For Smeagol

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Your signature states:

"what good is the catechism or Bible if you do not THINK FOR YOURSELF!!"

I wonder what you must think about the importance of thinking for yourself. Certainly, you place a great amount of emphasis on it. However, you imply that Catholics are not able to do this. On the contrary, the Catholic Church has produced more of the world's famous thinkers than any other group, organization, culture, nationality, or religion.

Furthermore, those who claim to think for themselves do not follow a certain school of thought. Each has his own. If thinking for oneself is so valuable, shouldn't it be the case that it proves itself in its results, namely, that truth should be agreed upon by those who think for themselves?

Yet this is the problem. Those who think for themselves don't think so much for themselves as perceive for themselves. It makes sense in the individualistic philosophy. If we're all consciousness and can only see the walls of our own individual cells, but not the reality on the outside, then it can be anticipated that we would all perceive differently and that perception would become the key to our knowing. We could not take anyone else's perceptions and build off of them (save the perception that it's all about consciousness in the first place) and thus it makes no sense to put any credence in the thinking of those who have gone before us. I believe, then, that this is your problem. You are suffering from confusion between perception and thought. You see, it certainly makes sense, quite common sense, in fact, that we should learn from the mistakes, successes, and derived answers of others. Yet that would not be thinking for ourselves. I don't think it's that you're against...to be against that would make you completely irrational. I think what you are against is the notion that we should base our judgment upon the perceptions of others. The individualistic philosophy and its corresponding philosophy of consciousness set up the premises in such a way that it follows that we cannot trust the perceptions of others.

You see, Catholics do think for themselves. It is intrinsic to our race, the race of men, to think. That's why we're called homo [i]sapiens[/i]..."thinking man"...because we think. It's what we do. It's what we do all the time. We think. Nor could you say that the theologians who've gone before us, all those famous thinkers, did not think for themselves. They certainly did. They thought and thought and thought and just happened to agree on the truth which a previous generation had already noted. They took the thoughts of others, thought about them themselves, and ratified them for themselves. Shouldn't all genuine thought converge and agree on the answers? Or when that happens, is it just further proof that someone hasn't been thinking for oneself? If you agree, then you have no reason to say that Catholics do not think for themselves. If you disagree, then you are choosing the cop-out: "The proof that Catholics don't think is that they all agree on what they've thought about." That, of course, makes no sense. As I've said, genuine thought should agree on the truth.

Now, there are certain truths which are beyondour understanding, yet we can reason that they are true. We cannot see completely why they are true; we cannot examine them in great depth, but we can see that they are consistent with what we know to be true. These are the mysteries and the matters which the Church holds through faith and could not have derived from anything but Divine Revelation.

The faithful are required to hold certain things as true. They are also encouraged to use their faculties of reason. If one does not, then one simply accepts the faith, but I do not believe this happens. As I've said, we are thinking man...we must think...it is in our nature to do so.

Yet, I wish to come back to perception. You see, there truly is a difference between thought and perception. Assuming that the data perceived is accurate, then it would be completely rational to use that data to come to one's own conclusions. The problem comes in assuming that the data is accurate. When one does not trust the perception of others, but assumes that the clean slate is necessary for all knowledge, then one has no premises from which to build. One is free to come to whichever perceptions favor one's own desired outcome. However, this is clearly a matter of perception and not of thought. Even if you do not like that fact that Catholics trust the perceptions of those who've gone before them, do not accuse them of not thinking for themselves, either they agree with those who've gone before them, coming to the same conclusions or they take the conclusions of those before them and accept them on faith, trying to understand the faith ever deeper. Both are forms of thinking for oneself. The former is the position usually understood as sceptical, the second, the position normally seen by individualists as "fundamentalist" or "ignorant," but it is quite acceptable and perhaps a degree humbler, as they do not trust the strength of their own reasoning but take for truth the word of those who preceded them and whom they have grown to trust in seeing the accuracy their other conclusions bear. To understand after accepting is no less rational. It is precisely what thought is. The rational person accepts certain perceptions as given and seeks to understand them.

Now the matter breaks down into whether you truly believe in the "man is consciousness" philosophy. Man certainly has consciousness, but he is a composite being of body and soul. That means that he has senses and perceptions. Now it may be the case at times that the senses deceive us, but when this happens, we usually can tell that something is off. Why? Because the conclusions we have already formed seem entirely inconsistent with what we falsely perceive. For something inconsistent to slip past us without our noticing, we would have to be quite used to inconsistency. Either the whole world is an inconsistent muddle of randomness and chaos or there is a real, logical order.

That said, there is no reason to doubt one's perceptions with such a blanket doubt as this philosophy asserts. The fact that Christianity presents itself consistently, that it's tenets are grounded in the real, gritty, sensible, sacramental world...that fact points to it's reality. Christianity is not the religion of dreamers. It is the religion of real people living real lives who anticipate the hope held in store for them.

