Ingersoll Quote

[JHC]

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

What does it mean?

[Donkey]

What I think it means is that Mr. Ingersoll makes the unfortunate mistake of assuming that inherently subjective topics can be distilled to objective terms.

[JHC]

What I think it means is that Mr. Ingersoll makes the unfortunate mistake of assuming that inherently subjective topics can be distilled to objective terms.

That's what you mean, not what Mr. Ingersoll means.

[JHC]

How about the first sentence?
Every man should be mentally honest.

What does it mean and do you agree?

[Donkey]

That's what you mean, not what Mr. Ingersoll means.
What the quote means and what Mr. Ingersoll meant by it are not necessarily the same thing.
How about the first sentence?
Every man should be mentally honest.

What does it mean and do you agree?

I think what he means is that every man (and I imagine he'd broaden it to include women as well) should accept what logic tells him the truth is, rather than what he wants it to be.

[JHC]

What the quote means and what Mr. Ingersoll meant by it are not necessarily the same thing.


I think what he means is that every man (and I imagine he'd broaden it to include women as well) should accept what logic tells him the truth is, rather than what he wants it to be.

And the second question?

[JHC]

How about the first sentence?
Every man should be mentally honest.

What does it mean and do you agree?

"Every man" could mean everyone. I wouldn't argue with that since it was and is still relatively common to default to the masculine.

But what does it mean to be "mentally honest"?

I did not ask what Ingersoll meant for good reason. I asked what "it" (as in the statement), means. What do these words mean. You can either answer by presuming that you know what Ingersoll meant because you are familiar with him as a philosopher/social activist, or you can assume a meaning based on your own bias.

Try to answer by evaluating the words themselves.

[Donkey]

And the second question?
Yes, I do.

The rest of the quote is where I begin to have issues.

[JHC]

I do too.

The next sentence seems to be mostly rhetoric to me:
"He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul."

Preserve means to keep and "most precious jewel" implies highest importance, and "veracity of soul" seems to mean the sense of real integrity one has about themselves.

So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.

That is what I get from the first two sentences and I agree.

And you?

[Donkey]

I do too.

The next sentence seems to be mostly rhetoric to me:
"He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul."

Preserve means to keep and "most precious jewel" implies highest importance, and "veracity of soul" seems to mean the sense of real integrity one has about themselves.

So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.

That is what I get from the first two sentences and I agree.

And you?

No arguments here.

[JHC]

"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear."

To examine is to look at something in detail or to inspect something. In this case, it is "questions presented to [one's] mind" that is to be inspected carefully.

"...without prejudice," is an elaboration to the point which means, without judging beforehand. So we are to scrutinize questions that come to our minds without first drawing conclusions - just study the question.

"...unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear -" We are to study the questions without drawing conclusions that may be based on a predisposition of strong emotions like love, hate, desire, or fear.

I agree with all of this. I agree that it is best to examine the question without bias.

[Donkey]

"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear."

To examine is to look at something in detail or to inspect something. In this case, it is "questions presented to [one's] mind" that is to be inspected carefully.

"...without prejudice," is an elaboration to the point which means, without judging beforehand. So we are to scrutinize questions that come to our minds without first drawing conclusions - just study the question.

"...unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear -" We are to study the questions without drawing conclusions that may be based on a predisposition of strong emotions like love, hate, desire, or fear.

I agree with all of this. I agree that it is best to examine the question without bias.

I find that to be incompatible with.

So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.

[JHC]

I find that to be incompatible with.

Do you agree with my take on what it means? I actually made a critical error if you find them incompatible.

[Non Sequitur]

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
ok I can buy that
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear.
hmm... there are quit a few things in life that I think it is better to look at with a certain bias of love or hatred (family, community, etc...)
His object and his only object should be to find the truth.
ok... I probably take this in a different direction then he does, but i can go along with that.
He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is.
Again, i probably take this in a different (more religious) direction then him, but fine.
He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change.
hmmm... evidence only works with so many things in my opinion.
He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
This is where he really looses me, but then again I am the person who places a whole lot of care in creeds, custom, tradition, and stuff that reason says isn't true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll
Again, this is where he looses me. There is one Being that is definitely sovereign over me.

[Donkey]

Do you agree with my take on what it means? I actually made a critical error if you find them incompatible.

Perhaps we have fundamentally different understandings of words such as love, hate, desire, fear, and bias.

[JHC]

ok I can buy that

hmm... there are quit a few things in life that I think it is better to look at with a certain bias of love or hatred (family, community, etc...)

ok... I probably take this in a different direction then he does, but i can go along with that.

Again, i probably take this in a different (more religious) direction then him, but fine.

hmmm... evidence only works with so many things in my opinion.

This is where he really looses me, but then again I am the person who places a whole lot of care in creeds, custom, tradition, and stuff that reason says isn't true.

Again, this is where he looses me. There is one Being that is definitely sovereign over me.

I actually was asking what it means. I appreciate your comments though. :)

[JHC]

Perhaps we have fundamentally different understandings of words such as love, hate, desire, fear, and bias.

Perhaps it would be easier if you just tell me what it is you find incompatible.

If I may, before you dive in, correct my interpretation:


"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear."

"should" means ought to or strive for
To examine is to look at something in detail or to inspect something. In this case, it is "questions presented to [one's] mind" that is to be inspected carefully.

"...without prejudice," is an elaboration to the point which means, without judging beforehand. So we are to scrutinize questions that come to our minds without first drawing conclusions - just study the question.

"...unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear -" We are to study the questions without drawing conclusions that may be based on a predisposition of strong emotions like love, hate, desire, or fear.

I agree with all of this. I agree that it is best to examine the question without bias.

That which is bolded is the edit.

[Non Sequitur]

I actually was asking what it means. I appreciate your comments though. :)

Well the meaning seems pretty clear to me. It's the basic assumption of the Western world since the Enlightenment. Weigh the evidence, follow reason, be a unbiased observer when making decisions, and be an individual. Nothing really new there in my opinion. Also happens to be what i disagree with.

[JHC]

Well the meaning seems pretty clear to me. It's the basic assumption of the Western world since the Enlightenment. Weigh the evidence, follow reason, be a unbiased observer when making decisions, and be an individual. Nothing really new there in my opinion. Also happens to be what i disagree with.

You believe these things are being said:

1) weigh the evidence
2) follow reason
3) be a [sic] unbiased observer when making decisions
4) be an individual.

Do you agree with all of these all the time, with some of them all the time, with all of them some of the time, with some of them some of the time, or with just one of them all or some times?

I disagree with what it says however.

[Donkey]

Perhaps it would be easier if you just tell me what it is you find incompatible.

If I may, before you dive in, correct my interpretation:




That which is bolded is the edit.

Well, two things. One, saying you SHOULD do something is inherently subjective. Kinda puts a stick in the spokes right there.

More importantly, though, I find

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.

Incompatible with

He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear.

[JHC]

Well, two things. One, saying you SHOULD do something is inherently subjective. Kinda puts a stick in the spokes right there.

More importantly, though, I find



Incompatible with

The word should is not subjective. Compliance with what should be is subjective, and his opinion about what should be done is subjective (and so is his entire statement - it is his opinion after all), but the word should, itself, is objective. No?

I THINK what you are trying to say is that people are incapable of examining anything without any bias or prejudice whatsoever. I hate to put words in your mouth but neither am I trying to torture you to get you to elucidate.

Did I understand why you find the two statements incompatible?

[Non Sequitur]

You believe these things are being said:

1) weigh the evidence
2) follow reason
3) be a [sic] unbiased observer when making decisions
4) be an individual.

Do you agree with all of these all the time, with some of them all the time, with all of them some of the time, with some of them some of the time, or with just one of them all or some times?

I disagree with what it says however.

I guess I should also add that the quote is saying that to follow theses things is an inherent good that should be practiced as often as possible. At least that is how I read the first two sentences. That is the part that I really disagree with.

However, to go through my list:
1) weigh the evidence: fine enough in certain situations usually involving a lab
2) Follow reason: good in certain realms where knowledge is able to be discovered.
3) be unbiased when making decisions (i cleared up my language): I don't think this one is possible
4) be an individual: a nice enough thing to believe, but no person is a complete individual in mastery of their own soul.

[JHC]

I guess I should also add that the quote is saying that to follow theses things is an inherent good that should be practiced as often as possible. At least that is how I read the first two sentences. That is the part that I really disagree with.

