Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Fearful thinking, etc. Message-ID: <1207@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:33:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1207 Posted: Sat Jul 13 11:33:39 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:30:27 EDT References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP> <3@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 45 Keywords: Free will, levels of explanation Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2041 net.religion:7238 Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = Paul Torek >>>TO REPEAT my definition: "Fearful thinking" == automatically believing the >>>opposite of whatever the wishful thinkers believe, as if the fact that >>>something is believed on fallacious (in this case, wishful) grounds proves >>>that it is false. Now, you can argue that "fearful thinking" is something >>>that you have never done, but you CAN'T give the term ANOTHER definition >>>and then attribute that definition to me!!! >>Then why did you use the term "fearful" unless there was an element of a >>connotation of fear in the term????? Don't pussyfoot with me, Torek. > Because "fearful" is the closest I could come to an opposite of "wishful", > and "fearful" thinking is the opposite (in a way) of "wishful" thinking. > As I admitted before, "fearful" is sort of a misnomer -- I did not mean > to say you believe anything because you fear it's true. However, the > word "fearful" is not a complete misnomer -- the "fearful thinker" believes > whatever his OPPONENTS fear the truth of! (Get it?) Not at all. You said quite clearly "fearful thinking is *not* *believing* something because one fears its truth". That directly contradicts what you said above. "Fearful" doesn't strike me at all as an opposite of "wishful", except in the sense I just described. >>>>Where a phenomenon is shown by analysis not to in fact exist, or when the >>>>basis and foundation of it is shown to be erroneous, it SHOULD be dismissed. >>>That's nice. And where it has been shown to exist, it SHOULD NOT be >>>dismissed. >>Care to show us where the phenomenon has been shown to exist, rather than >>just asserting that it does? (If I recall, we were still on the topic of >>free will, it's been so long...) > Care to show us where the phenomenon has been shown NOT to exist? My rather > smartass reply was meant to dispute your apparent implication that it has > been shown not to exist. (At this point the topic was mental processes.) Cut it out! What is this, net.religion? Prove to me that god doesn't exist first, otherwise it does? Let's get some priorities straight: you're tagged with the responsibility of proof that the phenomenon does exist, not the other way around. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr