themusicinnoise-site/blog/posts/2020-09-28-be-radical.html

51 lines
2.7 KiB
HTML
Raw Normal View History

2020-11-12 09:08:48 +00:00
<blockquote>
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Revelations 3:16
</blockquote>
<p>Generally I get along with any kind of person. But this isn't to say
that some kind of people don't frustrate me, as someone who enjoys
discussing topics such as politics, religion, sciences, etc. However, it
isn't the person that disagrees with me that frustrates me, but rather
the person that holds inconsistent opinions, and doesn't follow their
own logic to its ultimate consequences. And there are these kinds of
people on all sides of any argument - including my own.</p>
<p>This kind of problem usually occurs when speaking to someone on an
issue relating to politics or religion. That is to say, anything
pertaining to the management and governance of the public (i.e.
politics). The issue in question here is not one where two positions the
person may hold seem hypocritical, since this is acceptable so long as
their reasoning can make them compatible. No, the error is when the
reasoning itself changes based upon circumstances. When exceptions are
made to the rules.</p>
<p>Typically, a person will make these kinds of exceptions in their own
reasoning because they dislike following their own logic to its ultimate
conclusion. They know that for certain cases their very own reasoning
would lead them to support something they see as evil or immoral, or
rule out something that is clearly good. So to compensate, they make
exceptions based upon intuition.</p>
<p>The problem here isn't so much that people see a problem with their
own logic, but that they make exceptions to it instead of realizing that
if their reasoning leads them to error, their reasoning is erroneous
itself. As such, is it truly that difficult to assume that many of their
other conclusions based upon the same reasoning could also be false? It
is not proven, but it is very likely.</p>
<p>Essentially, the error here comes from lack of radical belief. He who
believes the wrong thing for the right reasons is much more righteous
than he who believes the right thing for the wrong reasons. We must make
an effort to bring our own reasoning to its logical conclusions, and
when we discover what those are, we have one of two choices: accept
where our reasoning has brought us, or reject our own reasoning. But to
pretend that this inconsistency, this flaw does not exist, is simply to
lie to ourselves and our conscience. For no truth can contradict
itself.</p>
<p>As such, be either cold or hot, but detest that which is lukewarm.
For at least he who is cold or hot may be correct, but he who is
lukewarm will always be wrong.</p>