However, to go through my list:
1) weigh the evidence: fine enough in certain situations usually involving a lab How about in a court of law? As a parent trying to determine if his or her own children are lying about what happened or if it is the neighbor's children? What about if one is determining what the best route is for a long trip; the route which is scenic or the route which takes less gas? Perhaps it would be easier if you could give an example of when this is NOT agreeable.

2) Follow reason: good in certain realms where knowledge is able to be discovered.
3) be unbiased when making decisions (i cleared up my language): I don't think this one is possible
4) be an individual: a nice enough thing to believe, but no person is a complete individual in mastery of their own soul.

Would you mind if we did these one at a time?

[Donkey]

The word should is not subjective. Compliance with what should be is subjective, and his opinion about what should be done is subjective (and so is his entire statement - it is his opinion after all), but the word should, itself, is objective. No? No. In no way whatsoever.



I THINK what you are trying to say is that people are incapable of examining anything without any bias or prejudice whatsoever. I hate to put words in your mouth but neither am I trying to torture you to get you to elucidate.

Did I understand why you find the two statements incompatible?

I didn't say anything. Math is relatively objective. As I said in the other thread, two plus two is four. I shouldn't say that it's five just because I want it to be.

I can use math to demonstrate a wealth disparity between a small minority and the rest of the population. I cannot objectively think that this matters in moral terms.

[JHC]

No. In no way whatsoever.



I didn't say anything. Math is relatively objective. As I said in the other thread, two plus two is four. I shouldn't say that it's five just because I want it to be.

I can use math to demonstrate a wealth disparity between a small minority and the rest of the population. I cannot objectively think that this matters in moral terms.

What?
I'm so confused.

Did I not understand why you think the two are incompatible?


You did say you found two statements incompatible and you did not explain why.
I asked if you thought they were incompatible because humans are incapable of being unbiased.

Then I asked if that is what you meant and you said that you "didn't say anything at all".

???

[Donkey]

What?
I'm so confused.

Did I not understand why you think the two are incompatible?

I am saying that because of our nature we are incapable of divorcing ourselves from what Ingersoll claims we should, in most cases, but further that if we are being true to ourselves, we should not, in many cases, divorce ourselves from it.

[JHC]

I am saying that because of our nature we are incapable of divorcing ourselves from what Ingersoll claims we should, in most cases, but further that if we are being true to ourselves, we should not, in many cases, divorce ourselves from it.

So yes, I was correct in saying that you believe the two statements are incompatible with one another because humans are incapable of being unbiased and unprejudiced.

So far so good?

Secondly, you are now also saying that not only are we incapable of being unbiased and unprejudiced, we should not try to be unbiased and unprejudiced when we are examining questions.

[Donkey]

So yes, I was correct in saying that you believe the two statements are incompatible with one another because humans are incapable of being unbiased and unprejudiced.

So far so good?
No. That's not what I said.


Secondly, you are now also saying that not only are we incapable of being unbiased and unprejudiced, we should not try to be unbiased and unprejudiced when we are examining questions.

Questions like "is genocide wrong?"

[JHC]

No. That's not what I said.



Questions like "is genocide wrong?"

Wow. OK. I need your help.

You said, and this is a direct quote:
I am saying that because of our nature we are incapable ....

"I am saying that because of our nature we are incapable..." and I restated this as:... you believe the two statements are incompatible with one another because humans are incapable...

and then you said:
...of divorcing ourselves from what Ingersoll claims we should,
and I restated as:
...of being unbiased and unprejudiced,... I should have added the word "should" but I see no other significant difference.
Could you possibly restate this particular portion and instead of saying "what Ingersoll claims we should", simply state exactly what he claims we should. That's all I did. He said we should be unbiased and unprejudiced and you agreed thats what it meant.


Then you added the second idea:
...in most cases, but further that if we are being true to ourselves, we should not, in many cases, divorce ourselves from it

and I restated as:...
So far so good?

Secondly, you are now also saying that not only are we incapable of being unbiased and unprejudiced, we should not try to be unbiased and unprejudiced when we are examining questions.

and you said I got it wrong:


No. That's not what I said.

and then added something that I thought was supposed to be an example of when we should not examine a question without bias or prejudice:

Questions like "is genocide wrong?"

Please help me understand how I misunderstood.

[Donkey]

I'm sorry, but what?

[JHC]

I'm sorry, but what?

Are you trolling? In all seriousness, are you trolling or do you seriously not understand what's happening.

I asked what the words meant. I asked that we not guess at what he meant based on anything else including our own bias or prejudice.

We began going through it line by line to ensure that we both understood what it meant.

The second you interjected your feelings into the thread, what "it meant", went right out the window and we had no ground to stand on any longer.

I have only restated what you've said in order to ensure that I understood. You keep telling me that I misunderstood. I'm asking you to clarify.

Take your time. Sentence by sentence, do we agree and understand?

We can't get past understand without you interjecting what you feel.

And THAT is what Ingersoll is warning you about.

[Donkey]

Are you trolling? In all seriousness, are you trolling or do you seriously not understand what's happening.

I asked what Ingersoll meant. I asked that we not guess at what he meant based on anything else including our own bias or prejudice.

We began going through it line by line to ensure that we both understood what it meant.

The second you interjected your feelings into the thread, what "it meant", went right out the window and we had no ground to stand on any longer.

I have only restated what you've said in order to ensure that I understood. You keep telling me that I misunderstood. I'm asking you to clarify.

Take your time. Sentence by sentence, do we agree and understand?

We can't get past understand without you interjecting what you feel.

And THAT is what Ingersoll is warning you about.

No, I'm not trolling. I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say when you chop everything up like that. I type in sentences and paragraphs for a reason.

It's an unfair catch-22 what you did in this post. Invalidating my points/perspectives because it goes contrary to what the initial quote was. I should god-damn hope it does, considering I'm fundamentally disagreeing with him. :rolleyes:

However, I am using an logical argument to show why I think his point (despite what his goal or meaning might be) is illogical and dishonest to himself.

Anyway, I'm going to bed.

[JHC]

No, I'm not trolling. I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say when you chop everything up like that. I type in sentences and paragraphs for a reason.

It's an unfair catch-22 what you did in this post. Invalidating my points/perspectives because it goes contrary to what the initial quote was. I should god-damn hope it does, considering I'm fundamentally disagreeing with him. :rolleyes:

However, I am using an logical argument to show why I think his point (despite what his goal or meaning might be) is illogical and dishonest to himself.

Anyway, I'm going to bed.

Please stick with one point until we are in agreement/understanding then.
I'm chopping up your paragraph because you keep telling me that I don't understand. Which part do I not understand?

You said that you thought the two statements were incompatible.

I asked you why.

You explained.

I restated.

You said I didn't understand and you said what I thought was the same thing.

I restated.

You said I misunderstood.

What am I misunderstanding. Be specific.

[JHC]

A demonstration for Donkey:

John: Is genocide wrong?

Rich: uh....of course! BOOO GENOCIDE! Hang the perps!

John: :lol: Dude, you called an exterminator. I'm here for the roaches. ...but seriously, I'm not the bug man and I really did mean genocide the way most people mean it.

Rich: ha. I was kinda wondering why you brought it up, John.

John: Because I'm with you man. We're on the same team. Genocide makes my blood boil and it happens all the time all over the world. Something ought to be done.

Rich: Yeah. Me too. Literally, if I could get my hands on the perpetrators of genocide I'd hang them myself. There's just no excuse. I'm glad to hear someone else on my side of this. I was listening to this guy the other day laughing about Rwanda and...

John: uh huh...I know! Can you believe some people? Like, the fucking Jews and the genocide they carried out on the Christians! You heard about that right? Man, I can't stand it any longer I...

Rich: Wait. What?

John: the way they become doctors and insidiously extinguish the gentiles through abortions. Assholes. Hey, lets you and I go round some up and hang 'em like you said...

[Donkey]

Of course as soon as I lay down, I am more wide awake than ever...

What am I misunderstanding. Be specific.

I don't know. I can't read your mind.

But for your convenience I will attempt to restate the entirety of my point(s).

Beginning with the quote in question:

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

His first problem, as I stated, is the use of the subjective "should" (meaning ought, as JHC observes) in a discussion advocating absolute objectivity. If it is "true" that "man" should examine all questions presented to his mind without prejudice...etc., then upon what is that truth based? It is hollow.

If JHC's analysis of what the first part of the quote means is true: So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.


Then it is incompatible with Ingersoll's demand that we examine all things "without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear." It is dishonest because it ignores that we are fundamentally subjective beings.

That is not to say, as you apparently interpreted, that we are incapable of logic. We certainly can use logic to determine that the sun will rise tomorrow, that math equations will work the second time the same as they did the first.

