jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (81 posts)

Analyzing Individual Thought

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    These ideas are mostly in theory. I think many things can be understood and learned by a person by analyzing, debating, separating individual thought and conscience from group thought and teaching. I think possibly as much if not more can be learned from analyzing individual thought than can be taught and learned from others. What are your thoughts on this?

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To be clear about what you're talking about within this particular topic, you have to suspend your natural system of guidance and introspect about the reality of Life, in and of, itself. Without doing so, you justify no answer and support no particular form of belief.

      As you've obviously stated Marine, you're of the understanding that an individual mind must separate itself from a group belief, to gain better understanding, when the truth of the matter is that they are to introspect on what they know and learn from the knowledge they already possess.

      Should you be incapable of introspection and can not discern the aspects of life, then analyzing an individual thought, will have no meaning and just be a random thought not worth reviewing.

      As for you Marine, your vision is limited because you put limitation on yourself, even if you don't understand the limitations to exist. It is obvious that you see without seeing and you learn many things for which you do not know. Hence, your think you logic is sound, yet it has many holes, because you lack the insight to draw the proper knowledge to the fore-front of your brain, and bring into reason, a misunderstanding of your own life, so as to make others to become aware. However, what you've learned and it's understanding to you, is skewed and subjective to others, because you can't make rationalize arguments or battle with words, with the supported knowledge and understanding, because you yourself are still looking for the answers to questions you have about your life.

      This has come from the rational reasoning of understanding your post and my individual knowledge of Life. Don't take offense, because I'm not trying to offend you my friend, but to get you to realize - Yes, you know you are ignorant in areas of life and knowledge, but you only recognize your ignorance, so as to identify with others and not really believe it yourself.

      A great question you presented and I'm always more than willing to lend a hand, whenever possible to spread my knowledge and understanding of Life, as I've learned it to be.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Lol, alright. I think you are pretty hypocritical in your comments and I think you have an idealogy that you assume to understand my thoughts and beliefs. We all know you are using faith without logic to do this because you have no true idea of what I understand or believe, all you have to believe about me is what I allow and post for you to believe about me.

        You talk about suspending my reality of life when you claim to know everyones realities as an absolute. It is not one persons place to define everyone elses reality. I think you are the one that doesn't separate your emotions for logic.

        You also say in your belief, that when a person dies, there is no afterlife. You have no logical way of knowing anything that happens at death because you haven't died yet. For you to state that as an absolute is a faith based assumption. I don't think you use self-awareness to understand you aren't as logical as you think you are.

        You also say as absolute that there is no creator. How much emotions and faith do you have tied into evolution? Evolution does not explain everything.

        You claim I am limited when you rule out the possibility of creation when even the leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins will not rule it out. I think you are the limited mind and very hypocritical for claiming another limited. You are the one making many faith based assumptions without being backed by logic. Nothing personal, thanks.

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          See, what I mean.....IGNORANCE not believed by you about yourself. I've read most of your posts in the past 2-3 months that I've been here and there is no mistake in my assessment.



          You know, just because(and I've said this before) YOU don't believe in absolutes or you think reality is defined by each individual person- YOUR WRONG!

          I don't care what your individual belief is - REALITY EXISTS, even free of individual thoughts, desires, will, or wishes. It is all knowable.

          Therefore, you above statement is completely self-gratifying and meaningless to everyone else who reads it.



          I've noticed that you have now changed the subject. Please do try to stay on topic, especially since you opened the topic about analyzing an individual thought- Yet, you can't discern what is real and what is fake.



          You must seriously have a mental thought processing problem, because you can't seem to stay on one topic, no matter how hard you try. You are simply wasting people's time and making yourself look pretty foolish.



          You really don't get it, nor will you. So, I will leave you be and let you make an A$$ out of yourself. I will no longer indulge your sad understanding of life.

          Enjoy!