The only question I have for you is this: where did your philosophy come from and why do you trust the perceptions of those who established it?

[smeagol]

[quote]you imply that Catholics are not able to do this
[/quote]
not true. without some thought from the reader, the catechism and the bible are just books. it must be digested in order for it to be meaningful. the catechism and the bible only turn into ideas when in the minds of the readers. and these ideas gain significance only when thought about. so i urge people to think about stuff they read instead of taking everyone's word for it. as i have said before, God doesn't want robots or slaves doing what he says and thinking how he wants us to think. of course, we ought to obey him, but this must come willingly and out of love with all of our heart, not because of some words in a book.

[quote]We could not take anyone else's perceptions and build off of them
[/quote]
again this is wrong. your interpretation of the saying "think for yourself" is very strange indeed, almost Cartesian. however, thinking for oneself does not mean you cannot listen to anyone else. this does not mean that you cannot read any books or learn any lessons from them. this does not mean to live in a cage and ignore everything else. this much is obvious, i think. what it means to think for yourself is to gather all the information and deduce what should be done or what the conclusion is. by all means, listen to everyone. hear what they have to say. of course! just don't believe them all the time. think about it critically and make your own decision about what they have to say.

some of the time, taking someone's word for granted is one of the most noble and faithful things one can do. the best example of this is Abraham. he KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that he ought to sacrifice Isaac even though it didn't really make sense. something was telling him to do this and this superceded the 'universality' of moral law.
However, many other times taking someone's word for granted is probably one of the dumbest things one can do. there is such a great divide between being gullible and being faithful. just because Bush says America's mission in Iraq was accomplished doesn't mean it is. just because someone says marijuana is evil doesn't mean it is. just because some people of "authority" think that gay people are evil doesn't mean they are.

[quote]Because the conclusions we have already formed seem entirely inconsistent with what we falsely perceive.
[/quote]
it is also probably more important to recognize that when confronted with a new perception that is inconsistent with status quo beliefs, that it is possible that ones current beliefs might be flawed. Thus, they MUST be thrown into question; if they are certainly true, then they will withstand this speculation. if they are not, it goes without saying that they must be overthrown. THIS it seems is what i'm urging people to do. too many people are afraid to change their current mindset. this is very saddening, because it cannot be more self-evident that nobody's mindset is 100% correct. we must continually question ourselves in order to improve and achieve more truth. if we do not, we submit to stagnation, which is utterly pathetic. think for yourself, don't just coast along riding someone else's ideas and thoughts. utilize them, indeed, but [b]think for yourself![/b]

[quote]The fact that Christianity presents itself consistently...
[/quote]
see, i'm not just going to believe this 'fact' just because you said it was a fact. this is because i honestly do not agree with you and that is fine. here is my reasoning: ask a Protestant! they don't believe in the whole pope/Catholic/ sacraments stuff that we do.
yeah, i know i'm making it difficult for your because i disagree with you. what you initially said isn't quite as credible as it was before. but whoever said truth was convenient and easy?

your whole post was basically a misinterpretation of a common phrase. you make it sound like i'm Descartes questioning my very existence and seriously doubting whether anyone or anything else exists at all!!! this is such a silly thing to derive from me saying [i]think for yourself[/i].

[quote]The only question I have for you is this: where did your philosophy come from ?
[/quote]
i don't really have a "philosophy" (at least based on my phatmass posts) but if you mean the sentiment of thinking for oneself, this idea came from common sense. this isn't Animal Farm; we don't want Napolean to think for all the animals in the barn. that's silly! God gave you a brain, so use it!
and of course, another tool that we have inherited is history with all its inventions, discoveries, ideas, experiences, stories, and everything else. to ignore either one (your mind or history) is outright stupid.

[quote]and why do you trust the perceptions of those who established it?
[/quote]
this question isn't really applicable after my response to the first question directly above. however! since you inquire about this fundamental epistemological dilemma, i suggest you read Descartes' Meditations, in which he thoroughly grappled with this issue. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy[/url] (wikipedia is indispensable)
He shows why we can intuitively trust the perceptions of others, even though we ourselves do not witness them. again, you can accept it or reject it, but do so based on your own mind and heart. in other words, THINK FOR YOURSELF!

is it not self-evident to everyone else that we each must individually think for ourselves?

and what's that Bible verse that says that the Lord doesn't not want us as a massive crowd, but rather wants us each individually as single entities. you know what i'm talking about?

sorry to stir up such lengthy posts just for urging people to think. my apologies.

[smeagol]

Raph, i was planning on leaving phatmass again for a while, but before i do so, i'm curious to read your reply to this thread, so consider this post a discreet bump.