We can objectively say that if a murderous, racist megalomaniac rises to power it is very likely that genocide will occur.

However, we simply cannot determine whether or not genocide is wrong without subjective analysis.

In the objective view of the universe, genocide is irrelevant.

Logic is all well and good, but seeking to discount subjectivity is... illogical.

[Donkey]

A demonstration for Donkey:

John: Is genocide wrong?

Rich: uh....of course! BOOO GENOCIDE! Hang the perps!

John: :lol: Dude, you called an exterminator. I'm here for the roaches. ...but seriously, I'm not the bug man and I really did mean genocide the way most people mean it.

Rich: ha. I was kinda wondering why you brought it up, John.

John: Because I'm with you man. We're on the same team. Genocide makes my blood boil and it happens all the time all over the world. Something ought to be done.

Rich: Yeah. Me too. Literally, if I could get my hands on the perpetrators of genocide I'd hang them myself. There's just no excuse. I'm glad to hear someone else on my side of this. I was listening to this guy the other day laughing about Rwanda and...

John: uh huh...I know! Can you believe some people? Like, the fucking Jews and the genocide they carried out on the Christians! You heard about that right? Man, I can't stand it any longer I...

Rich: Wait. What?

John: the way they become doctors and insidiously extinguish the gentiles through abortions. Assholes. Hey, lets you and I go round some up and hang 'em like you said...

I fail to see how a discussion between two fools is relevant.

Is genocide wrong?

[JHC]

Also, I haven't invalidated your points. I haven't commented on your points at all! We weren't even close yet!

I was just trying to figure out what your point were. If that's a catch 22, you've got a problem.

[Donkey]

Also, I haven't invalidated your points. I haven't commented on your points at all! We weren't even close yet!

I was just trying to figure out what your point were. If that's a catch 22, you've got a problem.

You certainly did. Go back and read your own post. According to you, when I inject "feeling" into the thread, it all went out the window. And then you cited the original quotation to back that up.

Is this a discussion or a game of gotcha?

[JHC]

I fail to see how a discussion between two fools is relevant.

Is genocide wrong?

Thought you went to bed. :shrug:

Before we ask whether or not genocide is wrong, lets answer the first question(s):

1) Are we capable of examining the question without bias or prejudice? and
2) Should we try to examine the question without bias or prejudice?

[Donkey]

Thought you went to bed. :shrug:

See post 35.


Before we ask whether or not genocide is wrong, lets answer the first question(s):
I'm sensing a reluctance to answer. :shrug:


1) Are we capable of examining the question without bias or prejudice? and
Yes, but not of drawing a conclusion.

2) Should we try to examine the question without bias or prejudice?
Depends on the bias or prejudice. I am biased against causing suffering and death. So no. I will answer it with that bias.

[Donkey]

At some point I am prepared to accept that you will disagree. You seem to be under the impression that if I would only see it your way, I would agree with you. That is not a productive way to conduct a discussion. :shrug:

[JHC]

You certainly did. Go back and read your own post. According to you, when I inject "feeling" into the thread, it all went out the window. And then you cited the original quotation to back that up.

Is this a discussion or a game of gotcha?

Sorry. I lost internet.

We were working on understanding what the words meant. Before we could agree on what they meant, you interjected how you felt about them. I never had a chance to talk about how you felt because you kept telling me that I did not understand.

How could I make comment about your opinion if I don't understand what it is?

[JHC]

See post 35.

I'm sensing a reluctance to answer. :shrug: No. You should try not sensing and pay more attention to what I actually said. I want to answer the first question first so that we know we understand one another. Then we can begin to have a discussion.

...
1) Are we capable of examining the question without bias or prejudice?
...Yes, but not of drawing a conclusion. But Ingersoll didn't say anything about coming to a conclusion. He said we should examine the question without bias and prejudice. you and I agreed that this is what he said.

...
2) Should we try to examine the question without bias or prejudice? I am biased against causing suffering and death. So no. I will answer it with that bias. Answering and examining a question are distinctly different.

[JHC]

At some point I am prepared to accept that you will disagree. You seem to be under the impression that if I would only see it your way, I would agree with you. That is not a productive way to conduct a discussion. :shrug:

We are just now approaching the discussion and you are ready to concede that we will disagree? I asked what the words meant. We have not yet begun to talk about whether or not you or I agree with INgersoll.

Too hasty, Donkey. Much, much, much too hasty.

[The Drunk Girl]

" Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and important question, everyone should be serene, slow-pulsed and calm. (http://www.iwise.com/OyuhA)"

-Ingersoll

(His stuff isn't too bad)

[JHC]

Of course as soon as I lay down, I am more wide awake than ever...


I don't know. I can't read your mind.

But for your convenience I will attempt to restate the entirety of my point(s).

Beginning with the quote in question:



His first problem, as I stated, is the use of the subjective "should" (meaning ought, as JHC observes) in a discussion advocating absolute objectivity. If it is "true" that "man" should examine all questions presented to his mind without prejudice...etc., then upon what is that truth based? It is hollow.

If JHC's analysis of what the first part of the quote means is true:

Then it is incompatible with Ingersoll's demand that we examine all things "without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear." It is dishonest because it ignores that we are fundamentally subjective beings.

That is not to say, as you apparently interpreted, that we are incapable of logic. We certainly can use logic to determine that the sun will rise tomorrow, that math equations will work the second time the same as they did the first.

We can objectively say that if a murderous, racist megalomaniac rises to power it is very likely that genocide will occur.

However, we simply cannot determine whether or not genocide is wrong without subjective analysis.

In the objective view of the universe, genocide is irrelevant.

Logic is all well and good, but seeking to discount subjectivity is... illogical.

The reason I began going through this line by line is because I think you are making assumptions about what Ingersoll meant rather than actually reading the words.

There is nothing wrong with making a subjective statement about what we believe should be objective. What is illogical about asking jurors to determine a case based on evidence rather than on the appearance of the defendant? Would you say for instance, that because a man in known to have shot his neighbors dog, he should also be sentenced for his neighbors murder without a trial?

[JHC]

" Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and important question, everyone should be serene, slow-pulsed and calm. (http://www.iwise.com/OyuhA)"

-Ingersoll

(His stuff isn't too bad)

Nice choice. :)

[JHC]

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

The part in bold print is as far as Donkey and I had gotten in coming to an understanding about what is meant.

Being honest, particularly with one's self, is very important. One should EXAMINE all QUESTIONS without prejudice or bias.

The next sentence cannot be understood alone because it brings into question "what is truth" which is alluded to in his next sentence. So we take them together:

"His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. "

Truth appears to be the opposite of error and that which is determined by reason. He seems also to be equating error with lie since the opposite of truth is lie and the opposite of error is correct-ness.
It looks to me like this means that errors are dangerous and avoiding error should be one's ultimate goal.

I'm not sure I have a good interpretation and I know I have vastly over simplified this. Perhaps someone else has another.

I have found, in my own life, that this method of thinking and behavior leads to peace both in my own mind and with those around me.

[The Drunk Girl]

Can't quotes/sayings/poetry/lyrics have the same overall point, but a slight difference or understanding to the individual?

[JHC]

Can't quotes/sayings/poetry/lyrics have the same overall point, but a slight difference or understanding to the individual?

Yes. It can also be that what one person understands about a sentence is simply wrong because they jumped to conclusions.

For instance, when I ask if you prefer red to blue popsicles, you might say: "yes, I prefer cherry popsicles" when in fact, I was talking about the actual color preference not the flavor.

If you are in the habit of guessing what is meant instead of examining the question, you can be simply wrong. Can it mean something else? Yes. Can your interpretation be wrong? Yes.

Just because you can imagine it to mean one thing does not mean that it can be or should be or is.

[The Drunk Girl]

Yes. It can also be that what one person understands about a sentence is simply wrong because they jumped to conclusions.

For instance, when I ask if you prefer red to blue popsicles, you might say: "yes, I prefer cherry popsicles" when in fact, I was talking about the actual color preference not the flavor.

If you are in the habit of guessing what is meant instead of examining the question, you can be simply wrong. Can it mean something else? Yes. Can your interpretation be wrong? Yes.

Just because you can imagine it to mean one thing does not mean that it can be or should be or is.

I get your point...

But what if I asked you, "Why didn't you just ask me what color I preferred instead of popsicle color?"

Red popsicles to me might mean cherry, but to you, could mean strawberry or watermelon.

[JHC]

I get your point...

But what if I asked you, "Why didn't you just ask me what color I preferred instead of popsicle color?"

Red popsicles to me might mean cherry, but to you, could mean strawberry or watermelon.