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly as I said. You have no understanding of self-awareness or logic in the illusion that you do. You clearly are upset and emotional with your irrational insults. You are in a reality all your own. Your "assessment" is faith based with emotion. What does emotion do to logic?

  2. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    why do you hate me?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't, I love you like a non believer.

      1. sooner than later profile image61
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        how does a non believer love?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          With heart and conscience like every other person that understands love. Every individual has them, some just choose not to find or use them. Some believe they must be taught or learned from a book.

          1. sooner than later profile image61
            sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            you understand love? What does a book have to do with it?

            My days are numbered here Marine. I would really like to make some progress with you before my services are no more.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, not completely, I learn more everyday. If you want to make progress, stop always looking left and right and look straight for a change. A book has nothing to do with understanding anything. It also doesn't take a belief of creation or evolution to understand good or love. It is irrational to believe that everyone would believe the same things when all have an individual mind. I don't think you understand people can be good simply because you are taught they are bad for not having your belief. There is no absolute truth in titles.

  3. h.a.borcich profile image59
    h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago

    Not sure if you are looking for my individual thought or my group thought, and is it for debate? Is this logical?

      I could not help it smile

      Seriously though, I have offered my "individual" thoughts in other threads only to hear "that is a group belief" or that it is or isn't logical. Why do you get so bound up in this? Why not just interact with real people and observe?
      Holly

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think any debate can be logical as long as you aren't throwing your emotions into the debate. I do interact with people and observe. You think I should agree with people more? That wouldn't be learning if I agreed when I disagree. Please tell me where and on what I said your thoughts weren't individual and I will correct myself if I was wrong.

    2. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I've come across this also.  I like the way you said this.  It's as if one's individual thought is somehow up for analytical scrutiny and yet it's often the one scrutinizing that doesn't 'get it.'  And what is there to get except comparisons?  You're either aligned to my state of consciousness, have been aligned to my state of consciousness, or you haven't.

      Being 'allowed' to have individual thought from a group perspective is a target for invalidation.  And only a person of strength and integrity can hold themselves beyond the pulls of the invalidating.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol I like how you jump to the last post of the thread and claim things I don't get. What is it I don't get? Aren't you claiming things I don't get the same as me claiming things that others don't get? You make a lot of sense.

        1. Jewels profile image82
          Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was generalizing, because in the main people just don't f*cking get it.  Primarily it's the group mentality that rules. Memes are created to hold the group and have it survive.  It's an animalistic tendency we have in order to protect the species. Have you noticed that whenever someone has individual thoughts and then attempts to change the group, how much resistance there is?   It's perplexing only because of the level of frustration to conform; Yet it shows the sleeper mentality that a person can be within a meme, think it's separate, yet it is not until they completely step outside the meme and learn not to be influenced by it.  At birth a child is brought into a meme, whether it's the family meme, who is influenced by a societal and/or religious meme.  Individual thought is smashed out before it gets in.

          In order to learn how to be separate from the meme, is to first know you are influenced by one.  And this is where most people fail.  They have no idea they are influenced in the first place.  Which makes me laugh when people talk about free choice.  If you have not separated yourself out from the unconscious influences of a meme, you DO NOT have free choice, and you certainly don't have individual thought.

          Must go join the corporate meme and earn my weekly wages.  At least I'm conscious there is a corporate meme, and am conscious of what role I play in order to earn my weekly wage.

          Individual thought is a great topic.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for adding Jewels, sorry if I got feisty with you. I like the meme theory, i'm not sure I agree with it as I don't agree with anything being absolute, nevertheless I always enjoy reading and opening my mind to theories and all ideas. I agree with you about being an animal tendencey to run with the pack. I think this is for security and dependency along with the fact that power is in numbers. On your idea of separating to find individual thought, this is one of the reasons I choose not to believe anything as absolute. I think when something is believed absolute, it creates emotional attachment to the belief while leaving little to no room for error. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

            1. Jewels profile image82
              Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The meme theory is easy to see when you separate out reason. 

