Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Random Thoughts (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2)
-- ***A question for all you intellectuals.*** (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=15957)

***A question for all you intellectuals.***

This is mostly an opinionated question, so yea...if you can, please back your answer up with some sort of explainatin. Thanks.


Do you believe that human beings are capable of unconditional love?

__________________


http://www.mcjdragonz.com

http://www.dynamicvocalz.tk

http://www.streetmaderecordz.tk

I always work on the motto that if there is even the slightest, infintesimal possibility then i will never discredit an idea. So, since there is a probability that it could be true in humans, i say they are capable of it.

Though Hegel and Hobbes would disagree.

There is not really any analysis, i just discerned if there was a probability or not, and there was so i said humans are. Sorry for the lack of substance. I might think about it later but i have to get to class.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

u and love -_-; u should be on those soap opera shows LOL jk

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
I always work on the motto that if there is even the slightest, infintesimal possibility then i will never discredit an idea. So, since there is a probability that it could be true in humans, i say they are capable of it.

Though Hegel and Hobbes would disagree.

There is not really any analysis, i just discerned if there was a probability or not, and there was so i said humans are. Sorry for the lack of substance. I might think about it later but i have to get to class.

---

__________________


http://www.mcjdragonz.com

http://www.dynamicvocalz.tk

http://www.streetmaderecordz.tk

i think the argument your friend made is valid, but not exactly a punch in the face.

We all have to be dogmatic sometime or another to take a stance on something, boil everything down to the extremes and everything becomes dogma. The universe seems infinite, we do not know for sure, the universe exists, we exist, we think, we can never be sure, religion may be true, anything could be true. We can never know any of these things with complete objectivity. That is the entire debacle behind the theory of knowledge.

I commend your friend's effort to remain scientific in his practice, but i think it becomes narrow-minded when a main argument for him is "negation theory," which is not necessarily a good thing. Also, it seems by negating your idea in the first place, he begins too indulges in negation theory and hence can be labeled as dogmatic as well. Here is something to sum up the idea of negation theory.

" A property of any proposition for which it is possible to specify a set of circumstances the occurrence of which would demonstrate that the proposition is false. According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is the crucial feature of scientific hypotheses: beliefs that can never be tested against the empirical evidence are dogmatic."

It may not seem like he is arguing from a negative angle, but i think he does, especially effectually. Playing the assertive actor (in this instance, the person who decides that unconditional love is impossible) does not except anyone from the consequences of his own argument. Just because you and i play the passive actors who accept possibilities, that makes us on-face dogmatic. Why on-face, and why is that worse? it is not, people just can see it easier, and people do not realize that everything they believe is, in fact, dogmatic when it all boils down. The only reason it is on-face dogmatic is because our side of the argument does not have immediate empirical evidence, while the other side has a "sample" of evidence they can compare to. That sample still is only a sample, and in all it is a belief.

Both viewpoints are dogmatic, and i think it is unwise in all to advocate your friend's viewpoint of audacious certainty towards this question. If there is a probability, then why not? An open mind is better than a closed, and certain one i think.

I am atheist, but i still never decry religion for the sake that it possibly could be true. That does not make me agnostic though, i believe there is no god, but just account for my possibility for error. Rather than the typical agnostic who rides the fence on the issue. Every idea ever conceived is a belief, nothing is a universal fact.

Knowledge is dogma.

edit - and yes, the argument you and i present is, indeed, logical.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

we already discussed this~ and i hope u remember my answer....

__________________
"Me I'm into being like #1 Korean, I represent the Seoul and every yellow human being" ... DT...

quote:

---

Originally posted by hip hOp Yu Ja
we already discussed this~ and i hope u remember my answer....

---

__________________


http://www.mcjdragonz.com

http://www.dynamicvocalz.tk

http://www.streetmaderecordz.tk

oo tipsy HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

alex and I think alike

quote:

---

Originally posted by kiggaplease
alex and I think alike

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J-DraGoNz
we did? o.O

when was this?

