I think this might be it. Currently dealing with (but now ignoring) someone who claims one cannot consistently support nondiscrimination by gender, race & sexuality AND evidence based epistemology coz of evidence that we can't treat men & women the same re: reproductive health.https://twitter.com/ArthurCDent/status/1053772614823424000 …
-
-
Of course, many people manage to do both. I see this most strongly in some believing Jewish friends whose working lives require strong skills of analytical reasoning but then they take a hiatus at least once a week to be all spiritual and fluffy. Tut on them. "Tut," I say.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interestingly, by nature, I am both. Though I wonder if one of the reasons most people tend to fall into one category or the other is that sitting in the middle can cause a lot of mental anguish whilst wrestling with oneself.
-
I think most people fall more into one camp than another but don't give it much thought. They just live their lives and you have to detect it in their reasoning on daily issues.
-
Oh I certainly agree most people don't give it much thought. Might be part of my trouble (giving it too much.) But then I do have OCD as well and tend to overthink. Either way, I'd agree a lot of it is dictated by personality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We should see this in terms of complementarity. They can teach us not to over-analyze & quantify everything in sight till we kill all joy and poetry, and we can teach them to land from time to time from their mental levitation and use logic and reason.
-
I'm not sure that's the divide. Empirical thinkers can still enjoy poetry etc. We just don't claim they represent truth. My background is in English literature.
-
1/ You are right. And mysticism is not good place to start either. I know Catholics who are probably the sharpest people I have met, and I've also met lots of fluffy atheists. I even would say the second category outnumbers the first one by far.
-
2/ It might be a cultural issue. If your society values logic, you get people who will dare not express emotions or will be cautious about that. Ditto for feelings. If that's valued, predisposed people will dare not think, because what gets them social acceptance is fluff.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ah, interesting you think this as well. This is the tentative conclusion I've also come to recently, having talked it out with a 'spiritual' friend.
-
I hope your dogma chased their karma.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Most psychological truths are depressing & demoralising, yes. ;)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Einstein's theory had almost no evidence, hence fluffy? Fluffs can be bad but also squares can inflexibly stagnate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This actually made me chuckle. I think it’s possible for someone to see both sides of this coin. I don’t think it’s easy, but I think it’s possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.