Why is it that when someone tries to present a foreign idea, most people will react by denying such idea is even possible?
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 54 months agoFavorite Answer
We are always alone but people like to obscure the fact such divides exist because there is strength in numbers and the largest force will prevail. And the one who presents such new ideas must endure them.
That one must make people know their separation again. Because autonomous individuals in unity are more enlightened than a bunch of drones in an ant colony even if the latter threatens the former throughout time and place.
Enlightenment should prevail over ignorance. Which often means dividing groups into individuals. And making them remember their own judgment. Every person is a new experiment independently verifying the truth.
In the being of each person is the universe from which all things are formed. There was never a thing that was not formed in the mind of humanity. Nothing is truly real as real is an occurrence within us, not without.
Occurrences are happening all over the place. We do not understand them. The world we try to measure is infinitely complex and irreducible to measurement. It is irreducible to language or to perception. It is completely foreign and outside any of our ideas. And in order to know we need to break our perception by introducing the contradiction of perception.
In polarity with our antagonist contradiction we may become wise. So do not cling so readily. But be willing to endure the pin prick in the contrivances of our mind. We must break through the illusions of life and get to the stone hard truth. But we are in maya and must work within that reality.
- 4 months ago
Hello, i add, may because them be not talented, because a talented person love non-normal a thing and improve it optionally. where he/she.. is full of sensing.
- peter mLv 64 months ago
The conditioning that we all have (John here below) draws people to
Unfortunately it is known with objective truth that for example subjectively
conditioned (& so drawn) people have aims (fictional fame) and behaviour
methods which lead them through to falsity (never giving examples of
their bluster stories).
For example the arch subjectivist commentator here throws about names
like Hegel, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein and disrespectfully mixes these
with mythic notions of "CHURCHIANITY" "herd mentality" and "infantile
As if all that is not enough... just ask whether the AIM of such a writer are
made clear or not, along with the method (the aim is religious.. IF it can
be respectfully called that ; because the Method used is one which DENIES
that ANY NEW Answer can be found in the philosophy category^).
The behaviour of this one subjective commentator is symptomatic of
course. Half of what subjective nonsense which is true (like their was
a philosopher & historian called k.r. Popper who helped reset the cause
of major problems in the environment of philosophy^^).
And it must be strange still to some of you here -especially those declared
subjective commentators- that talk of "philosophy behaviour (and bad
disrespectful philosophy behaviour to boot)" can be disrespectfully
ignorant and of some consequence ; for if readers here have taken the
time to read actual previous pure philosophy they would know that new
insights and understandings in such threads of philosophy were important.
Important in one MAIN Respect which would be in respect of "getting
nearer and nearer to some declared truth, some shown principle of
descriptive and rational understanding which is not just "verifiable" but
reasonably and Tentatively accepted IN THE FACE of those other
answers, or solutions.
And in The History of philosophy there is such a tradition of NOT ONLY
getting-nearer-to-the-truth of the matter but also some agreement in the
accompanying method, the method of SEARCHING for this elusive aim
(together with it's future equivalent acceptable Behaviour*)
The subjective's like the so called religious one here have got a lot to
answer for. But I don't want to blow-them-up too much... they are far "too gone"
with their ridiculous and false philosophy contents.
The "blasphemy type" philosophy by such a self-styled religious answerer
is nothing but a shade (or shady) of neo-subjective claptrap which
unfortunately plays-to-a-fame seeking old audience here..
They can go-to-hell as far as any reasonably rational person ought to be
concerned with. It is the likes of NEW or "Foreign" capable contributors
and Question askers that I think reasonable philosophy enquirers should
be concerned about - those who are NOT Afraid to make mistakes here
JUST AS LONG as they are prepared TO LEARN from them as it were.
Which "subjectives" are not believe me.
(If they were then those may understand to bring their own mistakes "to
light" through their own User Histories.. "fat chance" of that because stupidly
they try-so-hard-not-to-make-Any-mistakes it's unbelievable sometimes
What they write!
