|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 5:11:14 GMT
Maybe, but there's a lot more who join because it's their only way to get training in the skills they want or to escape from grinding poverty and/or an unemployment black spot. The majority of people who join the army tend to do so for practical reasons in fact, I'd say.
Most tend to have pride in their country, yes, but it's quite rare to find a soldier who is a fanatic, in my experience.
Are they lied to? Sure. Do they believe the lies? No more so than the rest of the popn.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 14, 2009 19:03:46 GMT
I'm sure you are right in part, I live in a military environment and most I've met look forward to killing for money or even sport. I find this trend to be directly in line with the goals of any oppressor regime , to make killing machines.
I also find it sad that so many of the military are forced to join in order to escape poverty , it seems always the poor who die in rich mans chess game wars.
It is all a game though , full of false duties to "country" , I might not mind so much , any of it , I just find it contemptible to be always lied to by the establishment. Perhaps if we were told the real motives of war rather than what we are tricked into , more positive action might be taken to resist the orders given by those who are playing after all , with the lives of others.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 19:18:14 GMT
It is a particular conceit of many politicians that they know better than anyone else what is right for the country/world/people than anyone else, and also that the people are too stupid/small-minded/short-sighted to appreciate the brilliance of said politicians, and thus the utter correctness of their cause. This is what leads to all the lies, as it leads also to the trickery and double-dealing inherent in the EU and many other political organisations worldwide.
It is easier to convince people to do what you want with a sugar-coated lie than a hard truth, after all. And no trick has to contend with inconvenient facts that point out the folly of what the politician is doing.
And how many politicians really prefer to take a harder route, when an easy one beckons so very sweetly?
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 14, 2009 19:22:50 GMT
I see that for sure , and I must add this :
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 15, 2009 23:06:36 GMT
I see that for sure , and I must add this : “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan What a crock.....Sagan was as deluded as those he claimed were deluded.. In other words, like most here, if you don't see the universe as I see it, then you are deluded... How many times I gotta say it.... When you grade your own papers, you never flunk any tests...
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 0:46:01 GMT
Have you ever even read Sagan? He's not trying to argue that universe is any certain way at all, or that your beliefs are delusion - though I'm not surprised you jump to that conclusion. The point is to say that even if the truth is not what we want it to be, he would rather know it because it is TRUE than persist in some other belief he used to have that was more comforting and satisfying. Sagan didn't have an agenda, he was in earnest pursuit of understanding the universe. The whole dang point of the quote is to be open to everything, even if you don't like it, not to say that the world is one certain way and shut everything else out. It's funny you should always mention grading your own papers, because you are the king of this realm.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 16, 2009 1:26:55 GMT
Flix , you hit the nail on the head. ss , what...? with the sagan thing.. I don't get you on this one man....
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 3:56:08 GMT
And I'll also say this about Sagan, which I hope demonstrates the respect I hold for him:
To use your own metaphor, Carl Sagan was exactly the type to grade his own paper and FAIL himself if he got the answers wrong, then move on and study harder.
I consider my time in the church a failed test in that sense, and some day I might consider this hyper-skeptical period of my life as another fail, but at no point will I ever lose any sleep because I know I based my opinions on the best info I could absorb, regardless of whether they lacked comfort or a grand purpose to life.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 7:15:57 GMT
I have to admit, I know very little of Sagan, but the quotes I've seen are ALL about finding out what is true, regardless of your own wishes. That's certainly not grading his own paper. Perhaps you have him confused with someone else, ss?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 16, 2009 8:43:37 GMT
I suspect that SS may have looked deeply at Sagan, or spoken to someone that appears to have done so, and so be basing his opinions on that. And as with many things like that, once you see the grime behind the painting, it's very hard to see the beauty on the front.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 8:51:20 GMT
Well, I have to admit to absolute ignorance as to what he was like as a person...
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 9:17:34 GMT
If you want to know that, read his book, "Billions and Billions." He wrote as he was dying, and is one of the most personal books he wrote.
"The Demon-Haunted World" gives his views on the roles religion and superstition have played in civilization and their relationship to science and skepticism.
"Dragons of Eden" is a good but possibly outdated study of the development of the human brain and human intelligence.