Why would you assume I meant anything other than color when I asked specifically about color? Perhaps the particular quality of dye in a frozen liquid is different than the same color quality in modeling clay. But yes, you get what I mean. It's best not to assume that you know what people mean because we are not the same person with the same history. Maybe you're a foodie and I'm an artist.

[Donkey]

We are just now approaching the discussion and you are ready to concede that we will disagree? I asked what the words meant. We have not yet begun to talk about whether or not you or I agree with INgersoll.

Too hasty, Donkey. Much, much, much too hasty.
Maybe YOU haven't. I have, since post one.
The reason I began going through this line by line is because I think you are making assumptions about what Ingersoll meant rather than actually reading the words. I'm not making assumptions as to what he meant. I'm reading what he said and discerning what he meant. Isn't that the beauty of linguistics?


There is nothing wrong with making a subjective statement about what we believe should be objective. What is illogical about asking jurors to determine a case based on evidence rather than on the appearance of the defendant? Would you say for instance, that because a man in known to have shot his neighbors dog, he should also be sentenced for his neighbors murder without a trial?
How is that remotely what I'm saying? I don't think you're reading my posts.

[The Drunk Girl]

Why would you assume I meant anything other than color when I asked specifically about color? Perhaps the particular quality of dye in a frozen liquid is different than the same color quality in modeling clay. But yes, you get what I mean. It's best not to assume that you know what people mean because we are not the same person with the same history. Maybe you're a foodie and I'm an artist.

Adding the word "popsicle" in there can change the definition of color (what is a red popsicle in this case?). So why not just ask me if I like red as a color or not?

[Donkey]

Adding the word "popsicle" in there can change the definition of color (what is a red popsicle in this case?). So why not just ask me if I like red as a color or not?

Agreed. One of the reasons we are such a smart species is that we can judge context, fill in missing information, and make assumptions.

Not all assumptions are safe to make, but if someone asks me if I want a red or a blue popsicle, the safe assumption is that you are asking me which flavor I want based on my palate.

If the context of the discussion is "I want to stain Chet's shirt blue," then you asking "Do you want a red or a blue popsicle" changes the situation.

However, part of being a rational thinker is using experience and context to make educated judgments. If you ask me, with no outside context, whether I want a red or a blue popsicle, it would be irrational of me to base my decision on anything other than which I would rather consume.

[JHC]

Adding the word "popsicle" in there can change the definition of color (what is a red popsicle in this case?). So why not just ask me if I like red as a color or not?
Because, adding the word popsicle changes the specific color I'm asking about. It does not change the definition of the word color, it changes the quality of the color.

cherry red
ruby red
fire hydrant red
lipstick red
brick red
popsicle red

Perhaps, when I asked you which color you preferred, we were standing in front of a canvas. Or, perhaps we had already chosen our favorite popsicles and we were comparing the looks of them as the sun shined through them.

In any case, asking which popsicle color you like best is not disingenuous, a trick of language, or a manipulation. If you misinterpret the question and give an incorrect response, it is because you assumed what I was asking rather than examining the question.

[JHC]

Agreed. One of the reasons we are such a smart species is that we can judge context, fill in missing information, and make assumptions.

Not all assumptions are safe to make, but if someone asks me if I want a red or a blue popsicle, the safe assumption is that you are asking me which flavor I want based on my palate.

If the context of the discussion is "I want to stain Chet's shirt blue," then you asking "Do you want a red or a blue popsicle" changes the situation.

However, part of being a rational thinker is using experience and context to make educated judgments. If you ask me, with no outside context, whether I want a red or a blue popsicle, it would be irrational of me to base my decision on anything other than which I would rather consume.

We are a clever species. Clever enough to go a step further.
We can examine the question without bias before searching for an answer. This way, we stand to make fewer mistakes. Mistakes can be dangerous.

For instance, my analogy was never Do you want a red or blue popsicleThat is how your clever brain interpreted the question with no context given. The actual question, which might surprise you, was this:

...

For instance, when I ask [do] you prefer red to blue popsicles, you might say:
...

Your clever, clever brain added in all kinds of things that weren't there:
1) that red and blue were flavors
2) that you were being offered something to eat
Perhaps, likely even, your clever brain has concocted an entire setting which you believe would be the most likely setting for such a conversation to happen. And so it seems, to your clever brain, completely natural to have arrived at the answer "cherry" when the question was "red or blue?". And you will argue vehemently that your unambiguously wrong answer was someone else's fault for not having been clear.

[drgoodtrips]

Because, adding the word popsicle changes the specific color I'm asking about. It does not change the definition of the word color, it changes the quality of the color.

cherry red
ruby red
fire hydrant red
lipstick red
brick red
popsicle red

Perhaps, when I asked you which color you preferred, we were standing in front of a canvas. Or, perhaps we had already chosen our favorite popsicles and we were comparing the looks of them as the sun shined through them.

In any case, asking which popsicle color you like best is not disingenuous, a trick of language, or a manipulation. If you misinterpret the question and give an incorrect response, it is because you assumed what I was asking rather than examining the question.

This sort of adherence to the literal runs the risk of making communication with somebody a chore.

If we're about to order a pizza, you ask me "what pizza toppings do you like?" and I tell you "sausage and mushrooms", I'm expecting a sausage and mushroom pizza rather than a cheese pizza and an explanation that you were curious as to what foods I like to eat that are typically used to top pizzas.

The miscommunication may technically be my fault, but that doesn't alter the fact that next time we're in that situation I'll ignore your questions and/or order my own pizza.

Extrapolating to the words that somebody puts into print for posterity, I would argue that there is an implied burden on the (edit: writer) not only to (edit: write) correctly and precisely, but also to understand how the words will probably be interpreted. If someone is broadly misinterpreted, the justification that what the (edit: writer) said was technically correct will almost certainly be an empty 'victory'.

[JHC]

Maybe YOU haven't. I have, since post one.
I'm not making assumptions as to what he meant. I'm reading what he said and discerning what he meant. Isn't that the beauty of linguistics?


How is that remotely what I'm saying? I don't think you're reading my posts.

Yes, I realize that you began explaining why you disagreed with Ingersoll long before the thread was a twinkle in my eye.

That is why the thread began with the question "what does it mean"?

If you understood what Ingersoll was suggesting, your response would suggest trolling. Why? Because Ingersoll's point is that you should examine without bias and you did the exact opposite, arriving exactly where Ingersoll predicts one would, at the wrong answer.

[Donkey]

We are a clever species. Clever enough to go a step further.
We can examine the question without bias before searching for an answer. This way, we stand to make fewer mistakes. Mistakes can be dangerous.

For instance, my analogy was never That is how your clever brain interpreted the question with no context given. The actual question, which might surprise you, was this:



Your clever, clever brain added in all kinds of things that weren't there:
1) that red and blue were flavors
2) that you were being offered something to eat
Perhaps, likely even, your clever brain has concocted an entire setting which you believe would be the most likely setting for such a conversation to happen. And so it seems, to your clever brain, completely natural to have arrived at the answer "cherry" when the question was "red or blue?". And you will argue vehemently that your unambiguously wrong answer was someone else's fault for not having been clear.I'm glad we agree that my brain is clever. For what it's worth, I'd probably say the blue popsicle, unless I had reasonable certainty that the red one was raspberry instead of cherry.

As far as literal vs. communicative conversation is concerned, I agree with Drgoodtrips.

This sort of adherence to the literal runs the risk of making communication with somebody a chore.

If we're about to order a pizza, you ask me "what pizza toppings do you like?" and I tell you "sausage and mushrooms", I'm expecting a sausage and mushroom pizza rather than a cheese pizza and an explanation that you were curious as to what foods I like to eat that are typically used to top pizzas.

The miscommunication may technically be my fault, but that doesn't alter the fact that next time we're in that situation I'll ignore your questions and/or order my own pizza.

Extrapolating to the words that somebody puts into print for posterity, I would argue that there is an implied burden on the (edit: writer) not only to (edit: write) correctly and precisely, but also to understand how the words will probably be interpreted. If someone is broadly misinterpreted, the justification that what the (edit: writer) said was technically correct will almost certainly be an empty 'victory'.

[JHC]

This sort of adherence to the literal runs the risk of making communication with somebody a chore.

If we're about to order a pizza, you ask me "what pizza toppings do you like?" and I tell you "sausage and mushrooms", I'm expecting a sausage and mushroom pizza rather than a cheese pizza and an explanation that you were curious as to what foods I like to eat that are typically used to top pizzas.

The miscommunication may technically be my fault, but that doesn't alter the fact that next time we're in that situation I'll ignore your questions and/or order my own pizza.

