A philosophical approach to find a solution beyond religion adherence (part two): Preaching or Blaming
In part one, we came to figuring out that if we are adherent to a specific ideology or religion, then it’s the way we enjoy the most and it’s due to our feelings and our tastes! It is personal!
And our feelings and tastes had some environmental influences that make us different from each other! Then when we look at each people’s life factors, we can easily find out why he/she is adherent to that specific ideology!
And we understood we should not blame each other for what they believe in; because they have picked that over some factors that have influenced their life. Then Live and Let Live!
Here we come to another conclusion that blaming and preaching are like a two-sided coin! If I’m a preacher of my ideology, I am trying to make my viewpoint and ideology dominant and tell other’s are not valuable enough to believe in! Then I am blaming others indirectly!
If someone doesn’t want to change his mind and is a great adherent to his ideology; then I am a stupid and wasting my life. My achievement is no more than upsetting my rival and blaming!
Some people have tendencies to stick to their first ideology that they’ve got in life; some have tendencies to go through every ideology to pick a better one or better ones!
Conclusion: Since our ideologies are personal, then positive and negative (preaching and blaming) approaches are the same and not only is useless to change a mind, but also would make the rivals annoy!
p.s. You may ask, then how should we guide communities to a better ideology or ethics! Check the upcoming part!
Join the Conversation
I look forward to your post. Very good work.
one of the basic presumptions of this approach is that if X happens to believes in Y, X has had no other choice but to believe in Y, for some ‘easily understandable’ factors influenced his/her life in a way which led him/her to believe in Y. another presumption is that there is no absolute truth, and consequently no absolute wrong, therefore nobody should ever blame others for what they believe in.
the first presumption follows a deterministic approach. then one might argue on the basis of either ‘free will’ or ‘absolute truth’ that the former or latter presumption is flawed.
Mohammad,
Thats not against someone’s free will; because you can choose your ideology everytime you want. but if you dont change and stick to yours, ok, there’s no problem, you can stick to it and you have free will for sticking to yours! And if you changed, then you’ve changed and that was because of your free will.
Lets see the presumtions one more time: if X happens to believe in Y, X has had no other choice to believe in Y until today! but there’s no obligation to remain with that belief tomorrow; thats the point! If you are a muslim with any degree; then you had no other choice until today and also you are not forced to stick to it for tomorrow! Thats your free will.
And I, myself believe in ‘relative truth’. Thats a long story to tell why; then we can have it as a discussion in future!
Mohammad,
And if we assume that someone had to have a belief in his life, again there is no problem with free will! Yes, actually he hadn’t free will in his life but certainly he assumes that he had free will. If he understands that he is forced, then he may try to change! Then he is always on his free will.
And another point that you should know: here in this approach I don’t want to say if someone has free will in his life or not. I just wanna find an explanation to behave mutually in the case of adherence! A regardful situation and respecting each other; an interfaith! Then I don’t care if someone is obligated in his belief or not, because its not related to this approach!
But your point of view was great. I liked that.
Regards,
Pingback: A philosophical approach to find a solution beyond religion adherence (part three): Borderline Between Ethics and Religions - Mideast Youth - Thinking Ahead