How did we get to this topic? What does this have to do with: Torah? Tanakh? Today?<\/p>\n
Rejection of Reason was referred by Caroline Glick in \u201cWhy the Jews? \u00a0Caroline Glick explains the roots of genocidal Jew hatred\u201d<\/a>. There she presents the Rejection of Reason as a rejection of personal responsibility, where one is to make a personal discernment between good or evil, Then to choose good each time. At the root of blood lust since the beginning, is this rejection of reason; a rejection of individualism; a rejection of responsibility; a rejection of the notion that we have to be good which makes life a struggle. . . . (Paraphrased)<\/p>\n I add to that, the rejection of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL. Initially, \u00a0I arrived at this conclusion as\u00a0part by my review of Caroline Glick\u2019s works and has become a tremendous concern the more I search out works of philosophy, and thought.<\/p>\n While this is something of which I have been aware existed for many years, I have not been able to identify the real issues. I Thank and Praise the LORD for this information. However, painful this knowledge is to me. Do not get me wrong, I actually hold no hatred for anyone, only sorrow at the loss of so many souls and the person(flesh) of that soul. (Genesis 6<\/a>:3\u00a0And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’)<\/p>\n I found this article: \u201cWe enter the Age of the Postmodern, a term in use in the arts long before, having its roots in Dadaism and Surrealism, but being essentially a revolt against all form. In literature, postmodernism is the abandonment of any pretense of rationality, standards, meaning, language, because it essentially says you can put any words you like into an author\u2019s mouth, and make him say whatever you want, and then dismiss his work via argumentum ad hominem.\u201d In http:\/\/johncwright.livejournal.com\/319862.html<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers. But the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. . . . . He must now be prepared to believe, not merely what cannot be proved, but what can be disproved from other beliefs that he also holds.\u201d \u00a0\u2015\u00a0John Leslie Mackie<\/a><\/p>\n [This piece attempts to declare that the philosophers seemingly have proven that there is no direct or rational proof of GOD; this is only because that are unwilling to look even at science;astrophysics; physics; mathematics; molecular and cellular biology; atomic; sub atomic particles and The Tanakh including the Writings of Moses and the Prophets. Obviously there is too much they do not want to know or see. A true shame, at the loss of such valuable possessions<\/a>.]<\/p>\n Okay, so this leads me to the conclusion that: the majority of mankind neither wants, nor accepts personal responsibility. Instead most are ready willing and able to reject anything where they would be responsible for an outcome, instead looking for others to tell them what to do; to think; to act, thereby enslaving themselves by their own choice.<\/p>\n Do you think I am wrong? Let us take a moment and consider this:<\/p>\n Most people want to be saved. This they choose to or desire to believe: someone is able to remove sin from themselves and that their god will accept them with open arms, bringing everyone to heaven. Sadly, that does not work with the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL. Simply put, a person must consider right from wrong, judge their own actions, and do right and not wrong with every choice. That makes you Righteous. The Return!<\/a><\/p>\n We really have arrived at the Last Day<\/a>, for we are the same type of people found at the time of Noah. You could learn what happened then.<\/p>\n IT is to our benefit to HEARKEN until the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL, and to our pain and shame to do otherwise.<\/p>\n My prayer is that The LORD grant you eyes that see, ears that hear and an understanding heart, then you return unto HIM soon!(Isaiah 6<\/a>:\u00a09<\/b> And He said: ‘Go, and tell this people: hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.\u00a010<\/b> Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their heart, return, and be healed.’)<\/p>\n If you have questions, write me or submit a comment.<\/p>\n Please Donate, if you Can, use the button in the Left Column.<\/p>\n It is not required, but needed and appreciated.<\/p>\n Thank you.<\/p>\n Shalom,<\/p>\n Yaakov<\/p>\n Definition to aid understanding:<\/p>\n Argumentum ad hominem: Argumentum ad Hominem\u00a0(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.<\/p>\n The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.<\/p>\n The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.<\/p>\n The source: http:\/\/philosophy.lander.edu\/logic\/person.html<\/a><\/p>\n ***************** OR **** From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ad_hominem<\/a><\/p>\n *******************<\/p>\n I have included this one as a definition of rejection, as an \u201cad hominem\u201d attack is a rejection of the person being attacked and what ever they have to say, which is a social rejection.<\/p>\n Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Social_rejection<\/a><\/p>\n Social rejection Social rejection\u00a0occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a\u00a0social relationship\u00a0or\u00a0social interaction. The topic includes\u00a0interpersonal rejection\u00a0(or peer rejection),\u00a0romantic rejection\u00a0and\u00a0familial estrangement. A person can be rejected on an individual basis or by an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either\u00a0active, by\u00a0bullying,\u00a0teasing, or ridiculing, or\u00a0passive, by ignoring a person, or giving the “silent treatment.” The experience of being rejected is\u00a0subjective\u00a0for the recipient, and it can be\u00a0perceivedwhen it is not actually present. The word\u00a0ostracism\u00a0is often used for the process (in\u00a0Ancient Greece\u00a0ostracism was voting into temporary exile).[not in citation given][2] ***********************<\/p>\n
\nPhilosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
\nArgumentum Ad Hominem<\/p>\n
\nad hominem<\/p>\n
\n“Personal attacks” redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see\u00a0Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
\nAn\u00a0ad hominem\u00a0(Latin\u00a0for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for\u00a0argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical\u00a0fallacy\u00a0in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]\u00a0Ad hominem\u00a0reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and\u00a0practical reasoning.[3]
\nFallacious\u00a0ad hominem\u00a0reasoning is normally categorized as an\u00a0informal fallacy,[4][5][6]\u00a0more precisely as a\u00a0genetic fallacy, a subcategory of\u00a0fallacies of irrelevance.<\/p>\n
\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/p>\n
\nAlthough\u00a0humans\u00a0are\u00a0social\u00a0beings, some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life. Nevertheless, rejection can become a problem when it is prolonged or consistent, when the relationship is important, or when the individual is highly sensitive to rejection. Rejection by an entire\u00a0group\u00a0of people can have especially negative effects, particularly when it results in\u00a0social isolation.[3]
\nThe experience of rejection can lead to a number of adverse psychological consequences such as\u00a0loneliness, low\u00a0self-esteem,\u00a0aggression, and\u00a0depression.[4]\u00a0It can also lead to feelings of insecurity and a heightened sensitivity to future rejection.[citation needed]<\/p>\n