Extrapolating to the words that somebody puts into print for posterity, I would argue that there is an implied burden on the (edit: writer) not only to (edit: write) correctly and precisely, but also to understand how the words will probably be interpreted. If someone is broadly misinterpreted, the justification that what the (edit: writer) said was technically correct will almost certainly be an empty 'victory'.

But again, you're assuming the situation when it wasn't called for. There was no hint that I was offering anyone a popsicle. There was no scene, there was no context. At that point, the "chore" comes from making an assumption before examining the question. At that point, one ends up spending 100 pages just trying to arrive back at square one.

This is illustrated by Donkey and I in this very thread. I asked "what does it mean" and Donkey went on to assume that we both understood it to mean the same thing and expressed his opinion about it.

[dilettante]

What does it mean?

If the question you want to explore really is "what does it mean?" then I can only think to reply with, "what does it mean to whom?"

[drgoodtrips]

But again, you're assuming the situation when it wasn't called for. There was no hint that I was offering anyone a popsicle. There was no scene, there was no context. At that point, the "chore" comes from making an assumption before examining the question. At that point, one ends up spending 100 pages just trying to arrive back at square one.

This is illustrated by Donkey and I in this very thread. I asked "what does it mean" and Donkey went on to assume that we both understood it to mean the same thing and expressed his opinion about it.

:shrug:

Truth be told, I wasn't really reading through all of the stuff about popsicles and whatnot. I was more addressing the general idea that you started a thread about a quote and the first seven pages seem to be more of an attempt at a natural language processing algorithm than a discussion of the quote and any historical context, implications and and interpretations thereof.

It appears to me, as a relative outsider to the thread, that the discussion you want to have is a different one than the one the other thread participants want to have. Donkey and perhaps others want to discuss the ideas that inspired the quote and you want to discuss the English language syntax of the quote.

I could be wrong about that, but the path from Ingersol's quote to colors of popsicles is not really an obvious one if it doesn't go through an exhaustive degree of parsing language. And, that was the context for my comment. You may well be right in everything you're saying about Donkey's motivation to discuss the quote instead of the mechanics of the English therein, but if that's what he wants to discuss, your insistence that he should want to discuss the mechanics is you handing him a cheese pizza when he's told you he likes sausage and mushrooms.

[The Drunk Girl]

The color is connected to the object in this case. At least that is the way I see it.

I think most people's thoughts would jump to the flavor of the popsicle instead of just the color. When you see red candy, what comes to mind?...purple candy?...black candy?...yellow candy? All of these colors have a flavor associated with them in this particular situation.

If you did ask me if I preferred red over blue in respect to popsicles, I most likely would ask about the flavor. You haven't clarified yet up to this point in our hypothetical conversation what exactly you were asking. How am I to know that you are only asking about color? We communicate

[dilettante]

Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

Responding to what the quote means to me:

In the broadest sense, I think he's trying to say that we should be open-minded, rational and unbiased in our approach to the world. Personally, I think there's some value in that.

However, Ingersoll appears to be going beyond the humble idea that open-minded rationality is a good rule of thumb. Indeed, he seems to be on the verge of deifying the individual's reason as the supreme and unquestionable source of truth, authority and goodness. And, somewhat ironically, I find that to be unreasonable. :)

It seems to me that, whether for good or ill, humans cannot wholly divorce our reasoning from our passions, interests, loves and hatreds (though I grant that at times we should try). And if we could, we would find such reasoning to be of strictly limited use; it would be a chronically disinterested and apathetic "sovereign" of the world.

Furthermore, and contrary to Ingersoll's assertion, I think can truth can be extremely dangerous to a great many things.

And finally, in rejecting all authority and "anything that his reason does not say is true," Ingersoll would seem to assume that his own reason, if not perfect, was at least superior to anyone else's and that consequently, if something did not makes sense to him personally, he should discard it, regardless of the qualifications of the authority advocating it.

[drgoodtrips]

Responding to what the quote means to me:

In the broadest sense, I think he's trying to say that we should be open-minded, rational and unbiased in our approach to the world. Personally, I think there's some value in that.

However, Ingersoll appears to be going beyond the humble idea that open-minded rationality is a good rule of thumb. Indeed, he seems to be on the verge of deifying the individual's reason as the supreme and unquestionable source of truth, authority and goodness. And, somewhat ironically, I find that to be unreasonable. :)

It seems to me that, whether for good or ill, humans cannot wholly divorce our reasoning from our passions, interests, loves and hatreds (though I grant that at times we should try). And if we could, we would find such reasoning to be of strictly limited use; it would be a chronically disinterested and apathetic "sovereign" of the world.

Furthermore, and contrary to Ingersoll's assertion, I think can truth can be extremely dangerous to a great many things.

And finally, in rejecting all authority and "anything that his reason does not say is true," Ingersoll would seem to assume that his own reason, if not perfect, was at least superior to anyone else's and that consequently, if something did not makes sense to him personally, he should discard it, regardless of the qualifications of the authority advocating it.

And, to continue what you're saying in this last paragraph, it also seems to preclude the possibility that somebody may lack basic reasoning skills or may be somehow mentally incapacitated. If I go out and get loaded and my 'reason' tells me that I have every bit as much right to a cop car as the cop driving it does (after all, I pay taxes and thus their salaries), his advice is hardly sound.

I'd say Ingersol's words would be better qualified to suggest, perhaps, rejecting any external "authority" that is demonstrably unreasonable or something like that.

As an aside, this quote reminds me of Ayn Rand for some reason. Probably the veneration of the individual's reasoning and some notion of objective truth winning the day.

[Americano]

And, to continue what you're saying in this last paragraph, it also seems to preclude the possibility that somebody may lack basic reasoning skills or may be somehow mentally incapacitated. If I go out and get loaded and my 'reason' tells me that I have every bit as much right to a cop car as the cop driving it does (after all, I pay taxes and thus their salaries), his advice is hardly sound.

I'd say Ingersol's words would be better qualified to suggest, perhaps, rejecting any external "authority" that is demonstrably unreasonable or something like that.

As an aside, this quote reminds me of Ayn Rand for some reason. Probably the veneration of the individual's reasoning and some notion of objective truth winning the day.

http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/204.html

[drgoodtrips]

http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/204.html

:lol:

Well I'll be damned. At least I'm not the only one.

[Donkey]

Yes, I realize that you began explaining why you disagreed with Ingersoll long before the thread was a twinkle in my eye.

That is why the thread began with the question "what does it mean"?

If you understood what Ingersoll was suggesting, your response would suggest trolling. Why? Because Ingersoll's point is that you should examine without bias and you did the exact opposite, arriving exactly where Ingersoll predicts one would, at the wrong answer.[/QUOTE]

According to whom?

[JHC]

If the question you want to explore really is "what does it mean?" then I can only think to reply with, "what does it mean to whom?"

Examine the question. Take your time. All the context necessary to answer the question is available.

Read Ingersoll's statement and see if you can figure out why I asked "what does it mean?" rather than "what do you think?"

[Donkey]

Examine the question. Take your time. All the context necessary to answer the question is available.

Read Ingersoll's statement and see if you can figure out why I asked "what does it mean?" rather than "what do you think?"

Why don't you just tell us why?

[JHC]

If you understood what Ingersoll was suggesting, your response would suggest trolling. Why? Because Ingersoll's point is that you should examine without bias and you did the exact opposite, arriving exactly where Ingersoll predicts one would, at the wrong answer.

According to whom?[/QUOTE]

Well, you and I already agreed about what Ingersoll was trying to say in the first few sentences. So, according to both you and I.

When you began interjecting your own bias, you changed the meaning of what you first agreed that it meant from an objective examination.

Had you continued with the original question "what does it mean" rather than allowing your prejudice to interfere, you may well have changed your mind.

As an analogy, it would be as if you and I were objectively examining the statement "do you prefer red to blue popsicles?" and arrived at the conclusion that, without further context, the question has to do with color. Then you looked at the same sentence and said "but I think I prefer cherry anyway". Fine. You prefer cherry. But that wasn't the question.

[Donkey]

Well, you and I already agreed about what Ingersoll was trying to say in the first few sentences. So, according to both you and I.

When you began interjecting your own bias, you changed the meaning of what you first agreed that it meant from an objective examination.

Had you continued with the original question "what does it mean" rather than allowing your prejudice to interfere, you may well have changed your mind.


I don't think I changed anything in this thread.

Again I pose the question: wrong according to whom?

[JHC]

Why don't you just tell us why?

I did tell you why.

[Michael]

What does it mean?