              The only absolute is the Absolute.  To understand memes you first see your role in one of them.  And you're usually in more than one.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not trying mess with you. What do you mean only seen when separating reason? Do you mean emotion? Do you allude that you have seen these while in meditation? Please explain the only absolute is the absolute.

                1. Jewels profile image82
                  Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  On the surface a person thinks they are not being influenced by their environment, not seeing how parental or peer pressure, even if that pressure is subtle, has effected their decisions.  It's often so subtle, almost like saying "it's what everyone else does," but never reasoning why everyone actually does it."  Corporate memes are the most fascinating to see, in my opinion.  It's like accepting what is normal because of known normal behaviour, but never questioning why that behavior is acceptable or who is driving you to behave and to what cause it is being driven. Corporate memes have an agenda which is usually unseen, it's not transparent.  Emotion is used by the head of the meme, it's very useful, very pursuasive.  I'm not talking about emotion when I say understand one.  But one really needs to be extremely discerning with self reflection in order to understand their place in one.  One needs to be void of emotion, yet understand the concept of feelings as separate from emotion.  They are not the same thing, yet most will mix the two into the one umbrella.

                  The Absolute is that which is the only Truth.  It's a term used in Buddhist teachings.  The normal state of consciousness has no concept of The Absolute.  So when someone says they know absolutely it's usually spoken in it's fallen sense.  Truth is not a constant until you reach the Absolute.  Hope that makes sense.  To know without a shadow of a doubt is usually spoken from the fallen sense.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It made sense. Thank You for explaining.

          2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            WOW your deep. ok... almost everything you said I agree with. The only way my opinion differs from yours is in the initial paragraph. I believe no ones beliefs are identical to someone else's, even if they are so close that it escapes detection, they always have some small (perhaps even microscopic) difference. I like using the term flavoring/seasoning. If you and I agree on something my flavor of that thought or idea may have 2 more grains of salt in it than yours, or maybe you add a pinch of pepper to yours. So that even though we are very much agreeable, we are not identical. In that way we are not either the same, will or have been the same or not, as you stated. But we probably were/are very close.
            the rest of what you stated I heartily agree to. Nicely stated.

  4. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    Give me an example of what you consider an individual and then a group belief. Can you tell why you consider an individual belief more valuable than a group belief? How is a group belief different than individuals that agree?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think the best example I could use would be examples of mob mentality. Take a case of 5 teens that beat up a homeless person. The odds are pretty good that at least 1 of those teens in the group beating knew it was morally wrong to beat up the homeless person. Why didn't the person individualize from his friends to speak up and say it was wrong? Ridicule from the mob I believe. I think if it would have been a strong minded individual with strong morals, they would have found the voice to speak against their friends. I think true individual belief separates outside emotions and influences of others to find individual logic.

      1. sooner than later profile image61
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        an army of one?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, I think some group morals are neccassary for minimal government when the morals are set by honest non hypocritical individuals that aren't striving to make the most money or gain the most power in the mob.

      2. h.a.borcich profile image59
        h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

           These morals are taught in homes, or not taught in homes if we are discussing five teens who carry out violence against a less fortunate individual. Respect for other people, compassion, conscience and a sense of right and wrong need to be taught when a child is young. If these attributes are not demonstrated it is difficult to expect a child to develop them.

          Those morals for me are rooted in the Bible. What are the odds those five teens were never exposed to the morals of the Bible? Odds are those teens were raised without a moral compass?

          Parents who fail to instill these morals place one heck of a burden on society. We get to be victims of and blamed for the lack of morals these teens exemplify. And you think the Bible in my home is the problem? Where would you find the morals otherwise?
          Holly

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol You are making an assumption that these kids weren't raised on the bible and morals without having any facts. I could make the same assumption and say they were raised on morals and the bible from birth and committed the crime anyways. Morals can be learned from mistakes and contradictions along with good conscience acts. Do you have to turn the thread into a religious debate? lol

          1. profile image0
            lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Morals indeed can be learned by mistakes, good point.

