mfbukowski

Which means they are not "TRUE" believers because truth is constantly changing as science does, right? So if science changes, it is relativism and truth then is relativism. If science does not change, it is always true AND dogmatic. As they say in all Universities every 15 sentences, "Right?" Hear a college lecture recently? They are seeking true believers by doing so I guess. Dogmatism- right? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-people-saying-right-kane-harrison#:~:text=I have found that when,or agreement from the listener.

And the absolute most dogmatic of all religions is called "Science" and they are only using half the data available to them.

That is YOUR infallible religion called "science"that only looks at human perception but not ALL of human experience . Yes, Wikipedia, hoping to keep it simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Don't let it get to you. All criticism I have ever seen here is based on logical errors caused typically by semantic confusion. I have yet to see a "good argument" against the church, just semantic confusion. It drives me nuts to see the same...... hmmm..... stuff.... over and over

It seems that you are not understanding the difference between personal subjectivity which depends on one's opinion vs science which depends on universal acceptance of alleged "facts" which change all the time. when a new paradigm pops up Religion is like politics- it is PERSONAL OPINION Imagine some gizmo that could tell you which is the "best" president, and because it was "science" then it had to be "correct" Just get some DNA or whatever, stick it in the gizmo, and it will tell us who the new president will be. But people have different values. It just seems that is how you see it. Science itself is in many ways a religion of its own, with its own dogmatism. I think you are missing the difference between subjective and objective. Category error. It's that simple. You want an example of dogmatism? Science.

Oh yes, I instantly knew it was a joke, @MiserereNobis and I often kid each other. I would love to meet the guy some day- I think we would be instant buddies! But imo it started to go too far in the comments, and bugged me, so I thought I would explain the truth to all. I just didn't want the idea that "Bukowski thinks that JS was a Marxist" floating around in somebody's half-memory of the comments. Memory can be tricky! I know it was over-kill but I wanted to scrub everyone's mis-memory before it got out of hand! 🤕

Interesting, thanks. I studied Marx in the late '60's with Angela Davis and the usage was quite different than today's usage, apparently. Actually if you look at your chart- it indicates exactly that. Language. Ya jest caint truss it. https://journals.openedition.org/ei/6800#:~:text=If we follow Chauvel's (2001,political or even apologetic filiation.

How do you see that differing from "MarxIST" economics?

Make that "Possible Unknown" and I may actually read it. And what is a "thing" anyway?

This is taking the process literally. If you want something to "pop" then pretend that you "energy" continues in a different dimension or some other fib that fits your creative mind. We cannot fathom it because our physical brains won't work. Or at least that is the fib my brain says.

TO THE POSTERS HEREIN: I want to make it clear that I do not believe nor did I mean to imply that "Joseph Smith was a Marxist". HE CLEARLY WAS NOT. My comment was addressed to those few here who have any concept whatsoever about the nature of the philosophy of Hegel and what a "Zeitgeist" is. Directly translated it includes two words as one meaning "TIME-SPIRIT" or as we say in English, "the spirit of the times". This term is important to the philosophy of Hegel. Marx came along and it might be said "co-opted" portions of Hegel's philosophy including the notion of "dialectic reason" which goes back as well as far as Socrates. Socrates, as we "know" through Plato-(Socrates never wrote a word personally in his life-that we know of-) developed his philosophy through actual conversations with others, not unlike what goes on in this board. I say something, someone responds. This process is not a lecture- it is a "DIA-LECT-UR" or a process of reasoning through conversation that develops the truth or falsity, perhaps, of some proposition. And so we have "dialectical reasoning". Hegel saw this as essential to developing his notion of "Zeitgeist"- or Spirit of the Times, which vary according to.... THE TIMES! Every historic period, on this view then, has its own "spirit" which we usually name, like "Presocratic" "Roman", the "Middle Ages" the "Renaissance" "Modernism" "Industrial Revolution""Postmodern" etc etc. So Joseph and Marx lived during the same ZEITGEIST in which the mode of thought was similar. Joseph saw the history of religion as being divided into periods as well- he called "dispensations". He saw them as progressions or recessions to the true message God was providing his children. He claimed, in essential, that the Jews kinda had it, then the Christians carried it for a period, then there was a reaction caused by the intrusion of Greek philosophy which caused the "apostasy", which then necessitated a "Restoration" of the truth. This is it self "dialectical reasoning". Action and re-action. Conversation- as one generation converses with another. So Joseph was -arguably- influenced by his Zeitgeist and was immersed by dialectical reasoning himself. So was Marx. Instead of seeing things as religious "dispensations" as Joseph did, because Marx was actually anti-religion- Marx saw these stages through economics. Starting with the discovery of agriculture, money developed etc. I won't go into all his stages here, they are irrelevant. Except for the contemporary times. Inevitably - long story short, the Zeitgeists will end in a Utopian society in which all are equal,called "Socialism". This is not the "Socialism" of today- but NO POLITICS! This is not the "Socialism" yet of Marx - it is imperfect, as it were. Joseph saw dispensations ending in a society called "Zion" ruled by Christ himself. Marxist "Socialism" is totally atheist- Joseph's "Zion" is physically RULED by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. You cannot find two societies more DIA-metrically Opposed that that! Furthermore, both Joseph and Marx were both materialists- as Joseph included in the D&C- even spirit is matter! But spirit is more like "energy"- which is compatible with today's science. So I hope that explains what I said strictly for those who already knew all this. I never meant to imply that Joseph was a Marxist.

I think discipline - in the sense that meditation requires discipline. You do it daily and it can change your life, but DOGMATISM locks you into one position forever and progress becomes impossible.

Why? What if spirits are made out of gamma rays? That argument ain't goin' no place. Let's get some disembodied spirits together and see if you are right! But wait- to test that directly contradicts your own argument that they don't exist. Pretty bad argument....

All lawyers DO is appeal to authority! 👍🏼

oops. probably full. I will see if I can fix it.