Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.



I am forcing a philosophy on myself.

Sounds like an absurd concept, i know, and that's because it is.

But, in the way that many people tell themselves to be optimistic, i try to convince myself that i am a Secular Humanist.

Stressing the importance of science and reason as well as ethics,
Secular Humanism celebrates the potential of humanity to do and create
great things (while accepting its many flaws) sans religion.

Unfortunately i have, in general, a very pessimistic outlook on the world.
I also- and am i truly embarrassed, as a self-professed intellectual, to admit this- believe in fate.

Logically, I see this as a human weakness, the need to assign purpose to their otherwise meaningless lives- yet i can't escape this way of thinking.


Can anyone else relate?

I can relate.

I'm not sure what I am anymore from the standpoint of 'personal philosophy', and have been aware enough of my dissonance to actively fight my tendency to silence it. From the standpoint of reason, I want to experience the dissonance and explore what it means. I feel truth is at the end of disentangling our dissonance (hard to do) and not giving in to the mind's rationalizations (harder to do - the psyche likes reductionism and symmetry, and reality isn't very reducible or symmetrical).

Lately this discipline has taken me to evaluate and discard many of the beliefs I've held since childhood. I'm left with a fresh set of beliefs arrived at through deductive reasoning, observation and introspection. I don't imagine these beliefs to yet be (or ever be) sufficient, and am open to continuing to work on them and making my dissonance work for me.

I suspect, Aurelie, that secular humanism has become insufficient for you - perhaps as a consequence of gaining insight that surpasses or transcends it. You strike me as the kind of person who doesn't want to limit her comprehension of reality to that which is observable, testable and empirically interactive. You value science and empiricism as fundamental, but your imagination is too broad, the universe too big a place, and reality itself so far beyond our ability to understand it as to make secular-humanist rulings on things such as fate, destiny and the supernatural... unreasonable.

I like to think of myself as a free-floater in the medium outside the boundaries of belief systems, while hovering close enough to a few that I soak in the warm comfort of their fires. You strike me as another such -- and cognitive dissonance may be your friend

This is such a can of worms, I don't even know where to begin, or where to go...

I'll be working on this for a while.

Warning, I'm going to be writing in a non logical way. Make the best of it you can.

Cognitive Dissonance is the only logical step when dealing with reality. But logic leads to insanity. Reality is the is-ness, the coffee cup in front of you, the chair you sit on. Whereas logic comes from another place, another plane of existence if you will. The causes a duality within a person. It's nice to do what Alek does, to take in more reality and reshape the "mindstuff". The Problem is that if the truth is what you seek, you have to reject in it's entirety all reason and ethics.

This is when things get wonky. . .

In living in our society, one has to learn rules. It's called social intelligence, and it is one of the many limiters of truth. It makes people operate in insane manners. Here comes the duel part. To reject totally all of these rules you are dooming yourself to isolation which will cause a break with reality.

I just had a zahmahkibo moment...

I just opened a bottle of tea, and under the cap are quotes, mine read this. . .

"The Most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" ~ Douglas Adams

Fate...

It is what you are open to. The science we rely on is just as bad as religious institutions. Both are limiting. Both are full of empty concepts. Reality makes no sense. and neither am I.

Posted by dirt But logic leads to insanity.... The Problem is that if the truth is what you seek, you have to reject in it's entirety all reason and ethics. social intelligence...is one of the many limiters of truth. It makes people operate in insane manners. Reality makes no sense.

Can you provide some examples?

As for reality... there are certainly hard limits on our ability to perceive or comprehend absolute reality. Still, reality is itself objective and it is our perspective that is subjective. We can only know/experience/interact with/perceive a miniscule, thin slice of reality -- but that thin slice has conditions, rules, attributes and characteristics that define our relation to it. Logic and reason are necessary tools to see even dimly and blurrily the barest shadow of an outline of the *real* and the *absolute* which differentiates "is" from "is not".

