|
"Man’s capacity for self-awareness, reason, and imagination – new qualities that go beyond the capacity for instrumental thinking of even the cleverest animals – requires a picture of the world and his place in it that is structured and has inner cohesion. Man needs a map of his natural and social world, without which he would be confused and unable to act purposely and consistently. He would have no way of orienting himself and finding himself a fixed point that permits him to organize all the impressions that impinge upon him. Whether he believes in sorcery and magic as final explanations of all events, or in the spirit of his ancestors as guiding his life and fate, or in an omnipotent god who will reward or punish him, or in the power of science to give answers to all human problems – from the standpoint of his need for a frame of orientation, it does not make any difference. His world makes sense to him, and he feels certain about his ideas through the consensus with those around him. Even if the map is wrong, it fulfills its psychological function. But the map was never entirely wrong – nor has it ever been entirely right, either. It has always been enough of an approximation to the explanation of phenomena to serve the purpose of living. Only to the degree which the practice of life is freed from its contradictions and its irrationality can the theoretical picture correspond to the truth.
"The impressive fact is that we do not find any culture in which there does not exist such a frame of orientation. Or any individual either. Often an individual may disclaim having any such overall picture and believe that he responds to the various phenomena and incidents of life from case to case, as his judgement guides him. But it can be easily demonstrated that he takes his own philosophy for granted, because to him it is only common sense, and he is unaware that all of his concepts rest upon a commonly accepted frame of reference. When such a person is confronted with a fundamentally different total view of life he judges it as ‘crazy’ or ‘irrational’ or ‘childish,’ while he considers himself as being only logical."
--Erich Fromm; The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness; pages 259-260.
Recently, there have been a few OPs/threads on General Discussion that focus on the nature of people’s world views, including the issue of religion. I’ve been pleased that these have not all been sent to the "religion" forum, as at least a couple that I enjoyed were not so much about religious issues per say, but about the role that religion plays in the structure of our society.
There are distinct advantages to having discussions about this topic: for if this country is to get back upon its feet and move forward, it will be in large part due to people beng able to find common ground, and perhaps an increased understanding of why other people view the world, and indeed, the meaning of their life, differently than we as individuals do.
This is not meant to imply that the religious forum itself, where people tend to debate specific issues, is not of value. But it is to say that most DUers are pretty decent folk, who may have different social constructs, but are generally hoping to improve the conditions of this world. It may be that we have disagreements with others’ views, yet if we are not open-minded enough to appreciate differences, and respect each other, we risk being similar to the rather obnoxious right-wing republicans who demand that we "debate" them on issues, where their only goal is to prove we are "wrong," and that they are "right." Many of the most pressing issues we face are the direct results of this type of narrow-minded intolerance.
Peace,
H2O Man
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