Indescribable "philosophy stories" from some quaint historic Island within
their minds where both WHAT they say and How they say it reads like a
bad computer programme (the type that can hardly win against a 10th
grade school student.
But I describe them much too much.
Subjective philosophy has been and continues to be an unreasonable
stain upon the progress of philosophy and it's knowledge
Trouble is it is also a stain upon the eager but more gullible minds of
the Environment of younger, interested students, both in philosophy and
in fledging areas the social media & internet.
As I have said before & will continue to say so, they are "a drag and
a menace" both to those who want good philosophy answers and those
who want to work to achieve such results.
And "god help" those who may wish to "philosophise" with the unreasonable
religion of the apparent "Arch- subjective philosophy & religious" contributor
here who has shown a preference both for theistic and philosophy
mistakes to which he cannot understand or chooses to ignore.
One subjective-philosophy-disaster waiting-to-happen !
I will apologise for perhaps going-on with these descriptions so to speak,
but this is a reality which unfortunately will not or does not "go away" as
I see it.
At the heart they The subjectives are just "fame-ers".. possible good writers
who have-nothing-better-to-do that to "try their luck" so to speak.
And it's becomes a Drug-to-them, they don't do any reasonable critical
or objective WORK, and when they do they, like the so-called religious
fanatic, become SO Irrational and unbelievable their philosophy explanations
turn into some-kind-of-sad joke. Thing is some new or foreign visiting
person then may get to believe some of the crackpot subjective comparisons
AND Believe them.
Only to find later that (somewhere along the line) they were duped.
A sad case then for newcomers here...
That really is my reason for this above - which is a pity because I would
love to do much more realistic & knowledge seeking philosophy (only
those inane subjectivies who still believe that the brain & mind are "not
one" and are capable of precise thought too (!) ) do their best to turn
other's away from such philosophy.
And it's the hearts-and-minds of those others which count and Not the
silly nonsensical non-existent aspirations of the dumbed-down subjectives
^ but of course he falsely believes that they can but only through a Closed
type religion.. one which corrupts & distorts even a history of philosophy.
^^ which to be fair to Jordan Peterson he has been truthful in declaring that
some Environment philosophy Questions cannot be answered ; and
HERE HE GIVES A GREAT Example to those answerers here like
subjective philosophers who rather than SEEK THE TRUTH SEEK
instead fame..(with it's associated falsity content).
So yes Peterson does so give an excellent example TO Students,
which is IF Unsure of the critical philosophy answer then SAY so.
declaring that one is "undecided" so to speak.
For then there is all-the-future to decide, to select OR Even to restate
either a completely new answer or a different Question prior to a
different answer ; we are beginning to see this now with the myths
perpetrated OF the Ancient Greek authority and authorities within
philosophy itself. Like our institutions of today then those ancient
teaching institutions of philosophy (as but one example) are and
were both racist & sexist. And through their known schools of
(just) Greek males their Education & knowledge gathering failed,
failed their whole culture which wasn't able to learn from such an
authoritative mistake. A mistake being made right now right again
by our own culture.
* "Environment Philosophy" equivalent of a critically-rational method,
and it should be made very clear here too.. I am NOT talking of
the UNBELIEVED "critical philosophy method" which the dumb
subjectives sometimes pay-homage-too. For They Don't DO ANY
of that do you know why?
Because those THAT TAUGHT THEM those few words NEVER
believed in ANY "critical philosophy METHOD" At All.
So please beware....
reading some proportion of historicist philosophy you will sometime
"come across" this very method. And if it doesn't "fit right" with it's
explanation then likely that the WRITER DOESN'T believe that
THERE IS SUCH A METHOD too.
You have been warned...
(p.s. I am trying my best to use this OBJECTIVE Method to disprove
a substantial theory of scientific Darwinism - one of the leading
Darwinists working right now. My health is still not as it was and
it's possible that my situation could get worse.
But I have started on this, though slowly at present)..