It looks like the creed of the noble stoic. :shrug:

I consider 'truth' to be far too elusive to allow myself to make any claim for it.

Besides which, any 'truth' as Ingersol finds will float only in his own mind, for the pleasure of himself alone. What's the fun in that?

[JHC]

Maybe it would help if I put this together as it happened conversationally: How about the first sentence?
Every man should be mentally honest.

What does it mean and do you agree?

What the quote means and what Mr. Ingersoll meant by it are not necessarily the same thing.


I think what he means is that every man (and I imagine he'd broaden it to include women as well) should accept what logic tells him the truth is, rather than what he wants it to be.

"Every man" could mean everyone. I wouldn't argue with that since it was and is still relatively common to default to the masculine.

But what does it mean to be "mentally honest"?

I did not ask what Ingersoll meant for good reason. I asked what "it" (as in the statement), means. What do these words mean. You can either answer by presuming that you know what Ingersoll meant because you are familiar with him as a philosopher/social activist, or you can assume a meaning based on your own bias.

Try to answer by evaluating the words themselves.And the second question? (the question having been posed by me "...and do you agree?")
Yes, I do....I do too.
The rest of the quote is where I begin to have issues.proceeding on the assumption that we are still answering the question "what does it mean", having some inclination that Donkey is alluding to a new topic to do with how he feels about his own unexamined question. If I do not allow him to make clear his intention, I compound the problem so I stick to the original discussion "what does it mean":The next sentence seems to be mostly rhetoric to me:
"He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul."

Preserve means to keep and "most precious jewel" implies highest importance, and "veracity of soul" seems to mean the sense of real integrity one has about themselves.

So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.

That is what I get from the first two sentences and I agree.

And you?

No arguments here.
"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear."

To examine is to look at something in detail or to inspect something. In this case, it is "questions presented to [one's] mind" that is to be inspected carefully.

"...without prejudice," is an elaboration to the point which means, without judging beforehand. So we are to scrutinize questions that come to our minds without first drawing conclusions - just study the question.

"...unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear -" We are to study the questions without drawing conclusions that may be based on a predisposition of strong emotions like love, hate, desire, or fear.

I agree with all of this. I agree that it is best to examine the question without bias.I find that to be incompatible with. So far, it seems to mean that thinking about things honestly is important, especially in respect to one's self. Your own thoughts should be honest right to the core of your being.Still trying to stick to the topic "what does it mean" and prevent Donkey from delving into how he feels about what he thinks someone meant when they said something:Do you agree with my take on what it means? I actually made a critical error if you find them incompatible.Perhaps we have fundamentally different understandings of words such as love, hate, desire, fear, and bias. Donkey is ignoring the question of whether or not we were in agreement about the meaning and beginning to make some additional assumptions about a purpose other than my intention of deciphering "what does it mean?"Perhaps it would be easier if you just tell me what it is you find incompatible.

If I may, before you dive in, correct my interpretation:"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear."
"should" means ought to or strive for
To examine is to look at something in detail or to inspect something. In this case, it is "questions presented to [one's] mind" that is to be inspected carefully.

"...without prejudice," is an elaboration to the point which means, without judging beforehand. So we are to scrutinize questions that come to our minds without first drawing conclusions - just study the question.

"...unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear -" We are to study the questions without drawing conclusions that may be based on a predisposition of strong emotions like love, hate, desire, or fear.

I agree with all of this. I agree that it is best to examine the question without bias.




That which is bolded is the edit.
Well, two things. One, saying you SHOULD do something is inherently subjective. Kinda puts a stick in the spokes right there.

More importantly, though, I find Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.



Incompatible with
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear.

At this juncture, it is clear that Donkey has lost track of the original thread topic, the original unexamined question: "What does it mean". Out of courtesy, I allow him to pursue a sub topic but this was a mistake. Watch what happens when we combine "what does it mean" with "how do you feel about what you think someone else said":The word should is not subjective. Compliance with what should be is subjective, and his opinion about what should be done is subjective (and so is his entire statement - it is his opinion after all), but the word should, itself, is objective. No?

I THINK what you are trying to say is that people are incapable of examining anything without any bias or prejudice whatsoever. I hate to put words in your mouth but neither am I trying to torture you to get you to elucidate.

Did I understand why you find the two statements incompatible?
I thought Donkey was trying to define what the word "should" means but he wasn't. He was off and running with his evaluation of how he felt about what he thought someone else said:

The word should is not subjective. Compliance with what should be is subjective, and his opinion about what should be done is subjective (and so is his entire statement - it is his opinion after all), but the word should, itself, is objective. No?
No. In no way whatsoever.

I THINK what you are trying to say is that people are incapable of examining anything without any bias or prejudice whatsoever. I hate to put words in your mouth but neither am I trying to torture you to get you to elucidate.

Did I understand why you find the two statements incompatible?I didn't say anything. Math is relatively objective. As I said in the other thread, two plus two is four. I shouldn't say that it's five just because I want it to be.

I can use math to demonstrate a wealth disparity between a small minority and the rest of the population. I cannot objectively think that this matters in moral terms.

But he did say something. He said he found the two incompatible and I asked why and then attempted to verify my understanding of his view. I have no idea what math has to do with it or what other thread he is referring to or what wealth disparity or "moral terms" has to do with anything at all and it is revealed in my response:

What?
I'm so confused.

Did I not understand why you think the two are incompatible?


You did say you found two statements incompatible and you did not explain why.
I asked if you thought they were incompatible because humans are incapable of being unbiased.

Then I asked if that is what you meant and you said that you "didn't say anything at all".

???

And from here it is all down hill. I asked a question. The question was: What does it mean?

I did not ask "what do you think Ingersoll meant" but I hoped that in examining the question, one would have read the statement and realized that Ingersoll's very first suggestion is that we "examine the question" before applying our bias' and prejudices.

I did not ask "how do you feel about what you think this other person meant when they wrote these words?" Why? Because I didn't want an answer to that question. I wanted to know if you could do exactly what Ingersoll suggests: examine the question.

Do you understand?

[Donkey]

Do you understand?

Perhaps, but I no longer care.

I entered the thread in good faith, answered all your questions in good faith, and tried to the best of my ability to discuss the topic of what the quotation means.

I'm not interested in playing word games or any others.

[JHC]

Perhaps, but I no longer care.

I entered the thread in good faith, answered all your questions in good faith, and tried to the best of my ability to discuss the topic of what the quotation means.

I'm not interested in playing word games or any others.

OK. For anyone else that happens to be reading, what do you think? Was Ingersoll right when he said that error is dangerous?

It looks to me as if someone's perturbed. Completely unnecessary.

[Donkey]

OK. For anyone else that happens to be reading, what do you think? Was Ingersoll right when he said that error is dangerous?

It looks to me as if someone's perturbed. Completely unnecessary.

I think he's right when he said that error is dangerous. But if we're being as pedantic and precise as you exist, I don't think we even got to that part of the quotation.

:rolleyes:

[Michael]

OK. For anyone else that happens to be reading, what do you think? Was Ingersoll right when he said that error is dangerous?

I consider Ingersoll to be foolish when he says that error is dangerous. Error is a necessary tool of learning.

I consider that kind of self-righteous and subjective certainty that Ingersoll praises to be rather dangerous to society.

[JHC]

I think he's right when he said that error is dangerous. But if we're being as pedantic and precise as you exist, I don't think we even got to that part of the quotation.

:rolleyes:

Yes. We did:Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. "

We talked about it at great length. I tried to tell you that is why I asked "what does it mean?" and still, just a couple of posts ago, you said "Why don't you just tell us?" As if we'd never discussed that in Ingersoll's first few lines, he suggests that we "examine the question".

Donkey, if I seem pedantic perhaps it is because it is necessary. If I ask "what does it mean" and you hear "how do you feel about what you think someone else meant when they made this statement", do you think a little pedantry might be required?

I find it amusing that you believe I live in a different world than you. I could be sitting on your jury or be your secretary or retelling what happened to your best friend at a political rally - situations in which it would be important for you to have an unbiased, unprejudiced explanation. I wonder if you would laugh at my "pedantry".

[Donkey]

"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. "

Is not

"Error is dangerous."

[JHC]

"He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. "

Is not

"Error is dangerous."

Well you're right. Actually, I had gotten there but you had already wandered off. So you are half right. Besides, if you were examining the question, you might have already read and examined that statement. As it is, examining it now, in hindsight, would just be pedantic wouldn't it? :rofl:

[Donkey]

Well you're right. Actually, I had gotten there but you had already wandered off. So you are half right. Besides, if you were examining the question, you might have already read and examined that statement. As it is, examining it now, in hindsight, would just be pedantic wouldn't it? :rofl:

I examined the question. Just not in the way that you desired. Sorry. :shrug:

[JHC]

I examined the question. Just not in the way that you desired. Sorry. :shrug:

Can you tell me what the question was?