---

__________________
"Me I'm into being like #1 Korean, I represent the Seoul and every yellow human being" ... DT...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
i think the argument your friend made is valid, but not exactly a punch in the face.

We all have to be dogmatic sometime or another to take a stance on something, boil everything down to the extremes and everything becomes dogma. The universe seems infinite, we do not know for sure, the universe exists, we exist, we think, we can never be sure, religion may be true, anything could be true. We can never know any of these things with complete objectivity. That is the entire debacle behind the theory of knowledge.

I commend your friend's effort to remain scientific in his practice, but i think it becomes narrow-minded when a main argument for him is "negation theory," which is not necessarily a good thing. Also, it seems by negating your idea in the first place, he begins too indulges in negation theory and hence can be labeled as dogmatic as well. Here is something to sum up the idea of negation theory.

" A property of any proposition for which it is possible to specify a set of circumstances the occurrence of which would demonstrate that the proposition is false. According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is the crucial feature of scientific hypotheses: beliefs that can never be tested against the empirical evidence are dogmatic."

It may not seem like he is arguing from a negative angle, but i think he does, especially effectually. Playing the assertive actor (in this instance, the person who decides that unconditional love is impossible) does not except anyone from the consequences of his own argument. Just because you and i play the passive actors who accept possibilities, that makes us on-face dogmatic. Why on-face, and why is that worse? it is not, people just can see it easier, and people do not realize that everything they believe is, in fact, dogmatic when it all boils down. The only reason it is on-face dogmatic is because our side of the argument does not have immediate empirical evidence, while the other side has a "sample" of evidence they can compare to. That sample still is only a sample, and in all it is a belief.

Both viewpoints are dogmatic, and i think it is unwise in all to advocate your friend's viewpoint of audacious certainty towards this question. If there is a probability, then why not? An open mind is better than a closed, and certain one i think.

I am atheist, but i still never decry religion for the sake that it possibly could be true. That does not make me agnostic though, i believe there is no god, but just account for my possibility for error. Rather than the typical agnostic who rides the fence on the issue. Every idea ever conceived is a belief, nothing is a universal fact.

Knowledge is dogma.

edit - and yes, the argument you and i present is, indeed, logical.

---

__________________
"Me I'm into being like #1 Korean, I represent the Seoul and every yellow human being" ... DT...

A pastor has an only child, a son. He loved his son dearly, his son loved his father dearly. One night he was murdered by a young man, purposely. The pastor mourned and cried over his son for weeks and weeks, and finally the murderer showed up to the pastors church, and asked for forgiveness. The pastor hugged him and took him as his own son, being changed.

yes, i believe in unconditional love.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, That whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

It is written in the bible too about unconditional love, and since I believe in the word, I believe and try to live by everything that is written in it.

__________________

is that story real? just wondering.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

^^ seriously

thats crazy if it is

__________________


http://www.mcjdragonz.com

http://www.dynamicvocalz.tk

http://www.streetmaderecordz.tk

Yes it is.
He's a known pastor in korea. A lot of pastors use his example to define unconditional love

__________________

parents have unconditional love for their children. i mean, they know having kids will give their headaches and heartbreaks. but why have kids in the first place then if they know all these things? (and i'm sure its not just for the "family name" sake.) and when kids break their parents' hearts, they still love their kids from the first day they were born.

just like how God's love.

__________________
www.unismuimui.tk

God's love is unconditional, therefore it exists.

__________________

^^ Oh I know it exists, the question was refering to the capablity of human beings able to express it.

__________________


http://www.mcjdragonz.com

http://www.dynamicvocalz.tk

http://www.streetmaderecordz.tk

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnisMuiMui
parents have unconditional love for their children. i mean, they know having kids will give their headaches and heartbreaks. but why have kids in the first place then if they know all these things? (and i'm sure its not just for the "family name" sake.) and when kids break their parents' hearts, they still love their kids from the first day they were born.

just like how God's love.

---

__________________