude that it is
impossible for me to know everything."



My Core Belief: Everything I know, understand, experience, and
believe to be true is subject to being updated (thru change, addition, or
discarding) upon encountering new and clarifying evidence presented in a
logical and rational manner.



Because my core belief does not assume that I know the totality of anything
which I think I know, I do not cling to beliefs and ideas due to emotion, or
loyalty, or anything of the sort (as I have noticed most religious people I
have encountered have a penchant to do).



This brings me to two things which irritate me, and deserve to be mentioned as
part of my introduction. I bring these up because it isn't my intention to
irritate someone I discuss and debate with; and I assume it is not their
intention either:



My first irritation: Occasionally, people seem to think that being older
than I am automatically means they know or have experienced more in life than I
have. Upon challenging this assumption (when I have encountered it and
challenged it) I have proven time and again the falsity of this idea.



Chronological time does not impart more knowledge, comprehension, or
understanding of life or anything in it. The exception to this is if one is
constantly subjected to new knowledge, makes an effort to comprehend it, and
allows themselves to understand, change, and grow from it. People who believe
in the "I know more because I am older" credo think these things
happen by some sort of default. They do not (if anyone would like to hear my
reasons on this, I welcome the discussion).



I enjoy discussing various topics with those know more than I do; in fact it's
one of my favorite ways to learn new things. However, chronological age alone
is not valid evidence to assume superior knowledge, comprehension, or
understanding; but chronological time spent learning and doing a particular
trade or thing might.



My second irritation: Occasionally, people seem to think that if I do
not change an unshared opinion to agree with theirs, it is because I am
emotionally married to my belief, or because I lack understanding or
comprehension of the topic. Much of the time, this cannot be further from the
truth. My core belief is outlined above, which is contrary to emotional or
loyalty-based attachment to my beliefs. So to claim that I am emotionally
bonded to any belief is to call me a liar concerning my core belief.



As far as comprehension, I could talk about my IQ or give many examples to
support my abilities to comprehend what I am presented with. Somehow, others
who tread on this irritation either don't believe me or they get upset when I
prove that I comprehend everything they present but still haven't changed my
opinions to reflect theirs.



As far as understanding goes, there are many, many things I do not understand.
When confronted with a lack of understanding, my default is to ask questions
and seek logical and rational answers that can help clarify my understanding.
This is not always welcome when my clarification-seeking questions end up
questioning circular logic which displays a lack of reasoning; and is then usually
answered with some form of "you just need to have faith", meaning I
am expected to believe something purely because someone said to believe it
(many times in direct opposition to available evidence).



So for an introduction, I hope it was an easy read.

I look forward to any and all comments, questions, and true criticisms.



Cheers!

~Demitri

[Jose Perez]

Hey Dimitri, I enjoyed reading your intro. Interesting background!

What makes you think that other people do not adhere - or think they adhere - to your core belief? I don't think they are calling you a liar. Calling you a liar would mean that they think you are aware of the reasons they are "right", but choose not to acknowledge them; I'd say that they are just calling you ignorant or crazy, as is usually the case. Don't you think? A corollary of this would be that they are the ones who are ignorant, crazy, unconscious, defensive... so how do you justify your irritation as a rational response?

What brought you to FDR? 

[Demitri]

Hey Joseito,

Thanks for the questions! To stay clear concerning which part I am addressing, I'll address each question one at a time.

"What makes you think that other people do not adhere - or think they adhere - to your core belief?"
Generally I tend to assume people do share my core belief; at least to
some degree. If I didn't think that, then I would not have discussions
or debates with anyone. However, with that said, more often than not I
have encountered those who have proven themselves not to hold this
belief as any sort of reality in their lives.

I do not pretend to know
the minds of others and assign what they believe; but I do watch
for patterns, and I listen to what they say. As soon as someone makes it clear they are clinging
to a belief out of a sense of loyalty, or
honor, or duty, or any other emotion in spite of opposing empirical
evidence, then that is their admission of not sharing my
core belief.

Also, I was not intending to make assumptions about what others believe; my intent was to make clear what I believe.
The reason for this is to make sure others can be "on the same page" as I am when discussing and debating things with me.

"I don't think they are calling you a liar. Calling you a liar would mean
that they think you are aware of the reasons they are "right", but
choose not to acknowledge them; I'd say that they are just calling you
ignorant or crazy, as is usually the case. Don't you think?"
Many times people have tried to claim that I was holding onto a belief out of some emotion-based reason (loyalty, duty, fear, love, wishful desires... whatever) and not listening to them; when the fact is there was a critical flaw in their logic they fail to acknowledge or recognize. For them to claim I am holding onto a belief out of emotion, when they are made fully aware of my core belief, is to call me a liar.

Generally if someone thinks I am ignorant or crazy (which people do from time to time) they actually use the words "ignorant" or "crazy". Tho occasionally they use more pop culture-ish words like "conspiracy theorist" (if they think I am crazy) or "inciter" (if they think I'm trying to start an argument out of ignorance).

"A corollary of this would be that they are the ones who are ignorant,
crazy, unconscious, defensive... so how do you justify your irritation
as a rational response?"
Irritation is an emotional response, and as such does not have to be rational; tho it should be reasonable. Since I have emotions, it should not come as a surprise to learn that I get irritated when called a liar (when I am not lying; if I am lying I generally don't get irritated when called on it).

It is my opinion that things which are reasonable (defined as: having good reason to occur) do not require justification. If you see a child fall, skin her knee, and then begin to cry, do the tears need justification? I don't believe they do, since it is perfectly reasonable for her to cry and shed tears in that circumstance. Likewise, if I say "I do not cling to a belief out of a sense of loyalty to it" and you claim that I do, then that is calling me a liar and it is reasonable for me to be irritated; thus, it does not need further justification.

"What brought you to FDR?"
While looking for leads to further my research on economic collapses thruout history, I happened across

. I liked what Stefan had to say and looked up more of his videos on You Tube; then watched/ listened to them - all (over 1200 now! Rock-on Stefan!) Admittedly, it took some time, and there may be some I have missed. While I do not agree with everything Stefan has to say, I do agree with the vast majority of it.

After reading/ listening to his books, I decided that I may find persons willing to have intelligent discussions and debates here. So I applied to join, and now I'm here looking forward to some great discussions.

Thanks for the great questions! I certainly hope more people here are as willing to comment and ask questions as you are.

Hopefully you wont mind a couple questions of my own:
What kind of background do you have?
What brought you to FDR?
If you had one wish, and knew it would be granted in as twisted a way as it could be (while still being granted), would you still make a wish?
If so, what would that wish be?

Thanks again, and I hope you have an awesome day!