          2. h.a.borcich profile image59
            h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Pardon me - I thought you brought up the example of the 5 teens without morals? I am sure I did not. That I expressed what moral compass I used to parent was the problem?
            If mistakes and experience teach morals....Was this the 1st instance of moral absense of these 5 teens? If it was not, then it would appear their mistakes and experiences taught them nothing?
            I am really trying to see your points here, Holly

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No, I never put in the example that all had been raised with or without morals. I was just making the case that 1 out of the 5 likely has a conscience or morals, but didn't follow what they were taught to speak up and say the act was wrong. I don't think any moral compass you use is wrong if it teaches morals without limiting or corrupting the kids minds to form their own belief later on. I think even if a person is raised with morals, a lot still fail to learn from their mistakes. However, I do think more can be learned through personal mistakes than can be learned from mistakes of others. Saying more can be learned doesn't mean people will choose to learn from them or that it's easier to learn from others mistakes.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion,
      A group belief is the result of an original individual belief. The group belief is one of the herd mentality. The Individual belief is much more rare and therefore more precious. It is also much more painful, or maybe stressful, and usually includes being called names and enduring harrassment do to the originality of the individual belief. As an example I cite Columbus, when humanity believed the world was flat(group belief) and Columbus believed it was round(Individual belief). Columbus had to leave his country do to the ramifications/consequences of his belief.
      (individuals that agree is a group belief, so they are not different.)  smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with that, great explanation.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Why Thank You.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You are welcome.  Thank You.

  5. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I hope you realize that you were created by a loving Father some day.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, you have no idea of what I believe and you have always made assumptions while I sit back and laugh at you. I hope your belief is not absolute some day.

      1. sooner than later profile image61
        sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        He made you to enjoy life and for companionship. He calls to you. even now.

  6. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    So marine, you're referring to the fact that so many go along with a group for acceptance whether they truly believe what the others believe or not? You don't have a problem with acknowledging that the other four boys agreed that it was fine to do what they did, not that they're wrong for agreeing? Your main problem is people who don't agree but take the easy way and don't go against the flow?

    I find it generally easy I think to go against the flow but isn't that egoism? Or apathy? Is that really always better? For me it's often easy because I don't care, sometimes haven't even bothered to know, what others think about it. Listening to others' points of view is great for learning though, input you didn't have before can change the context and even the very basics of your knowledge.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't consider it my problem that some people will be silent and go along with a mob even when they don't agree, I think it is their individual problem. When you ask if going against the flow "better"? That is opinion based, depends on your idea of better.

  7. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    Also, in your example, you've got to admit that the boy refusing to participate and trying to stop his friends could be dangerous to his life. That may play a part in some such decisions; that and the question of whether or not it's important to stand away from the group. Some things matter too much, some don't matter enough to be worth it.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You don't think speaking up for an innocents persons life is worth the risk of punishment or ridicule? I think that is cowardly.

      1. profile image0
        TMinutposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hey! That's not what I said!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol I put a question mark in there. Again, I think some group belief and government is right, but I think a lot of times individual belief is lost in the mob.

  8. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    Please explain what love has to do with anything.  Thank you.

    1. profile image0
      TMinutposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you singing in your mind? :-)

      What's love got to do, got to do with it?

  9. profile image0
    zampanoposted 7 years ago

    Lyric, you look so good.
    Thoughts, all right.
    What about feelings ?
    Love is feeling. It transcends thought.
    A two edge blade we love to play with.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

      1. profile image0
        zampanoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ok. Let's windmill fight

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You're looking to fight? You're insane and irrational. Therefore, you waste your existence and purport violence. It is more than obvious that you're no better than most people, who believe they have a grip, yet flounder about looking for answers to questions, to your own individual minds comprehension.

          How much you understand is obvious and extremely limited, because you can never grasp any concept bigger than you. So, on that thought. Enjoy! big_smile smile

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What concept can your limited mind grasp outside of science theories of reality and death? How are you thinking outside the box?