[Donkey]

Can you tell me what the question was?
Sure.
What does it mean?

[Non Sequitur]

How about in a court of law? As a parent trying to determine if his or her own children are lying about what happened or if it is the neighbor's children? What about if one is determining what the best route is for a long trip; the route which is scenic or the route which takes less gas? Perhaps it would be easier if you could give an example of when this is NOT agreeable.

Would you mind if we did these one at a time?

Well the Court is a lab of sorts. It just happens to be focused on justice. I guess all I can say is that in the rest of those situations you named i can think of very clear situations where evidence is not considered and gut feeling, trust in authority, and/ or trust in a bias of love or hatred is the better course of action.

For example, when i travel i don't consider evidence. In many situations i just go with what feels right.

Furthermore, those situations are all incredibly subjective. Parents beliefs about evidence are always connected to what they believe about their children and the evidence will be weighed by such considerations.

[Donkey]

What is justice? :rofl:

[JHC]

Sure.

My humble apologies. If you are interested in pursuing this pedantry, please do restate your assessment of what "it" means. We are talking about the line from the below quote which is in bold face type:Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear. His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

[JHC]

Well the Court is a lab of sorts. It just happens to be focused on justice. I guess all I can say is that in the rest of those situations you named i can think of very clear situations where evidence is not considered and gut feeling, trust in authority, and/ or trust in a bias of love or hatred is the better course of action.

For example, when i travel i don't consider evidence. In many situations i just go with what feels right.

Furthermore, those situations are all incredibly subjective. Parents beliefs about evidence are always connected to what they believe about their children and the evidence will be weighed by such considerations.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean MY list, I meant YOURS. I am started on your first item.
1) weigh the evidence: fine enough in certain situations usually involving a lab I was giving you a list of other instances in which it would be advisable to weigh the evidence.

Then I suggested that perhaps it would be easier for you to give us an example of a situation in which weighing the evidence is imprudent. You still aren't quite getting to a specific situation in which weighing the evidence is the best course of action.

I am, and I'm sure Ingersoll is, aware of what does happen. Ingersoll is suggesting what should happen. If you disagree, then it is your task to explain why it SHOULDN'T, not how it is.

[JHC]

It looks like the creed of the noble stoic. :shrug:

I consider 'truth' to be far too elusive to allow myself to make any claim for it.

Besides which, any 'truth' as Ingersol finds will float only in his own mind, for the pleasure of himself alone. What's the fun in that?

Regarding "truth", this is why I asked "what does it mean" rather than "how do you feel about it".

My aim is twofold: 1) to demonstrate what Ingersoll suggests - examine the question, and 2) to THEN discuss where we may agree and where we may sense short comings.

So, would you care to discuss what "it" means when "it" is the portion of the quote discussing "truth", in bold face type, below?:
Every man should be mentally honest. He should preserve as his most precious jewel the veracity of his soul.
He should examine all questions presented to his mind, without prejudice, -unbiased by hatred or love- by desire or fear.His object and his only object should be to find the truth. He knows, if he listens to reason, that truth is not dangerous and that error is. He should weigh the evidence, the arguments, in honest scales-scales that passion or interest cannot change. He should care nothing for authority-nothing for names, customs or creeds-nothing for anything that his reason does not say is true.
Of his world he should be the sovereign, and his soul should wear purple. From his dominions should be banished the hosts of force and fear.
~Robert G. Ingersoll

[Michael]

Regarding "truth", this is why I asked "what does it mean" rather than "how do you feel about it".
The term "truth" has no objective meaning. It is highly subjective.

My aim is twofold: 1) to demonstrate what Ingersoll suggests - examine the question, and 2) to THEN discuss where we may agree and where we may sense short comings.

So, would you care to discuss what "it" means when "it" is the portion of the quote discussing "truth", in bold face type, below?:

I already did. Truth is subjective, therefore this Ingersol is praising extreme subjectivity - which is why I said I don't like and strongly disagree with the quoted passage. At best, it is the 'creed of a noble stoic' - more often, it is the warcry of the hatemonger, the partisan and the self-righteous. :shrug:

[JHC]

The term "truth" has no objective meaning. It is highly subjective.



I already did. Truth is subjective, therefore this Ingersol is praising extreme subjectivity - which is why I said I don't like and strongly disagree with the quoted passage. At best, it is the 'creed of a noble stoic' - more often, it is the warcry of the hatemonger, the partisan and the self-righteous. :shrug:
You don't think the context gives a clue about what type of truth is intended? Of course truth is subjective but I think Ingersoll is giving enough information to indicate what the word means in this context.

[JHC]

Well the Court is a lab of sorts. It just happens to be focused on justice. I guess all I can say is that in the rest of those situations you named i can think of very clear situations where evidence is not considered and gut feeling, trust in authority, and/ or trust in a bias of love or hatred is the better course of action.

For example, when i travel i don't consider evidence. In many situations i just go with what feels right.

Furthermore, those situations are all incredibly subjective. Parents beliefs about evidence are always connected to what they believe about their children and the evidence will be weighed by such considerations.

I am so sorry. I just re-read my response to you and it was nearly impossible to decipher. I'm pretty pooped right now but I'll try to be more clear after a good rest.

[JHC]

This is how I understand what truth means in the context of the words that precede it. Ingersoll isn't talking about capital t truth (epistemological truth), he's talking about common truth.

The difference?

Have you ever told a lie? Did YOU know you were telling a lie?
Of course you did or it would have been a mistake rather than a lie, an error.

When one begins a speech using words such as "honest", (free from deceit) and "veracity", (conformity to facts), he is talking about the opposite of lies and exaggerations, interpretations and other manipulations of fact.

Another way of saying this is saying: one should not lie, twist or embellish the facts, in his own mind or in presentation to others.
This leads to error and misunderstanding.
Sometimes the facts become twisted due to our own bias and prejudice. Therefore, it should be our most important goal to examine the question/issue before passing judgement to ensure we have not twisted or embellished the facts lest we promote error.

[Donkey]

This is how I understand what truth means in the context of the words that precede it. Ingersoll isn't talking about capital t truth (epistemological truth), he's talking about common truth.

The difference?

Have you ever told a lie? Did YOU know you were telling a lie?
Of course you did or it would have been a mistake rather than a lie, an error.

When one begins a speech using words such as "honest", (free from deceit) and "veracity", (conformity to facts), he is talking about the opposite of lies and exaggerations, interpretations and other manipulations of fact.

Another way of saying this is saying: one should not lie, twist or embellish the facts, in his own mind or in presentation to others.
This leads to error and misunderstanding.
Sometimes the facts become twisted due to our own bias and prejudice. Therefore, it should be our most important goal to examine the question/issue before passing judgement to ensure we have not twisted or embellished the facts lest we promote error.
Sorry to take it immediately to the conversation's eventual conclusion (I know you prefer not to skip steps, but my brain tends to arc), but...

Nazi: Yo man, you hiding any Jews up in this house?
Jew-Hider: Nope.

[Americano]

This is how I understand what truth means in the context of the words that precede it. Ingersoll isn't talking about capital t truth (epistemological truth), he's talking about common truth.

The difference?

Have you ever told a lie? Did YOU know you were telling a lie?
Of course you did or it would have been a mistake rather than a lie, an error.

When one begins a speech using words such as "honest", (free from deceit) and "veracity", (conformity to facts), he is talking about the opposite of lies and exaggerations, interpretations and other manipulations of fact.

Another way of saying this is saying: one should not lie, twist or embellish the facts, in his own mind or in presentation to others.
This leads to error and misunderstanding.
Sometimes the facts become twisted due to our own bias and prejudice. Therefore, it should be our most important goal to examine the question/issue before passing judgement to ensure we have not twisted or embellished the facts lest we promote error.

"When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself".

~multiple attributions~

[JHC]

:shrug:

Truth be told, I wasn't really reading through all of the stuff about popsicles and whatnot. I was more addressing the general idea that you started a thread about a quote and the first seven pages seem to be more of an attempt at a natural language processing algorithm than a discussion of the quote and any historical context, implications and and interpretations thereof.

It appears to me, as a relative outsider to the thread, that the discussion you want to have is a different one than the one the other thread participants want to have. Donkey and perhaps others want to discuss the ideas that inspired the quote and you want to discuss the English language syntax of the quote.