"Cosmos" is his most well-known work. He writes about the universe in a methodical way, covering everything from black holes to quasars to gas giants and our own little blue planet, but on a grand scale with a kind of solemn reverence for the majesty and mystery of the cosmos.
Sagan was a scientist who had a gift for writing for a common reader without diluting the info or "talking down" to his audience. Although he made it known that was highly skeptical of religion, I think he was remarkably even-handed in his treatment of it. I may not quite be able to convey it, but he had an air of humility and open-mindedness that you don't see often, or in the new wave scientist/atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris.
@dpr: What's the grime behind the beauty?
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 16, 2009 9:20:57 GMT
It is all a game though , full of false duties to "country" , I might not mind so much , any of it , I just find it contemptible to be always lied to by the establishment. Perhaps if we were told the real motives of war rather than what we are tricked into , more positive action might be taken to resist the orders given by those who are playing after all , with the lives of others. You can always find out why things are being done. It might take work, the political transaction cost to be precise, but it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 16, 2009 9:30:35 GMT
He's said things like:
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
And:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Which are both insightful and true. However, there are more specific quotes like:
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.
And:
Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?
I believe those are the kind of quotes SS refer to when he says Sagan was as deluded as those he claimed were deluded. My own personal theory is that this is because SS didn't agree with the last two quotes but nevermind that. Becasuse even if you don't agree with the last two quotes you can't deny that the first two quotes are true. Those quotes aren't where SS and Sagan disagrees, they disagree on what acually is true.
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 16, 2009 9:48:44 GMT
@dpr: What's the grime behind the beauty? Do you mean in a general sense, explain what I mean. Or specifically about Sagan. If it's about Sagan, I don't know as I've not read enough of his stuff to form an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 9:56:24 GMT
I meant specifically. I sensed that you might know something, but I was wrong.
Ube: Yeah, there it is. But quotes isolated from a large book don't always give the best picture, so there's that.
I happen to agree with all those quotes...
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 16, 2009 18:57:00 GMT
Carl Sagan was an amazing man and a far better man than I ever will be, or ever could be. I'm deeply moved by his work in all fields, and I in that I found him to be a compassionate, intelligent person.
A person who loved truth, or at the very least the hunt for it-
|
|
dsf
Newbie
Posts: 13
|
Post by dsf on Oct 16, 2009 23:44:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 17, 2009 8:40:28 GMT
Ha! Those are great! Excellent find, DSF! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 17, 2009 21:06:46 GMT
He's said things like: The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. And: For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Which are both insightful and true. However, there are more specific quotes like: In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way. And: Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved? I believe those are the kind of quotes SS refer to when he says Sagan was as deluded as those he claimed were deluded. My own personal theory is that this is because SS didn't agree with the last two quotes but nevermind that. Becasuse even if you don't agree with the last two quotes you can't deny that the first two quotes are true. Those quotes aren't where SS and Sagan disagrees, they disagree on what acually is true. Übereil OK...looks like I stomped on some toes... I agree with Flix and TD that Sagan was a scientist and apparently quite a reputable one. "Those quotes aren't where SS and Sagan disagrees, they disagree on what acually is true." This is the cusp of it, Sagan is simply another "Big Banger" who does truly thing that any other way of seeing the universe is dilusional because he truly believes in the Big Bang.. This, to me, is a no-brainer...look at TD's post and listen to the video.?? He like numerous others accepts it as fact....you can say he is searching for truth, but it is prejudiced on his own belief system..?? If you call me a liar in a nice polite way, just how are you different than someone calling me a liar while screaming and beating your fist on the table..?? The point is that you are calling me a liar...so no, I don't retract what I say about him...not that I am some great scientist, but I well know that everything ever taught to EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD has to disavow the Big Bang from a scientific point in that NOTHING can every produce anything but NOTHING....all else is just another "belief system." (which all are entitled to). Yes Ube, the quotes are good, and in a generic way ok, but in truth, I thing 2 and 3 are probably true, but not absolutely in that they don't cover the whole gamut, but 1 and 4 are the biased ones which you well know are statements from his "belief" perspective....
|
|