TED Community » Matt Wolfe

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Music, Philosophy, Psychology, Language and many other things!

An idea worth spreading

The content of religion is irrelevant, but religion is important... (Hear me out!). My idea is that as intrinsic psychological beings we are driven to finding answers. Thus why we continue to search the solar system and galaxies for more information on life. It's exciting to find new answers and sometimes daunting to not know the answers to a potentially important question. It is my personal belief that religion was created to construct barriers within our mental sanity so that we can live our lives undisturbed by what the nihilistic view calls the absurd. No one religion is correct, nor the content within the religion very important, but the true belief we hold of these religions give us hope and allow us to continue our lives with "meaning". Everyone needs their own version of religion or spirituality that best fits their character in order to maintain their sanity and achieve the meaning of life: Happiness.

Talk to me about

Philosophy, Psychology, Music, Education, Language, anything!

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Conversation: In your opinion, what should the purpose of education be?

  Dec 22 2011: Education should be geared towards the fulfillment of the individual's curiosity, intelligence, soul and interest. Education is extremely important in growing the individual in many different ways, but it is something that can come in many different ways. Many people have argued the importance of reading, writing, literacy and the importance of the information attainable in books. I do not denote their importance but I would put world experience above all. If one were to travel the world, experiencing many different cultures and interact with their environment, with the people, with everything they encounter, couldn't that educate someone more-so than books? (or at least an equally important method of education)
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: In your opinion, what should the purpose of education be?

  Dec 22 2011: You both have very interesting points but I would like to point out that from my perspective, it seems as though you're caught looking at it from our cultural and social perspective.
  Zared - you mention that Literate people have more of a potential to be intelligent than not.. but what is intelligence? I would start with that as the root. Intelligence(in my opinion) is the ability to be highly functioning within your own cultural and societal parameters. If you're part of an indigenous tribe, intelligence may have nothing to do with literacy and everything to do with knowing how to survive in the wilderness, protect others and lead. There is a difference between learning something in a book an learning something via experience. In our society, literacy can gain us access to more knowledge about a specific subject, which can get us a job, which will feed us and help maintain our life. That is the reason you are coming to literacy as such an important piece.

• A reply on Conversation: Why aren't kids (+ young adults) given more credit?

  Dec 22 2011: I have to say I respectfully disagree with most of what you're saying. Before actions can even occur, an idea must be born. In that respect, the idea is the most important part. The next important part I would agree with you is the action and the following. But it's in the idea that can spark the following. If you had an idea that was mediocre at best but you were able to have a following, it would be a mediocre event. If you had a brilliant idea and were able to invoke the same response, it would be an incredible event. Not everyone is a leader, and not everyone is an idea-maker. To have both is remarkable. Sometimes those who come up with a fantastic idea can use the leader to put it into action.
  You said if TED is just making us think, it's not doing its job. But what is philosophy? By thinking we are developing our minds to better understand and transform ideas into something more. Not all ideas require action. And sometimes action is a personal kind- a reflective transformation.
  I think that the encouragement towards children that you speak of is somewhat hollow. If A co-worker were to come up with a creative idea and be supported it would be different than an 8 year old coming to his father with a creative idea and be supported. Since children of that age aren't taken too seriously on their ideas, it is more of a hollow support in order to nurture their creativity. It's immensely important to their growing that they know they can be creative if they choose to. I think it is the child-like adults that are the most successful in that they have the creativity and vivaciousness of a young mind in a body that has aged, rather than those who give into the age-old perception that "adults" can't be kids.. which is false. What separates children from adults? Age? Age only reflects experience. Maturity? I have known 16 year olds that are much more mature than 50 year olds. It all lies within.

• A comment on Conversation: What are the challenges of multicultural education in United States?

  Dec 22 2011: I think that part of the difficulty is geographic location. To comment on David's post below, I agree we are the most culturally diverse, but that certainly doesn't mean that we're any more educated in others' cultures and classes. How many people hear spanish nearly on a daily bases no matter where you are in the states, and to how many people does that make them more "worldy" or culturally educated?
  I agree that teaching history is part of it. But I also think that since we're bordered only by Canada and Mexico, that makes it more difficult to yearn for cultural understanding. If each state were to have significantly different cultures, we would be a very multicultural people.
  We have less of a necessity than say European countries to understand about other's cultures.

• A comment on Conversation: Is religion the only motivation for a person to do right? Should our morals be only based on religious belief?

  Dec 22 2011: I don't think religion differs itself from any other motivating catalyst for doing good. Instead the driver uses whatever reason to do good as a backing for the action itself. Why do good? Because God says to give to charity and help your brothers and sisters.. so the question is- would that person do good if they didn't have that thought backing their action? I say yes. I would say that they would find another good reason to back their good deed. Just in the same way that religious wars that have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives are done in the name of God. It is the driver who is hiding behind another reason for carrying out said action. Deferring the blame, or good deed on another party. Our Morals will be a product of social and cultural experience. If you are born into a society that is closer-knit and more giving, then you, I'm sure are more apt to act accordingly. Likewise, if your society or culture is more distant, then helping others in need may not be a normal act. How do we motivate people to do the right thing? It's tricky because the inherent nature of the self isn't looking to always do good. Everyone would have to learn from a young age that you have to do what is right.. because it is right.
  
