Faith and emotion do not make freedom, morality or philosophy exist. All of these words are words whose definitions match real phenomenon that we experience.
When one is at a fork in the road and one is free to choose either path one would call this ability to choose freedom. When some one says that killing is wrong one can identify that as a moral. When one investigates the nature, causes, or principles of reality based on logical reasoning we can identify that as philosophy. Lack of faith or emotion towards philosophy, freedom or morality would not make any of the three any less real.
Love is a subjective matter because people cannot agree on its definition. People say this or that is love, yet when we break it down it turns out that it is filial piety, or lust or a deep friendship. A feeling such as love might exist. When some one mistakes lust for love, they are still experiencing something though identifying it by the wrong name. If one has faith in love one does not prove the existence of love, one simply hopes that the experience one is feeling is indeed love and not some other emotion. The same goes for art or any other such word.
A unicorn, a dragon and a circular-square are words with definitions that do not match any known experience. If a word and its definition do not match any known experience then the word describes a concept; which can also be described as something with either the property of contingent non-existence or impossible existence. If one looked at an antelope with one horn and called it a unicorn one would simply be mislabeling the antelope.
I hope I cleared that matter up.
Quote:
|
Exactly. Objective experience, interpreted by both reason and emotion, produces belief in the reality of a concept.
|
I would disagree with that statement. Emotion does not produce awareness. Experience produces awareness, emotions simply colors that experience. If emotions were taken away we would still experience the world around us and its reality would be no less questionable.
What is this about good and bad faith? First time I have ever head about such entities.
All I am interested in is proving whether faith can be used to prove the existence of something. By definition it cannot; doesn’t matter if that object is love, freedom, a sunrise or the continent of North America. Faith is either a rational hope that something is true, or a blind belief that something is true without proof of it. That is what faith is defined as. Sailors of the past had faith and feared that if they sailed towards the horizon they would fall of the edge of the world. When news reached them that the world was round their fears did not automatically dissipate. Captains who have never traveled from the sight of land had their hearts pounding as that first voyage was taken. I bet somewhere even killed in mutiny by terrified sailors as their ships came closer to the horizon. Of course there were others who lived with their faith in the edge of the world for so long that they could not overcome their fear and probably never left sight of shore. In the end their faith in a flat world proved to be wrong and their fears did not make the world any less round.
To close this reply, faith and emotion cannot make things exist. Faith is not the truth, but hope or blind belief in the truth. Emotion is not experience but adds a flavor to that experience. If we lost faith or stopped feeling or both the world around us would not disappear. I am not saying that all faith is bad, but simply saying that it does not make things true. I would argue that blind faith is bad because it is irrational and is the antithesis of knowledge and though.