|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2014 17:35:47 GMT -5
I don't know how many have heard of this book or even read it themselves, but it's a fascinating read for the inquisitive mind who is still open to new knowledge. What new information was presented in this book? Do you find it at all interesting that when an atheist becomes a theist people are much more apt to want to discuss it then the many theists that are moving toward the atheist/agnostic side of the fence? Maybe at that point there is no need to write a book to support their decision and validate their position.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 18:18:09 GMT -5
I don't know how many have heard of this book or even read it themselves, but it's a fascinating read for the inquisitive mind who is still open to new knowledge. What new information was presented in this book? Do you find it at all interesting that when an atheist becomes a theist people are much more apt to want to discuss it then the many theists that are moving toward the atheist/agnostic side of the fence? Maybe at that point there is no need to write a book to support their decision and validate their position. Rational ~ I just begun reading this book out of pure curiosity over what changed Anthony Flew's world view. I can't give a personal review as yet do to just starting this book, but I can share some Amazon reviews, which first gendered my interest in his final book. I feel atheists and theists alike would find his insights intriguing to ponder in their own search for truth wherever it leads, too.
www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304#cm_cr_dpwidget There Is No A God ~ Anthony Flew
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 25, 2014 18:46:21 GMT -5
What new information was presented in this book? Do you find it at all interesting that when an atheist becomes a theist people are much more apt to want to discuss it then the many theists that are moving toward the atheist/agnostic side of the fence? Maybe at that point there is no need to write a book to support their decision and validate their position. Rational ~ I just begun reading this book out of pure curiosity over what changed Anthony Flew's world view. I can't give a personal review as yet, but I can share some Amazon reviews, which first gendered my interest in his final book. I feel atheists and theists alike would find his insights intriguing to ponder in their own search for truth . 8-)
www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304#cm_cr_dpwidget There Is No A God ~ Anthony Flew
Faune (and others interested), I recommend that you read the following New York Times article which gives some of the history and sources of the controversy surrounding the book: The Turning of an Atheist - NY Times
If you are reluctant to take the NY Times article at its word, I then recommend that you watch the following 3 videos of Flew "in action": I found the video footage painful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2014 19:19:39 GMT -5
I look forward to your review and the new information once you have completed the book. What is the atheist world? Why would a single person becoming a theist rock anyone's world. What is a leading atheist? One that only doesn't believe in gods that have a 'Z' in their name?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 25, 2014 20:51:42 GMT -5
Core belief seminars were the knew trend about the time I exited mainline churches. My friends were all enthusiastic about it. Years later after marriage breakup Suggested I go along. That it could really help me. I didnt and I have no regrets. I think we listen too much to others opinions about many christian topics. When truly there is only me my consience and the universal power. My point is we allow too much to influence our thinking. What do I mean by too much? Ermm..preachers, teachers, prophets, all true or all false. It doesnt matter. Our minds belong to us. Too much seduction spiritual and otherwise has influenced us. christians are spiritual or supposed to understand spiritual life. Most dont. Why? I think the topic is shyed away from by many leaders. Fellowship with like minded people is rare. Am I critising the church? Im more internalising where I am now. When it comes to afterlife my greatest need is me my conscience and his power because thats all there is when I cark it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 20:52:44 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Thanks for that article and the videos to review. I don't have the time right now, but will get back to you when I get a chance to check both of them out, O.K? However, in one of these reviews on Amazon I noticed the following statement shown below. It appears that Anthony Flew became more like deist in his philosophy, but not Christian in belief? I felt some of the newspaper articles about this conversion experience of his read more into it then was actually there? That's one reason I choose to read his book to see what he really said about a Creator God and how he came to that point of view.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 25, 2014 20:58:39 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Thanks for that article and the videos to review. I don't have the time right now, but will get back to you when I get a chance to check both of them out, O.K? However, in one of these reviews on Amazon I noticed the following statement shown below. It appears that Anthony Flew became more like deist in his philosophy, but not Christian in belief? I felt some of the newspaper articles about this conversion experience of his read more into it then was actually there? That's one reason I choose to read his book to see what he really said about a Creator God and how he came to that point of view.
