Hiya guys!
I was way out of it for our discussion (hurrhurrhurr), but I do know that we were all curious as to how we should go about questioning the universe. Comte had a stand-offish view that no one should question these things until we have facts on them. For the mean time, atheists and theists alike are wasting their time with these unanswerable mysteries of the universe.
A few discussion questions include:
Do you think it's a waste of time to ponder these controversial questions? (i.e. is there an existence of God, who created the universe, who created God if there is one et cetera)
Comte also summarizes human history into three stages. The first being the Theological stage where there is just random belief without any proof at all, and it seems to be anybody's game. The second is the Metaphysical stage where we implement beings into our beliefs, usually personified. The third, and final, stage is the Positive, wherein all of our views come from real facts and they are exact and thorough and totally awesome blah blah blah.
Do you think that his final stage is truly the final stage?
My answers: I don't think it's utterly useless to ponder the unknown. It is, however, useless to try and know the unknown or to try to find an answer to an unanswerable question. If we let these wonders consume us, and allow our thoughts to interrupt our day-to-day lives, than yes, that is a bad thing. However, I don't think that never thinking about these questions does us any good, either. Sure, we might live a more happy-go-lucky life, but, to me, it would also be incoherent and skewed. I like pondering the possibilities. Without them, I am left with a profound appreciation for the world around me (Comte would appreciate that) and a whole lot of suppressed questions that I would just have to ignore (I would NOT appreciate that). I'll stick with my head-in-the-clouds, always-ask-why attitude. Thank you very much.
I don't like that Comte tried to summarize all of human history in the first place, but even if we could, I doubt highly that it ever STOPS (like he says it does and will at the final stage)
I think Comte, like so many other scholars, attempted to bite off more than he could chew when he gave us three stages of human history. We're talking about ALL of human history, and boy do these three stages overlap, turn back on themselves, and repeat throughout time. Sure, this is a great rough outline for what happened in the schools of thought, but we've been through dark ages of ignorance and brilliant ages of enlightenment. We have awoken and gone back to sleep. Revolutions occur for a reason, and there wasn't just one of them worldwide. Comte tries to summarize a vast amount of ideas that were never really united. There are still people today in the Metaphysical Stage, and more that are in the Theological. More still are others in the final stage of Positivism. In fifty years? Probably the same story. One hundred? Ditto. People like to believe in mysterious things. While I don't agree with the majority of theism, that doesn't mean that it's going to disappear entirely. Religion is not necessary for me, but some others believe it is for them, and by golly I am not going to try to stop them. I might argue with them over semantics, though...:P
Factual!
What is Comte's final stage of human history?
Positive Stage
Next Class!
Americana!!! MEGA DOUBT ACTIVATE!
What'cha think about prayer? Is it worthwhile? Why or why not?
Why do you think the Bible is still around today? (In light of all of the Bible doubting during the 1900s in America)
Factual: What is the word for an individual who does not approve nor deny the existence of metaphysical beings? Agnostic
:)
Also -- Brett, awesome link!
ReplyDeleteWatching the debate now :D
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAhhh ok. It's working! Hmm. I disagree with Comte completely about forging ourselves oblivious to questions of religion, the universe, etc. If everyone had followed this mindset then I don't think we'd be credible for much. I guess I've always questioned "WHY?" Why? I just do. Also it's possibly one of the largest 'problems' we face today-no one bothers to ask why they practice ___ religion, follow ___ culture, you just fill in the ________. It's great to enjoy life, and that's the very reason to ask why we follow certain guidelines and restrict ourselves of some things we do. Is Comte's "final stage" final? I think this newfound discovery is an example of some things we have not even begun to wrap our minds around:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2011/09/15/140499991/here-come-the-suns-new-planet-orbits-two-stars
Heh, one can kinda see my feelins toward ol' Comte.
Our senses bring us selected information of the world. And we "see" whatever our brains are hardwired to see. The meanings that our mind constructs have little to do with the world and more to do with our point of views. Every time science comes up with something new, we change our views of the world. Every time that we see something that we didnt see 5 minutes ago, we change our perceptions of the world. 5. This doesn’t mean you can make up any king of junk, and it magically appears. It means that everything we know depends on the framework we consider it in. We cant help it when we think “in the box”. It is a good habit to get “out of the box”. So when considering something new, examine the framework we are using, and figure out:
ReplyDeleteWhat assumptions you are making that you maybe are not aware of. Are you imagining a “rule” that you could throw away? What happens when you change a “rule” that is unwritten or unstated that influences what you are seeing?