Posted by Aleksandar Can you provide some examples? As for reality... there are certainly hard limits on our ability to perceive or comprehend absolute reality. Still, reality is itself objective and it is our perspective that is subjective. We can only know/experience/interact with/perceive a miniscule, thin slice of reality -- but that thin slice has conditions, rules, attributes and characteristics that define our relation to it. Logic and reason are necessary tools to see even dimly and blurrily the barest shadow of an outline of the *real* and the *absolute* which differentiates "is" from "is not".

Examples? You would have to have lived my life to understand. But alas, is that not what you were getting at? Our Western ways of empirical thinking is inherently flawed. The Observer interacts and thus changes the observed. The only things that are truly objective are that which can not be understood. They exist, I'm certain, but the hows and whys are null and void. The entire universe as far as we understand is made up of tiny particles. Within them, there are parts that are even smaller. Particles that fade in and out of existence. Truth is just as slippery. Words cannot contain truth. Words are a duplication, and thereby a lie.

Madness! I know. Reality. . .Makes no sense.

Posted by dirt Madness! I know. Reality. . .Makes no sense.

No, I understand what you're saying -- it's not uncommon in the new-age school of thought, I'm familiar with the arguments.

Where I disagree with that line of thinking is discussing truth/reality as an 'all or nothing' proposition. 'We cannot comprehend the totality of existence, we cannot perceive the true nature of reality, therefore real truth is beyond our reach.'

We need instead to be satisfied with the slice of reality/truth available to us from our limited point of view. So what if we can't see the atoms or subatomic particles (or beyond) in a stone, and therefore not truly see the stone for what it is? From our perspective it is a stone, and is objectively so within the hard parameters of our existence. Reductionism is an important theme here, and being OK with a reductionist reality. I can use all the tools available to me to better understand the truth/reality available to me within my perspective, knowing it is not the whole but being satisfied with my piece of it.

I agree that the absolute base, ultimate and total reality in any given thing is beyond our ability to comprehend and we'll never get close even in one tiny fraction of any given part. Still, when the sun creeps over the horizon in the morning and sends a beam through the crack in my curtains, I enjoy the beam... though the sun is it's source and I'll never set foot on it. I can be satisfied in experiencing the truth of a part without having to experience the whole and I will continue questing to know the partial truths of the things I can, being satisfied that I will never know them fully.

Posted by Aleksandar No, I understand what you're saying -- it's not uncommon in the new-age school of thought, I'm familiar with the arguments. Where I disagree with that line of thinking is discussing truth/reality as an 'all or nothing' proposition. 'We cannot comprehend the totality of existence, we cannot perceive the true nature of reality, therefore real truth is beyond our reach.' We need instead to be satisfied with the slice of reality/truth available to us from our limited point of view. So what if we can't see the atoms or subatomic particles (or beyond) in a stone, and therefore not truly see the stone for what it is? From our perspective it is a stone, and is objectively so within the hard parameters of our existence. Reductionism is an important theme here, and being OK with a reductionist reality. I can use all the tools available to me to better understand the truth/reality available to me within my perspective, knowing it is not the whole but being satisfied with my piece of it. I agree that the absolute base, ultimate and total reality in any given thing is beyond our ability to comprehend and we'll never get close even in one tiny fraction of any given part. Still, when the sun creeps over the horizon in the morning and sends a beam through the crack in my curtains, I enjoy the beam... though the sun is it's source and I'll never set foot on it. I can be satisfied in experiencing the truth of a part without having to experience the whole and I will continue questing to know the partial truths of the things I can, being satisfied that I will never know them fully.

I find it necessary to point out that truth in it's purest form is hard if not impossible to grasp. I find that people drive themselves crazy with their thoughts. Look at any religious extremist. How sane is it to blow yourself up for an idea? How sane is it to kill doctors for performing abortions? Not very. My point is that Truth can not be found in words, book, or even experiences, because someone will always have a experience contrary.