Did you read any of the 1-star reviews on Amazon, Faune?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 21:06:51 GMT -5
Core belief seminars were the knew trend about the time I exited mainline churches. My friends were all enthusiastic about it. Years later after marriage breakup Suggested I go along. That it could really help me. I didnt and I have no regrets. I think we listen too much to others opinions about many christian topics. When truly there is only me my consience and the universal power. My point is we allow too much to influence our thinking. What do I mean by too much? Ermm..preachers, teachers, prophets, all true or all false. It doesnt matter. Our minds belong to us. Too much seduction spiritual and otherwise has influenced us. christians are spiritual or supposed to understand spiritual life. Most dont. Why?I think the topic is shyed away from by many leaders. Fellowship with like minded people is rare. Am I critising the church? Im more internalising where I am now. When it comes to afterlife my greatest need is me my conscience and his power because thats all there is when I cark it. Bubbles ~ You brought up some interesting points in your post and I would like to comment on the ones I highlighted, which stood out to me. I personally like to research things out and learn something new every day. However, I'm also a big believer in "listen to what your gut is telling you" and "follow your gut." We are all individuals and unique in our own ways and need to filter what we read and take to heart what can be useful in growing spiritually. I feel spirituality is something we all have in common to some degree within in our inner being and we need to get in touch with that inner voice to really enjoy a fulfilled life. I get the impression that you feel the same way, too?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 21:09:48 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Thanks for that article and the videos to review. I don't have the time right now, but will get back to you when I get a chance to check both of them out, O.K? However, in one of these reviews on Amazon I noticed the following statement shown below. It appears that Anthony Flew became more like deist in his philosophy, but not Christian in belief? I felt some of the newspaper articles about this conversion experience of his read more into it then was actually there? That's one reason I choose to read his book to see what he really said about a Creator God and how he came to that point of view.
Did you read any of the 1-star reviews on Amazon, Faune? Matisse ~ Honestly, I did not. The one I posted caught my attention and gave me the incentive to purchase the book to review. However, I'm sure the negative reviews are worth checking out, too? Hopefully, I can get to that NYC article and the videos later this evening and get a better picture of the rest of the story?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 22:05:08 GMT -5
Rational ~ I haven't a clue, since I'm not an atheist. Perhaps you can answer that question better than anyone else having been of that persuasion for a long time now? Rational ~ Perhaps the first paragraph of that posted review would answer all those questions collectively?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 25, 2014 22:41:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 25, 2014 23:01:54 GMT -5
Faune
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 25, 2014 23:35:00 GMT -5
Rational ~ I just begun reading this book out of pure curiosity over what changed Anthony Flew's world view. I can't give a personal review as yet, but I can share some Amazon reviews, which first gendered my interest in his final book. I feel atheists and theists alike would find his insights intriguing to ponder in their own search for truth .
www.amazon.com/There-Is-God-Notorious-Atheist/dp/0061335304#cm_cr_dpwidget There Is No A God ~ Anthony Flew
Faune (and others interested), I recommend that you read the following New York Times article which gives some of the history and sources of the controversy surrounding the book: The Turning of an Atheist - NY Times
If you are reluctant to take the NY Times article at its word, I then recommend that you watch the following 3 videos of Flew "in action": I found the video footage painful to watch. Thank you so much for those videos, matisse
I had seen some it before.
It was painful to watch, to see those two take advantage of someone whom they don't even really understand.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 0:39:31 GMT -5
As from the faune's above link:
Richard Carrier's review Richard C. Carrier "Historian & Philosopher"
This review is from: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Hardcover)
"Flew has confessed to the fact that he did not write this book, and as I have documented online, he appears incapable of even remembering what it contains much less endorsing its contents (regardless of what his literary agent claims he has said).
The historical record shows that none of the reasons given in this book were any of the reasons Flew became a Deist (in fact Deism, Flew's actual belief as he has publicly asserted many times, is not even discussed in this book). It is also not written in the logically meticulous style of Flew's real books, but in a very poorly argued, poorly written, and poorly organized manner." another Review
by Christopher Hallquist -Christopher Hallquist -
This review is from: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
"Most of what you really need to know about this book is contained in the New York Times Magazine article, "The Turning of an Atheist." It makes clear that Flew did not write the book, his memory has declined to the point where he is incapable of understanding the issues discussed in it, and is in fact being cynically exploited by religious propagandists."
All you really need to do is watch the videos that Matisse gave us to see how the these took advantage of an elderly man in order to try & score points for their own religious views.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 0:53:47 GMT -5
DMG & Matisse ~ I noticed Anthony Flew's failing health and his difficulty in answering the questions put to him in this video, too. This was painful to watch as Matisse had commented earlier. You both also pointed out what I had noted within those two 1 star reviews by Richard Carrier and this other reviewer, Christopher Hallquist, who mentioned the New York Times article. However, the fact that he claimed to be a deist towards the end didn't surprise me any. Many of our American forefathers who were irreligious also made the same claim regarding deism.
My main interest in reading this book was to see how much this book compared to his prior works, which are well known and highly regarded for their scholarship. Whether he was exploited in his golden years by these religious leaders who helped to co-write his book and provide addendums, remains to be seen? I have just begun reading this last book, so I can't really voice an honest opinion until I have finished this book myself.
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
The Turning of An Atheist ~ (NYT article ~ Nov. 4, 2007)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 1:15:37 GMT -5
What new information was presented in this book? Rational ~ I do find it fascinating when a noted atheist for 50 years has a change of heart regarding the existence of God, even if it's only related to a Creator God behind the universe, who is not really involved in people's lives. I'm married to a person who became an atheist after leaving the 2x2's, so l've had some exposure to atheism, although I still embrace the Christian point of view. Also, I have read some books relating to the spiritual journey of atheists, to get a clearer understanding of their rationale. I also have to admit that you do see an exodus of young people today away from religion and towards the atheist/agnostic side, often after being raised within devout Christian homes. Obviously, they are not as convinced as their parents about Christianity and choose a completely different path?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 1:18:22 GMT -5
DMG & Matisse ~ I noticed Anthony Flew's failing health and his difficulty in answering the questions put to him in this video, too. This was painful to watch as Matisse had commented earlier. You both also pointed out what I had noted within those two 1 star reviews by Richard Carrier and this other person who mentioned the New York Times article. However, the fact that he claimed to be a deist towards the end didn't surprise me any. Many of our American forefathers who were irreligious also made the same claim regarding deism.
My main interest in reading this book was to see how much this book compared to his prior works, which are well known and highly regarded for their scholarship. Whether he was exploited in his golden years by these religious leaders who helped to co-write his book and provide addendums, remains to be seen? I have just begun reading this last book, so I can't really voice an honest opinion until I have finished this book myself.
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
The Turning of An Atheist ~ (NYT article ~ Nov. 4, 2007) Antony Flew was an English philosopher. Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion
How can anyone give an honest opinion of a book by someone whose "memory has declined to the point where he is incapable of understanding the issues discussed in it" as reviewed by Christopher Hallquist?
Antony Flew was 87 when he died in 2010 shortly after those videos
Those two men in those videos are both in their 60's, at least 20 years younger than he was. Just watch the videos Matisse gave. It is obvious what they doing.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 1:45:21 GMT -5
DMG ~ I feel that was only a "personal opinion" expressed by this reviewer, Christopher Hallquist, who also is an atheist. Perhaps he felt a need to discredit Anthony Flew's last book to maintain his own position within atheism? However, a jump to deism from atheism is not much of a leap in my own opinion. If Flew had embraced the Christian religion instead, I would really be impressed and wonder what brought about such a change of heart. However, a number of irreligious people today also claim to be deists and the American founding fathers had a number of them within their own circle of influence back in the late 1700's.
In addition, from Anthony Flew's personal appearance in Nov. 2007 after his book came out, I would say he was failing in health and looked feeble in appearance. His responses within the earlier videos also portrayed this demeanor, IMHO. However, check out his response to this accusation below in this Wiki excerpt on Anthony Flew.