- KindredLv 54 months ago
In many cases people are afraid of change. New ideas can rock ones belief system. Make a truth untrue. So denial happens as a reaction to a loss of truth.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Mike WLv 74 months ago
People tend to resist change. There's also the possibility that the person presenting the idea didn't do a very good job of explaining it.
- j153eLv 74 months ago
As Schopenhauer famously wrote, Truth passes from ridicule to violent opposition to self-evident acceptance.
Hegel develops this as "Logic is the thinking of God" (in his conclusion in his Preface to his "The Science of Logic")--of which Self-evident Truth is at first rejected as a risible Other, then attacked as an antagonistic Other, and then at best Realized as Self-evident. Hegel summarizes this process thusly: "Absolute knowing is the *truth* of every mode of consciousness because...it is only in absolute knowing that the separation of the object from the *certainty of itself* is completely eliminated ["Aufheben" or the sublimation process, in Hegel-speak]: truth is now equated with certainty and certainty with truth." (Quote is from Hegel's "Science of Logic," which develops what he realized and described in "Phenomenology of Spirit") It is important to note that a lesser-realized, albeit otherwise quite brilliant individual, Ludwig Wittgenstein, imho paused in his arc of development before fully realizing Hegel's Aufheben (much as did Kant with his dualism of phenomenon and Noumenon), when Wittgenstein wrote "On Certainty." To understand the "Science of Logic" is to first understand the "Phenomenology of Spirit," a kind of sine qua non realization for what Hegel develops as Absolute Knowing, denoted in Hegel-speak as Begriff, or Notion/Concept. (In Plato-speak, Notion is more at Noesis, while Concept is more at Dianoia.)
The German verb "greifen" is "to grasp;" Hegel's term of art for self-evident acceptance is Begriff, typically rendered as either "concept" or (imho, better as) "notion," the latter not simply a specific data-event-based be-holding, but also signaling the more numinous "notion" which literally is the nutative action of giving noetic assent, the "aha" of Noesis as Unity. Thusly, the personal realizing of value in a given work of intellect (in Schopenhauer's framing) is three-fold: perceiving the new and apparently-risible signal through the dignified, established truth-matrix; secondly defending or developing the new signal's signification, and thus thirdly in self-acceptance, hopefully retaining a memorable historical perspective which knows the value of an idea, concept, and notion. An example of this Schopenhauerian process may be seen in the now generally-accepted notion of falsification, which, when Popper first promoted it as the rational negative aspect of the scientific method, was often roundly opposed by those who were focused on the positive truths of empirical data. The general sociological dynamic given by Toynbee in his "creative minority" or Maslowian being-cognition writ large, and by Pitirim Sorokin in his stages of civilization (social cycle) hypothesis, is imho also shown in the more micro-focused psychology of the individual.
Husserl worked extensively with this problem of resistance to additional truth, which he wrote of in "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology," and in his use of indexicality, which states that noematic sense is two-functioned (see Frege's notion of Idea as phenomenal and Concept as noetic), thus intentionality lacking clarity or even as lacking good will multiplies sub-propositionals, as a tower of Babel, among those lacking the holding in common of Kantian good faith. Husserl posited that his method of eidetic reduction, a willingness to hold freshly all positions as potentially valid, reasonable, and true (a kind of reasoned agnosticism) excluded only exclusion. In his "Crisis" a major part of the problem in the sciences is lack of application of such perspective. Interestingly, this problem of undue conservativism (i.e., reactionary dogmatism) seems to constitute the "spirit of the age," with Kierkegaard finding "churchianity" and Nietzsche his "herd mentality" to be unduly reactionary. As Hegel notes, however, novelty is not necessarily causally correlated with additional truth. Thus the genuine liberal tradition is reasoned experimentation qua problem-discussing and solution-proposing, rather than some types of infantile leftism typically primarily rooted in and distorted by dysfunctional personalisms or psychologisms, which, written large, too often constitute a type of ochlocracy, e.g. maoist cultural deconstruction.