  But what's right anyways? Doesn't that differ based on era, culture, and context?
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Usefulness of Religion and Spirituality VS Reality of content

  Oct 7 2011: I didn't mean that we are making it up for comfort, but as a necessity to live. If we consciously made it up for comfort it would contradict my thought.
  "What I DO NOT think is the Truth, is that THIS is all there is. I cannot be content with that. It does not ring true to me."
  This is exactly what I meant when I said that we are looking for answers and that we cannot be satisfied by accepting nothing. We MUST believe in something greater than ourselves to give us hope. This is what I believe creates religion and spirituality. I also agree with you that no religion or spirituality is perfect. I don't believe there can be a perfect one. Because like you said it has to do with culture, our different experiences make us require different things, and those requirements will fit best in different modes of thought. For that we have many different belief structures and systems.
  "one NEEDS something to believe in, to trust in"
  It's thoughts like this that have led me to develop the idea that it's our necessity for something greater than ourselves that leads us to "create" ideas of religion and spirituality. Whether or not they are true isn't of great importance. It's what they do for us when we believe in them that is. I mean that there is no way we will prove God's existence to someone who believes in God, so whether or not that is a truth, doesn't matter in our lifetime. What matters is the hope, belief and faith that person holds, that God does exist that is important.
  
  "I think we are capable of this and not just making it up to give us comfort. It is too universal to the human experience and understanding, going back a long, long time, to be just made up."
  If it is so universal to the human experience, then wouldn't everyone be on the same page of looking to believe in something greater, and therefore lead us to create religion?

• A reply on Conversation: Man's Search for Meaning. Is there a meaning to our lives or is it all meaningless?

  Oct 5 2011: I like your ideas Laurens, but I differ in thought a little. We are assuming that it is everyone's purpose to propagate. I understand that if no one were to breed, the existence of the species would fall. However, there are plenty of people in our current age that have no desire to propagate. That being said, aside from the continuance of our species, what is it that we desire with breeding? Is it a selfish purpose that we want to see more of ourselves in our offspring in the future?
  I would say that happiness is what is the purpose of life and what drives us to attain that is what we fill our lives with. I see that many people mentioned that creating a better life for all and a more sustainable happier environment could be a purpose of life, but the definition I am using to define "purpose of life" is something that everyone is born with. Everyone desires a better situation and to be happy. It is that drive for happiness or a better situation that lead us to desire wealth and power because it is what we perceive to be the method for reaching that better life/happiness.
  On one hand I agree that it is intrinsic in our biological structure to propagate, however as culture interferes, our situation changes and it no longer becomes a necessary feature of our current existence. It was once a purpose of life, but now is not. If we were to be in a situation in which our existence was wavering, it would reclaim its position as a purpose.
  I hope i made sense. I confused myself as I wrote this ;)

• A comment on Conversation: Man's Search for Meaning. Is there a meaning to our lives or is it all meaningless?

  Oct 5 2011: Hi Sanket,
  I like your question. If you wouldn't mind reading my idea that I posted, It relates. I stated an idea that we use religion and spirituality to derive meaning out of life. (hopefully won't piss off too many people).
  I think that the pursuit of meaning within our lives is extremely important to ones existence. We can pursue power and money in order to benefit future generations and yes in my opinion that would be justified. Consider that everyone is aiming to generate a purpose. If our purpose is to attempt to place our offspring in a better situation in the future, our purpose becomes aiding in their lives so that what? The next step would be so that they can find purpose in their lives. One might argue that power and money is not needed in order to pursue purpose. What is it that you want in life? What would make your life fulfilling? Finding love? Understanding the world? Just like a child, you must ask yourself over and over again why?
  The question you are proposing is the debate between Existentialism and Nihilism. If we agree that there is no meaning to life, we accept the absurd. Existentialism argues that we try to fill our lives with meaning with something. The something in my opinion depends on who you are, your experiences which define you and what you find meaning in.
  The comment about genetics and that we have no meaning but to propagate is a primitive idea. Most species protect their own and attempt, primitively to ensure the existence of their race. Humans contain that quality, however we are also aware of our own existence and consciousness and for that we require something more than just propagate, we require meaning.
  Individually we seek to find meaning in life, but become distracted by societal norms. It is my belief that it is one's ultimate desire to be happy, always. And that pursuit of happiness is something that everyone is in search of. How we find it is what gives our life meaning
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Graham Hill: Less stuff, more happiness

  Oct 5 2011: I agree with what you are saying Kristy. But I also take his examples in the context of his life not mine. I'm a musician, and could be happy with one or two guitars, not 5. I don't need a huge amp. On top of small things like that, if you were to come home to your house on fire and everyone was safely outside but you had 5 minutes to grab what you could in your arms to salvage, what would it be? That might give you an idea as to what is really important to you, and everything else is just "nice to have". Definitely something that is easier to preach than it is to practice. But I think everyone's lives would be better if we relied less on material things and more on the abstract fantasies and aesthetics of life.

• A reply on Talk: Christoph Adami: Finding life we can't imagine

  Oct 5 2011: I find your comment interesting that the way he presented turning up the heat has an adverse affect on the data, illustrating his point. To some it seems almost torturous to something we call "living" it seems that we relate things that are "living" with our own knowledge of life from a first hand perspective although as he demonstrated, there are many different forms and definitions of life.
  
  You claimed
  "I think we need a law to protect innocent virtual life forms.
  Its cruel that ppl actually turn the heat up and down just to see how is that innocent program will react ."
  
  But what about cutting down trees which are living, or killing animals for our consumption, or testing and killing mice for research purposes. These are common ways in which we destroy "life" of other things for our own benefit. Is this not the same? Or do all those things seem cruel as well? (Sorry for playing devils advocate)