DMG inquired previously...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2014 7:12:10 GMT -5
Rational ~ I haven't a clue, since I'm not an atheist. Perhaps you can answer that question better than anyone else having been of that persuasion for a long time now? An atheist is a person who does not believe in a paranormal being. Period. The question was an attempt at being kind and pointing out that the statement itself was foolish and was some theist grabbing at a headline and trying to make a point that people (well, one person) who claimed not to believe in a paranormal being had now said, or is reported by others to have said, that they now embrace the idea of a creator god. It would if I had not asked all of the questions based on issues raised by that first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 10:30:01 GMT -5
DMG commented earlier...
DMG ~ I have to admit, that it appeared pretty obvious that Anthony Flew wasn't totally engaged in this discussion by his slowness to answer and the confusion he sometimes showed on his face and in his replies. It appeared to me that the narrator and N. T. Wright were helping him to get his words out by phasing the questions more for Yes or No answers throughout this discussion, IMO. His feebleness was very apparent. However, in his earlier day, he demonstrated a brilliant mind and wrote about 30 books relating to the philosophy of religion.
However, age doesn't necessarily hinder one's capacity to clearly voice their opinons. You're in your early 80's and you do just fine.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 11:05:10 GMT -5
Perhaps this excerpt from the earlier Wiki article better defines Anthony Flew's point of view more clearly and the transition stages that lead up to his change of heart with dates and quotes from letters and interviews included. Rational, I hope this answers your earlier question about what new information is contained in this book, too?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 26, 2014 12:03:22 GMT -5
Many positions stated during active and passionate debate often derive from specific agendas (implicit or explicit). It is my opinion that the New York Times article is written from the perspective of a specific agenda. The article is well written and informative and provides sustaining evidence for those discomfited by the last significant publication of Anthony Flew.
I did not find the three selected videos to be painful. I rather admire individuals who achieve 80+ years of experience and continue to wonder, explore, challenge, share, grow and engage their fellow sojourners.
In the videos selected above, is Professor Flew as intellectually agile as once he might have been? Perhaps not. Is there an objective criteria that disqualifies individuals from participating in the “public square”? I hope not.
Is he being manipulated? I certainly do not have adequate information or evidence to sustain an opinion.
Within his comments are there insights worthy of sincere reflection? I believe an affirmative response is warranted in the instance of Professor Flew.
As I consider the positions taken on this thread and in other threads, I am left with the impression that the putative intellectual divide separating theists, deists and/or atheists results from the absence of a vibrant vocabulary suitable for engaging questions beyond the horizon of human understanding. Both the language of secularism and the language depicting an anthropomorphic caricature of “God” fail to inspire a thoughtful basis for engaging considerations beyond our sphere of common experience.
“Paranormal” is a descriptive and expressive word but it is not a word that readily invites thoughtful dialogue.
The only vehicle I can imagine that might begin to bridge this chasm is poetry, but poetry is a unique and challenging form of expression with which I have no facility.
My plea would be for a search that moves beyond agendas and convictions of righteousness. I conjure a search whose first mission would be to find words not laden with the baggage of past misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I dare hope (no matter how irrationally) for the emergence of a language robust enough to explore questions unbounded by the restrictive insistence on the requirement for a sentient observer.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 13:21:52 GMT -5
Many positions stated during active and passionate debate often derive from specific agendas (implicit or explicit). It is my opinion that the New York Times article is written from the perspective of a specific agenda. The article is well written and informative and provides sustaining evidence for those discomfited by the last significant publication of Anthony Flew.
I did not find the three selected videos to be painful. I rather admire individuals who achieve 80+ years of experience and continue to wonder, explore, challenge, share, grow and engage their fellow sojourners.
In the videos selected above, is Professor Flew as intellectually agile as once he might have been? Perhaps not. Is there an objective criteria that disqualifies individuals from participating in the “public square”? I hope not.
Is he being manipulated? I certainly do not have adequate information or evidence to sustain an opinion.
Within his comments are there insights worthy of sincere reflection? I believe an affirmative response is warranted in the instance of Professor Flew.
As I consider the positions taken on this thread and in other threads, I am left with the impression that the putative intellectual divide separating theists, deists and/or atheists results from the absence of a vibrant vocabulary suitable for engaging questions beyond the horizon of human understanding. Both the language of secularism and the language depicting an anthropomorphic caricature of “God” fail to inspire a thoughtful basis for engaging considerations beyond our sphere of common experience.