I could be wrong about that, but the path from Ingersol's quote to colors of popsicles is not really an obvious one if it doesn't go through an exhaustive degree of parsing language. And, that was the context for my comment. You may well be right in everything you're saying about Donkey's motivation to discuss the quote instead of the mechanics of the English therein, but if that's what he wants to discuss, your insistence that he should want to discuss the mechanics is you handing him a cheese pizza when he's told you he likes sausage and mushrooms.

No, you are not wrong about your interpretation at all. But I started the thread and I asked the question. The thread topic is "Ingersoll's quote, what does it mean?" Not, "Let's talk epistemology.

And I started the thread this way on purpose. I could argue that passing judgement about whether or not one agreed with Ingersoll is off topic since, it's my thread. The point, however, is not to cram my opinions down your throats but to use Ingersoll's own suggestion as a thread topic.

The point of this thread is to practice Ingersoll's suggestion of examining questions. The question of the thread topic is "what does the quote mean" The thread topic is not "what does Ingersoll mean" or "what do you think it means", or what do you think of Robert Ingersoll. Can you examine the question in the manner Ingersoll suggests - without bias or prejudice, exaggeration or manipulation?

The tools we have to work with OTHER than our bias, prejudice etc..., are the words and context of them. Since this is common era as far as language goes, we don't need to interpret the English language. Since the question is not political, religious, social, etc... we do not need to examine the times.

[JHC]

Sorry to take it immediately to the conversation's eventual conclusion (I know you prefer not to skip steps, but my brain tends to arc), but...

Nazi: Yo man, you hiding any Jews up in this house?
Jew-Hider: Nope.

This is NOT skipping steps. This is off topic. You have, at nearly every turn, been off topic unless I dragged it out line by line.

The thread topic is about "examining the question" and THIS THREADS question is "What does it mean?"

What's a little exasperating is that your persistent arcing is a commentary illustrating that you still don't understand either the thread topic or the quote.

[JHC]

"When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself".

~multiple attributions~

Why this quote? I don't understand the connection.

[Donkey]

This is NOT skipping steps. This is off topic. You have, at nearly every turn, been off topic unless I dragged it out line by line.

The thread topic is about "examining the question" and THIS THREADS question is "What does it mean?"

What's a little exasperating is that your persistent arcing is a commentary illustrating that you still don't understand either the thread topic or the quote.

It is DIRECTLY related to the part of the quote that I bolded.

[drgoodtrips]

No, you are not wrong about your interpretation at all. But I started the thread and I asked the question. The thread topic is "Ingersoll's quote, what does it mean?" Not, "Let's talk epistemology.

And I started the thread this way on purpose. I could argue that passing judgement about whether or not one agreed with Ingersoll is off topic since, it's my thread. The point, however, is not to cram my opinions down your throats but to use Ingersoll's own suggestion as a thread topic.

The point of this thread is to practice Ingersoll's suggestion of examining questions. The question of the thread topic is "what does the quote mean" The thread topic is not "what does Ingersoll mean" or "what do you think it means", or what do you think of Robert Ingersoll. Can you examine the question in the manner Ingersoll suggests - without bias or prejudice, exaggeration or manipulation?

The tools we have to work with OTHER than our bias, prejudice etc..., are the words and context of them. Since this is common era as far as language goes, we don't need to interpret the English language. Since the question is not political, religious, social, etc... we do not need to examine the times.

Fair enough. I don't want to drag things off topic, and, to be honest, I have zero interest in the discussion as you've framed it here, so I'll bow out of the thread.

[JHC]

The color is connected to the object in this case. At least that is the way I see it.

I think most people's thoughts would jump to the flavor of the popsicle instead of just the color. When you see red candy, what comes to mind?...purple candy?...black candy?...yellow candy? All of these colors have a flavor associated with them in this particular situation.

If you did ask me if I preferred red over blue in respect to popsicles, I most likely would ask about the flavor. You haven't clarified yet up to this point in our hypothetical conversation what exactly you were asking. How am I to know that you are only asking about color? We communicate

But you are assuming (your brain is filling in), context that is not given. That's the point. If you heard this conversation between two other people around the corner of a building, you would likely assume that they were divvying popsicles. If it were somehow a critical question in a court of law (if it mattered what they were talking about), "what were they doing", you may immediately blurt out "eating popsicles". If you had turned the corner, you might have seen two people choosing glass for a church window and speaking poetically about the similar colors.

What I am trying to show you is that the second I said popsicle, you defaulted to flavor. Perhaps you think it isn't really important but Ingersoll is talking about that specifically. It is, in fact, the main point of this thread - not relying on bias and prejudice but actually examining the question. In order to understand what Ingersoll's words mean, you must be practicing what he's suggesting.

So, unless you and I have been sitting around on a hot summer day expressing a desire for popsicles, you shouldn't assume that when I ask if you prefer red to blue popsicles, that I'm offering you something to eat. There was no context given.

What difference does it make? In real life, this one example would make squat difference. In this thread topic, it illustrates a misunderstanding of the quote itself.

[JHC]

Fair enough. I don't want to drag things off topic, and, to be honest, I have zero interest in the discussion as you've framed it here, so I'll bow out of the thread.

Fair enough.

[JHC]

It is DIRECTLY related to the part of the quote that I bolded.

What is the thread topic?

[Donkey]

What is the thread topic?

What the meaning of the quote is, if examined objectively.

I presume, since you've known this from the get-go, then all of your posts are on-topic. I'm merely responding to your posts. If that's not within the strictures of acceptable thread-drift, then I'm afraid I'm with Goodtrips on this one. :shrug:

[dilettante]

What does it mean?

Perhaps you could just tell us what you think it means and, assuming we can agree with you, we could move on from there?

[Non Sequitur]

The point of this thread is to practice Ingersoll's suggestion of examining questions. The question of the thread topic is "what does the quote mean" The thread topic is not "what does Ingersoll mean" or "what do you think it means", or what do you think of Robert Ingersoll. Can you examine the question in the manner Ingersoll suggests - without bias or prejudice, exaggeration or manipulation?

The simple answer to that is no (at least for me).

[Michael]

No, you are not wrong about your interpretation at all. But I started the thread and I asked the question. The thread topic is "Ingersoll's quote, what does it mean?" Not, "Let's talk epistemology.

And I started the thread this way on purpose. I could argue that passing judgement about whether or not one agreed with Ingersoll is off topic since, it's my thread. The point, however, is not to cram my opinions down your throats but to use Ingersoll's own suggestion as a thread topic.

The point of this thread is to practice Ingersoll's suggestion of examining questions. The question of the thread topic is "what does the quote mean" The thread topic is not "what does Ingersoll mean" or "what do you think it means", or what do you think of Robert Ingersoll. Can you examine the question in the manner Ingersoll suggests - without bias or prejudice, exaggeration or manipulation?

The tools we have to work with OTHER than our bias, prejudice etc..., are the words and context of them. Since this is common era as far as language goes, we don't need to interpret the English language. Since the question is not political, religious, social, etc... we do not need to examine the times.
I'm with the drgoodtrips on this one since I think the Ingersoll quote isn't very admirable at all and whose advice ought not to be followed.

Indeed, for me to approach the topic this way requires me to just toss aside everything I've ever said about epistemology and I'm not going to do that. That is to say, I cannot accept that any statement has some intrinsic meaning that is independent of the author/speaker/reader's subjectivity.

[Donkey]

I'm with the drgoodtrips on this one since I think the Ingersoll quote isn't very admirable at all and whose advice ought not to be followed.

Indeed, for me to approach the topic this way requires me to just toss aside everything I've ever said about epistemology and I'm not going to do that. That is to say, I cannot accept that any statement has some intrinsic meaning that is independent of the author/speaker/reader's subjectivity.

Not even "He Lives?"



;)

[Michael]

Not even "He Lives?"



;)

I'm okay with that part. Its the bit about "Of his world he should be the sovereign" that troubles me - this is a glorification of pure subjectivity for the glory of the self/ego.

There's nothing admirable about that. Indeed, sounds like the tea party set to me where facts are irrelevant, all that matters is what you believe. :shrug:

[Donkey]

I'm okay with that part. Its the bit about "Of his world he should be the sovereign" that troubles me - this is a glorification of pure subjectivity for the glory of the self/ego.

There's nothing admirable about that. Indeed, sounds like the tea party set to me where facts are irrelevant, all that matters is what you believe. :shrug:

I was just making a joke about inherent truths. "He lives" is about as far as you can distill some brands of Christianity. Fewest words possible!

[JHC]

Cargo Cult Science (http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm)~ Richard Feynman on integrity of thought and practice.