Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some of our seperated brethern in an attempt, I am sure, to enlighten us, have instructed us to ‘think for ourselves’. Certainly there is a great deal to be said for that. In fact, in that point at least they are in accord with the Jesuits who taught me (much to their occasional chagrin.) However, there is one slight problem with that. Perhaps I am simply not the most intelligent person, but I find that, in order to work on, say a computer program, that it is easier to read about computer programs in writings by people far more learned than myself. Now, I think a case could be made that religion may be at least as important as a computer program to schedule bill payments. Fortunatly we have two thousand years of people writing about the subject. Do I agree with all of them? Obviously not. Contrary to what certain people think, the Roman Catholic Church has seldom been of 100% accord, not to mention the protestant and Judaic scholars who also deserve study. But each brings something to the table, if nothing else for making me work the brain cells to understand why I did or did not agree with them. So I am sorry, I think I for one will continue to read the wisdom of others. I guess I am just not intelligent enough..or arrogant enough Wow. And here I thought the passive-aggressive crap would be beneath you. There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because someone else said so (argument from authority) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally said and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because it has been around for a long time (argumentum ad anitquitatem) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally been saying for a long time and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) The arrogant portion would be you criticizing others for not believing as you do because you refuse to think for yourself. Shame on you. Bravo!
I wish I could have avoided saying it, though. I like bardi’s posts, and I honestly don’t know where this came from. How ya been, Laura? My dog ate chocolate the other day.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some of our seperated brethern in an attempt, I am sure, to enlighten us, have instructed us to ‘think for ourselves’. Certainly there is a great deal to be said for that. In fact, in that point at least they are in accord with the Jesuits who taught me (much to their occasional chagrin.) However, there is one slight problem with that. Perhaps I am simply not the most intelligent person, but I find that, in order to work on, say a computer program, that it is easier to read about computer programs in writings by people far more learned than myself. Now, I think a case could be made that religion may be at least as important as a computer program to schedule bill payments. Fortunatly we have two thousand years of people writing about the subject. Do I agree with all of them? Obviously not. Contrary to what certain people think, the Roman Catholic Church has seldom been of 100% accord, not to mention the protestant and Judaic scholars who also deserve study. But each brings something to the table, if nothing else for making me work the brain cells to understand why I did or did not agree with them. So I am sorry, I think I for one will continue to read the wisdom of others. I guess I am just not intelligent enough..or arrogant enough Wow. And here I thought the passive-aggressive crap would be beneath you. There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because someone else said so (argument from authority) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally said and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because it has been around for a long time (argumentum ad anitquitatem) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally been saying for a long time and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) The arrogant portion would be you criticizing others for not believing as you do because you refuse to think for yourself. Shame on you.
Bravo!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some of our seperated brethern in an attempt, I am sure, to enlighten us, have instructed us to ‘think for ourselves’. Certainly there is a great deal to be said for that. In fact, in that point at least they are in accord with the Jesuits who taught me (much to their occasional chagrin.) However, there is one slight problem with that. Perhaps I am simply not the most intelligent person, but I find that, in order to work on, say a computer program, that it is easier to read about computer programs in writings by people far more learned than myself. Now, I think a case could be made that religion may be at least as important as a computer program to schedule bill payments. Fortunatly we have two thousand years of people writing about the subject. Do I agree with all of them? Obviously not. Contrary to what certain people think, the Roman Catholic Church has seldom been of 100% accord, not to mention the protestant and Judaic scholars who also deserve study. But each brings something to the table, if nothing else for making me work the brain cells to understand why I did or did not agree with them. So I am sorry, I think I for one will continue to read the wisdom of others. I guess I am just not intelligent enough..or arrogant enough
Wow. And here I thought the passive-aggressive crap would be beneath you. There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because someone else said so (argument from authority) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally said and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) There is a world of difference between accepting something simply because it has been around for a long time (argumentum ad anitquitatem) and accepting something you have thought about which someone else has coincidentally been saying for a long time and with which you agree, upon due consideration. (That would be thinking for yourself.) The arrogant portion would be you criticizing others for not believing as you do because you refuse to think for yourself. Shame on you.
Response:
Some of our seperated brethern in an attempt, I am sure, to enlighten us, have instructed us to ‘think for ourselves’. Certainly there is a great deal to be said for that. In fact, in that point at least they are in accord with the Jesuits who taught me (much to their occasional chagrin.) However, there is one slight problem with that. Perhaps I am simply not the most intelligent person, but I find that, in order to work on, say a computer program, that it is easier to read about computer programs in writings by people far more learned than myself. Now, I think a case could be made that religion may be at least as important as a computer program to schedule bill payments. Fortunatly we have two thousand years of people writing about the subject. Do I agree with all of them? Obviously not. Contrary to what certain people think, the Roman Catholic Church has seldom been of 100% accord, not to mention the protestant and Judaic scholars who also deserve study. But each brings something to the table, if nothing else for making me work the brain cells to understand why I did or did not agree with them. So I am sorry, I think I for one will continue to read the wisdom of others. I guess I am just not intelligent enough..or arrogant enough dnp bardi
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.