“Paranormal” is a descriptive and expressive word but it is not a word that readily invites thoughtful dialogue.
The only vehicle I can imagine that might begin to bridge this chasm is poetry, but poetry is a unique and challenging form of expression with which I have no facility. My plea would be for a search that moves beyond agendas and convictions of righteousness. I conjure a search whose first mission would be to find words not laden with the baggage of past misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I dare hope (no matter how irrationally) for the emergence of a language robust enough to explore questions unbounded by the restrictive insistence on the requirement for a sentient observer. Ynot ~ Thank you for your unbiased opinion and keen observations. I wholeheartedly agree with your concluding statement! I really enjoy reading the comments of posters who can critically analyze a situation without allowing personal agendas to cloud their vision. I agree with many of your comments above. Although Anthony Flew did appear frail with aging, it was apparent that his short responses were sincere with a Yes or No along with his answer. As far as being manipulated by the other speakers, it's hard to say? However, his letters and comments left on record relating to his last book do convey that the contents express his heartfelt views. Also, his comments can be read in that Wiki article I quoted earlier about his conversion experience to deism, as discussed in his last book. I have admired this man for a number of years due to his perspective on things and his honesty. He really was one who followed where the evidence led and wasn't ashamed to admit when he thought he was mistaken after entertaining new evidence to the contrary. His willingness to restate his position I found quite admirable, which is one reason I'm presently reading his last book for some insights myself.
Concluding statement in Wiki article on Anthony Flew...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 13:37:35 GMT -5
DMG commented earlier...
DMG ~ I have to admit, that it appeared pretty obvious that Anthony Flew wasn't totally engaged in this discussion by his slowness to answer and the confusion he sometimes showed on his face and in his replies. It appeared to me that the narrator and N. T. Wright were helping him to get his words out by phasing the questions more for Yes or No answers throughout this discussion, IMO. His feebleness was very apparent. However, in his earlier day, he demonstrated a brilliant mind and wrote about 30 books relating to the philosophy of religion.
However, age doesn't necessarily hinder one's capacity to clearly voice their opinons. You're in your early 80's and you do just fine.
There is no way that my age, capacity to express my opinions or my intellect can be compared to Anthony Flew. He had a extreme intellectual capacity I couldn't even come close to.
What is illustrated is that peoples minds are a result of their brain's ability to function well. A deterioration of that function is organic, just as heart's deteriortion in function is organic.
We might like to believe that we have control over our "minds" which is a function of our brains. In essence, if we are honest with ourselves, we simply don't always have the ability that we think we have.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 26, 2014 16:21:10 GMT -5
Ynot ~ Thank you for your unbiased opinion and keen observations. I wholeheartedly agree with your concluding statement! I really enjoy reading the comments of posters who can critically analyze a situation without allowing personal agendas to cloud their vision. I agree with many of your comments above. Although Anthony Flew did appear frail with aging, it was apparent that his short responses were sincere with a Yes or No along with his answer. As far as being manipulated by the other speakers, it's hard to say, but his letters and comments left on record relating to his last book and they do seem to express his heartfelt views? Also, his comments can be read in that Wiki article I quoted earlier about his conversion experience to deism, as discussed in his last book. I have admired this man for a number of years due to his perspective on things and his honesty. He really was one who followed where the evidence led and wasn't ashamed to admit when he thought he was mistaken after entertaining new evidence to the contrary. His willingness to restate his position I found quite admirable, which is one reason I'm presently reading his last book for some insights myself. Hi Faune, you seem to agree that some of the interpretive analysis of Professor Flew's last book (by the NYT article and elsewhere) seems to be a mite "over-wrought". The speculative assertion of "manipulation" suggests unwarranted anxiety on the part of those who find themselves disconsolate with his last treatise. Regarding N. T. Wright and Gary Habermas, they are doing their job. They are academics in the field of apologetics. Their biographies and publications are readily available following a most cursory search. That hardly strikes me as fertile ground for conspiratorial assertions of professional manipulation. To be intellectually honest, it seems to me, it would be appropriate to proceed as you suggest; if interested, read his thesis, reflect on his approach and conclusions and draw one's own conclusions. To do so would provide an individual with the intellectual integrity to critique Antony Flew's thesis from a rational and constructive prospective. I would be interested if anyone knows if Mark Oppenheimer (author of the NYT article) read "There is a God". His article betrays no knowledge of the actual textual context. Rather, Mr. Oppenheimer seems to be reporting the narratives of others (all with their own selective interests). Such reporting clearly appeals to the broad audience of NYT readers but I submit that it contributes little to the fundamental conceptual issues in the already over-heated debate. I miss Christopher Hitchens. A formal debate on the significance of Antony Flew's final work between Hitchens and a deist/theist apologist (of comparable intellectual stamina) would have been fascinating and informative. .