            1. sooner than later profile image61
              sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think that there are some forceful factors that need entered into this quadrant.

      2. profile image0
        zampanoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cagseal !
        You are an arrogant, megalomaniac yokl ! (as I said before)
        Everytime you "contribute" to a thread either you just leave smileys behind, or you hammer us with your cheap phylosophy that consists in saying that we, poor dumb ignorants, didn't understand nothing about ultimate meaning of life but you are going to explain it all to us...
        Where is your contribution besides in the fact that you claim that you possess truth ?
        Are you a kind of priest of a cagsealed church ?
        yokl...
        You must be the kind that accept the term "followers"

  10. profile image0
    TMinutposted 7 years ago

    I thought that was one of the points you were trying to make now and before, that only standing apart is worthy. Not so?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol I never said anyone that doesn't have an individual mind isn't a worthy individual. I do think it's harder to have an individual mind with so many outside influences.

  11. lorlie6 profile image86
    lorlie6posted 7 years ago

    Where's Casgil?  I think he'd enjoy this conversation...

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Did you call? big_smile

  12. profile image0
    zampanoposted 7 years ago

    Anyways, it is a mental, physical positive health sign, when your thinking line goes againts general movement.
    We never had improvements of any kind in human history that were generated by a majority. There was always a minority to pull ahead the cultural wagon.

  13. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    "Cagsil: As you've obviously stated Marine, you're of the understanding that an individual mind must separate itself from a group belief, to gain better understanding, when the truth of the matter is that they are to introspect on what they know and learn from the knowledge they already possess"

    Another faith based assumption that is incorrect. If this were true, there would never be new ideas or thoughts. I think you do limit yourself for believing this.


    "Cagsil: To be clear about what you're talking about within this particular topic, you have to suspend your natural system of guidance and introspect about the reality of Life, in and of, itself. Without doing so, you justify no answer and support no particular form of belief."

    Your reality is whatever a scientist tells you it is. You are limited to what you think is reality for everyone. It is only your reality. Your introspect is guided by evolution theories and faith that you know what happens as absolute.

  14. Shealy Healy profile image59
    Shealy Healyposted 7 years ago

    Who among us can think without the reflection of what we have lived or who we have been? To begin a conversation completely empty of our past would be a means of entering the conversation without judgements or assumptions. I don't think this is ever possible. Still, I try.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not saying to discard the past or outside thoughts, I think it can be used without being limiting to individual thought. I think both judging and assumptions fall under emotions and contradict logical thinking. I agree, it's hard to get past outside influence to find inside thought especially when everyone pushes their individual belief as the right belief.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely said. Coming into a conversation without what makes you , you...to me is an oxymoron. For you to be in the conversation you have to be there, and what makes you, you is your experiences and past. Your assumptions and beliefs. Being openminded means simply accepting that what you believe, may be wrong. smile

  15. sooner than later profile image61
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I think marine is really onto something. This is all new context that I have never seen before. Marine, you should publish your ideas before someone beats you to it. I don't know why I never saw it before.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks sooner. I'm not sure what specific idea you are talking about. The one that science can be limiting if connected through emotions?

  16. h.a.borcich profile image59
    h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago

    Well, I think the homeless man is paying too high of a price for those 5 teens education, experience or what ever they are gaining. Would you feel ok being the homeless man in this beating, or would you think moral education and expecting compliance to a basic code of all society is better? Holly

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol Whoa, slow down. I never said not to teach kids anything and just let them all learn from their mistakes. I think agreed morals for society is better for prevention, how and who is the person or people that regulates all morals for a society? People can teach good moral behavior in thier homes, then again, everyone has a different idea of what is morally right and wrong. Thats why we have politicians and governments writing the morals and putting people in jail for not following those morals. Do you suggest the bible is the only way to teach morals to  society?