p.s. Would recommend Hegel's insights given in his "Science of Logic" if someone is confused as to the mislabeling and mischaracterization of what is Objective. Here's a list of the book's table of contents: The "Science of Logic" is given in two Volumes: Volume One: The Objective Logic, given in two Books: Book One, The Doctrine of Being; and Book Two, The Doctrine of Essence; and Volume Two: The Subjective Logic, with its singular Book Three: The Doctrine of the Notion. It is here suggested that Peter M does not understand (in Hegel-speak) Objective Logic, etc. Would note that Schopenhauer was quoted as a general theme for the post, and that Hegel's transcendent work was quoted more extensively to develop how truth in logic is conducted; such referencing is not "throwing" anything around; rather, Peter's style is evidently a rather incoherent gesticulating and throwing around of otherwise-valued words, debasing them as he writes. As for Peter's sadly typical misrepresentation of Churchianity being a myth, it is precisely what Kierkegaard was dealing with (one modern definition: "Churchianity is belief on yourself, your concepts, your ego"--a type of "enlightenment" thinking which replaces Living God and Word with types of egoism, including mere "social justice," in the Church), "herd mentality" similarly for Nietzsche as one seeking self-actualization or realization, wholeness. Would note for the unaware that Lenin's "infantile leftism" was a specific characterization, given in his "'Left Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder," distributed at the Second World Congress of the Comintern, and is applicable to maoist ochlocracy as evidenced in the so-called "Cultural Revolution" and prior PRC/CCP periods of similar maoist illogicality and strife. These two (non-mythic, Mr M, btw) terms (infantile leftism and maoism) were deliberately placed in dialectical context with one another, and refer to the illogic of pseudo-objectivism as given in a fourth-rate system (marxist-leninist-maoist "thought"); concern re such is a specific motivation for Hegel's writing of "Science of Logic," and typically those who were unable to understand Hegel simply appropriated some terms, but, as was also the case with some who did similarly with the genius Husserl, the words and more importantly their meaning and import as terms of the philosophic art are simply denatured, adulterated, even idolized, until the tyranny of such malpractice eventuates in the wild name-calling of those who clearly know not of which they speak. Imo, Peter does not stoop to quoting philosophers as that would present him with the task of being coherent with his ideation. Imo, such behavior presents a case study of how an ego-seeking self, projecting its faults onto straw persons, beclowns itself. A simple point: after reading such sadly typical emo name-calling word salad posts, is the reader more intelligent, more informed, more intellectually exercised, or not....By their fruits are such slanderings, libelings, and simply uneducated babble known, being personal claims to infantile hegemony by attacking others, rather than presenting the most rudimentary points of a fancied "philosophy." If one wishes to learn logic, one presumably studies Aristotle, Frege, Descartes, Whitehead, Husserl, Kant, and Hegel, among others, before beclowning oneself and libeling others with moronic word misappropriation. Thereby one may learn that a blustery, bullying, and phony "objective vs subjective" false dichotomy is a pathetic attempt to claim an egoistic position which has neither been earned nor contextually understood in the Western tradition. Rant on, deal with name-calling and libel or slander rather than general collegial exploration, development, and kind comparisons of the wisdom-treasures of philosophy's thinking, if you will, Peter M, but as the New Living Translation gives Matthew 12:37, "The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you."
- Anonymous4 months ago
That's an over-exaggeration of the case. How can you say "most people" when you don't know most people in the world and have no way to substantiate such a claim? At best, you can only say "most people I know", or "most people I have encountered".
There is no single reason why people react that way. Some of it may be on philosophical grounds, but often the reasons are emotional / psychological which suggests you should also ask in the psychology forum too.
The reaction of others also depends on the degree to which an idea seems "foreign" and how the idea is presented and under what circumstances, as well as your personal credibility. Sometimes it's not the idea itself, but the person with the idea that they are averse to. In your case, I'd say that's a stronng possibility.
- Anonymous4 months ago
For the elderly, "changing their own difficulty" is much higher than for younger people. ... The learning ability of the elderly has deteriorated, and their "accepting new things" is not as fast as it was when they were young
- 4 months ago
Conditioning (both social and peer influenced) forms a generally accepted view of what is possible and not possible