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 16:50:38 GMT -5
Ynot ~ You reflect a lot of my own thoughts after checking out the NYT article, videos, and reviews of Anthony Flew's book. It seems that the ones who did read his book, the majority gave him a 4-5 star rating, which really impressed me. According to his own words in writing, he agreed with everything it contained before being published and even provided the outline for its construction with notes. I have always admired Anthony Flew for his honesty and well thought out approach to things. A person who can own up to his own fallibility is alright in my book!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 26, 2014 18:02:17 GMT -5
DMG commented earlier...
DMG ~ I have to admit, that it appeared pretty obvious that Anthony Flew wasn't totally engaged in this discussion by his slowness to answer and the confusion he sometimes showed on his face and in his replies. It appeared to me that the narrator and N. T. Wright were helping him to get his words out by phasing the questions more for Yes or No answers throughout this discussion, IMO. His feebleness was very apparent. However, in his earlier day, he demonstrated a brilliant mind and wrote about 30 books relating to the philosophy of religion.
However, age doesn't necessarily hinder one's capacity to clearly voice their opinons. You're in your early 80's and you do just fine.
There is no way that my age, capacity to express my opinions or my intellect can be compared to Anthony Flew. He had a extreme intellectual capacity I couldn't even come close to.
What is illustrated is that peoples minds are a result of their brain's ability to function well. A deterioration of that function is organic, just as heart's deteriortion in function is organic.
We might like to believe that we have control over our "minds" which is a function of our brains. In essence, if we are honest with ourselves, we simply don't always have the ability that we think we have. DMG ~ I understand what you are saying about organic problems with the brain or heart, which can affect one's overall health. However, I still feel you have a mighty sharp mind and intellect for your age and articulate your thoughts quite well. You are a real marvel to me and I wonder what's your secret for staying so in touch with the world around you?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2014 20:13:19 GMT -5
There is no way that my age, capacity to express my opinions or my intellect can be compared to Anthony Flew. He had a extreme intellectual capacity I couldn't even come close to.
What is illustrated is that peoples minds are a result of their brain's ability to function well. A deterioration of that function is organic, just as heart's deteriortion in function is organic.
We might like to believe that we have control over our "minds" which is a function of our brains. In essence, if we are honest with ourselves, we simply don't always have the ability that we think we have. DMG ~ I understand what you are saying about organic problems with the brain or heart, which can affect one's overall health. However, I still feel you have a mighty sharp mind and intellect for your age and articulate your thoughts quite well. You are a real marvel to me and I wonder what's your secret for staying so in touch with the world around you? What I am trying to say is that our brain is a organic structure like other organs of our body; heart, pancreas, lungs etc. When those other organs malfunction for whatever reason, we tend to not regard it the same way we do with brain malfunction.
There is a tendency for we humans to believe we have an essential "me, myself, I" that is due to our personal ability. But what really is that essential "me, myself, I?" Is our "minds" in any way separate from our brain? I don't think so. The "mind" that people prize so much is the operation of our brain just as the breathing is the operation of the lungs etc.
All that needs to happen is that we have a injury to the brain & it show us what happens to our "mind."
Of course the operation of that brain has involved a considerable amount of stimuli though out our lives that certainly affects our "minds" what we think about, what beliefs we form, how much the stimuli conditioned us to think a certain way.
I consider it hubris for me to think that I somehow have any kind of marvelous "mind."
"I yam what I yam" No secrets.
|
|