      1. h.a.borcich profile image59
        h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is all I have seen be effective. 
        I also have a difficult time with government (comprised of less than ethical and moral persons) making laws for the rest of us when they don't adhere themselves.
          If the standards set forth by a society are to protect all, then why are the rights of those who deviate from the code protected more fiercly than those of the innocent victim? Holly

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think an arguement could also be posed that the bible has failed at teaching morals to society. If it would have been working all this time, I think more would believe in it. I don't agree with the laws they make either. I never said I liked the politicians and government setting the moral laws, but if they didn't I think we would have anarchy since not everyone has the same belief of moral right and wrong. On the last question, money and titles go a long way.

          1. h.a.borcich profile image59
            h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think it would be premature to say the Bible failed without first having put it to the test. Where has the morals of the Bible been taught exclusively and the results examined?
            Why is it so abhorrent to have a minimum of values expected from a society and enforce it? ie, murder, rape, stealing, etc. If all could agree what is off limits, why would any sane person allow a child to be brought up thinking the "off limits" is an option? If the answer to allowing bad behavior is NO, why not just teach NO?

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What do you mean without putting it to test? Many have read the bible along with myself and have put it to the test. Many that do put it to the test and believe still make life changing mistakes. I will give you that the bible has many excellent morals that can be learned from, it also contradicts those morals with separatism and hate. You don't think those morals you listed can be taught to society without having to believe the bible? I think many people are taught no, it doesn't mean they won't say yes.

              1. h.a.borcich profile image59
                h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think that is accurate to have sporadic adherence to Biblical morals and call it fully tested. Any test that has loose parameters would seem to be flawed.
                  If the morals of the Bible are acceptable to all then why are they so rejected?

  17. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    I don't think it's probable that you can make any blanket generalization about individual thought vs. group thought.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion,
      A group belief is the result of an original individual belief. The group belief is one of the herd mentality. The Individual belief is much more rare and therefore more precious. It is also much more painful, or maybe stressful, and usually includes being called names and enduring harrassment do to the originality of the individual belief. As an example I cite Columbus, when humanity believed the world was flat(group belief) and Columbus believed it was round(Individual belief). Columbus had to leave his country do to the ramifications/consequences of his belief.

  18. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    FYI, it is a commonly accepted myth that Columbus proved the earth was round. Educated people in Europe already knew the earth was roughly spherical.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      FYI at one point in history the group belief was that the world was flat, someone had to be the first to not believe as the group did, that person is an example of an individual belief. (that later became a group belief)

      There are other examples if you prefer:

      -Einstein's theory of reletivity *relAtivity*
      -Aristarchus was the first person to state that the earth revolves around the sun, a full 1800 years before Copernicus;
      -Eratosthenes proved that the earth was spherical and calculated its circumference with amazing accuracy, 1700 years before Columbus sailed on his epic voyage
      -Hipparchus established the first atlas of the stars and calculated the length of the solar year accurately to within 6.5 minutes
      -Herophylus identified the brain as the controlling organ of the body.
      Let's not get stuck in the credits of who was the individual that had an Individual belief before it became a group belief.

  19. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I think logical thought and faithful thought can both be limited or blind when used without one another. I think logic and faith used together is possibly unlimited in thought. Agreements, Disagreements?

  20. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    I have cramps lol hmm:

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Me too!

  21. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    I'm still analyzing my individual thought, thanks lol

  22. wesleyacarter profile image61
    wesleyacarterposted 7 years ago

    individual thought is a moot subject. how can i convince someone that I think individual of my actions? how can they prove it to me?

    there is only individual expression. thought is singular, but expression supplies the context in which thought is actualized, creating variation. Individual thoughts are thoughts not actualized.

    there are no individual thoughts. only individual intentions.

    thoughts without expression are empty and of no use.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Expression is based on thought. I think you are wrong on this as well. All thoughts are important or have the chance to be important when they are learned from. They are only useless if you don't use them.

 
working