It will seem that my contradictory writing (αντιφατικο σχολιο), struck a note or two and caused things to be…..shaken. Our open discussion (ανοικτος διαλογος) demands that we do not only shake a few things but also ….. rattle and roll them.
Our inability to say things clearly, so that we can be equally understood by all, is another of those blessings that we are all endowed. Everything written or said is subject to interpretation irrespective of the richness of language. I think we all probably feel the same but who can possibly express that feeling in words and be absolutely clear.
So let us play with words and see what shakes rattles and rolls.
I will like to start by shaking “positive dogmatism” a little bit more. I have given a great deal of thought to this term and the feeling it conjures is of someone in a box with a positive frame of mind, which I suppose, whether we like it or not, we all must be to a certain extend. I say box because a dogma is nothing more but a set of defined boundaries that are indisputable or as you say unshakeable.
By the way, I do not think that I have ever been a “positive dogmatist” because the walls of my box are in a state of disrepair from the constant kicking shaking and rattling I do inside. In fact the reason for all the kicking and shaking (and o.k. rattling and rolling) is because I have had this feeling that positive dogmatism is in fact a paradox, and with that in mind let us move to that all important question….
“What is Freedom”?
I will like to start with the presumption that life is a precious state (gift some might say), simply because as far as I know so far, (and that is shaky) it provides the only platform to experience. I say that knowing that my main protagonist in an act of contradiction (αντιφασις) did exactly the opposite in order to give meaning to life.
The examples you provided although true expressions of individual freedom are in fact expressing different degrees or perceptions of freedom. I say that because the word “Freedom” is one of those words that have an absolute meaning or origin. So by definition it cannot exist in a box or dogma without changing to a relative term. It is for this reason that the material part of human experience only perceives freedom in a number of relative infinite degrees.
The word freedom is another one of those words identified by Socrates to have absolute and divine origin alien to earthly human experience. Absolute freedom cannot be truly and permanently experienced as long as we have to breathe and eat to survive. I think Socrates made that clear with his final act.
Socrates used his absolute freedom as a means to the realization of a higher ideal. Jesus as I mentioned earlier used freedom to give meaning to life and promoted a higher ideal which was the invalidation of atheism.
This apparent contradiction (αντιφασις) i.e. the realization of a higher ideal and the need for life as a platform to experience, leads us back to that interesting piece by Akis on “Εναρμονισμο Αντιφασεων” as a means of addressing our greatest fear… Death.
Your comments accompanied by a great deal of Shake Rattle and Roll will be greatly appreciated.
Phivos
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
1 σχόλιο:
Phivo, on the basis of your preference for contradictions, I find it somewhat contradictory that you take exception to my naturally contradicting coinage of the term "positive dogmatism". Please forgive me the obvious pleasure I had in writing this sentence
Of course "positive dogmatism" is a paradox and would have been an impossibility had it been named "flexible dogmatism" as I had originally wanted to call it (Please forgive me if I enjoy this a little more than it is seemly)...
What I have tried to say in my usually incompetent way, was that there are certain beliefs, such as the equality of man for example, which are unshakeable in some of us. The well known quotation "I may disagree with you, but I shall sacrifice my life defending your right to express your opinion" (or words to that effect) perfectly expresses this attitude.
By converting a belief into an absolute, meaning that I refuse to negotiate the rights of man as I see them, I become dogmatic, meaning that I enclose myself within a box with very solid and immovable walls. In this instance I am intransigent and therefore I become a true dogmatist. This is an extreme.
On the matter of religion, though, such as the question of the existence of God for example, I have more flexible walls to my box. I WANT to believe, but I cannot. However, because I want to believe, the walls of my box are quite flexible in this instance and I look for reasons to remove them completely. My grasping of the "flagellar motor" theory to which I referred in a previous message, is proof in point. Therefore in this instance I am a "positive dogmatist" which in turn makes me a paradoxical thinker, therefore a poor excuse of a philosopher
In other words, if every strong belief we posses was derived at after careful thought and discussion, it must, in essence, become dogmatic. Otherwise we should always ensure that we express provisos every time we express an opinion, but we do not do this unless we actually have doubts about our positions. However, any reasonable person would welcome new ideas which may challenge a dogmatic belief (as described above) if only to test the validity of his belief. Hence that person is a positive dogmatist in the sense of the new coinage of the description...
As to your comment:
" Socrates used his absolute freedom as a means to the realization of a higher ideal. Jesus as I mentioned earlier used freedom to give meaning to life and promoted a higher ideal which was the invalidation of atheism".
Socrates was a prisoner under sentence of death and bravely died for his ideas. My previous message under the heading " What is Freedom and who is Free? " then becomes pertinent. And, to me, the conclusion can only be that "freedom is a state of mind", which now becomes my new dogmatic belief, for which I thank you, as you were instrumental in helping me arrive at it...
As for Jesus, may I suggest that he used his own freedom to express his belief about what others should be slaves to? Could this be a new subject for discussion?
Dimitris Mita
Δημοσίευση σχολίου