Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Plato'S Demiurge


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Thank you Log.

I just came across an interesting quote from Brigham Young.

"Mankind are organized of element designed to endure to all eternity; it never had a beginning and never can have an end."

Notice the word "designed"?

This implies some kind of Supreme Deity (Designer) above the God who organizes pre-existing elements (like Plato's Demiurge.)

And if that which is designed by this Deity "never had a beginning, and can never have an end," C.S. Lewis was right about a cause not always having to proceed an effect.

It's been a long time since I read Lewis, but I think he suggested his reader imagine one book on top of another. If whatever you thought became reality, those books would exist one on top of the other for as long as you willed them to (and if you always willed them to exist there, and you yourself had no beginning, neither would they.)

Anyway, Brigham certainly thought of our God as an exalted man, he says that the stuff man is made of is designed, and he says it had no beginning.

The only way he could be right on all three counts is if our God is something like Plato's Demiurge, and there's a timeless Supreme Being above Him (who gives Him the stuff He's working with, and wills it to endure to all eternity.)

MFB: I know you'll probably say this is mumbo jumbo too, but it makes sense to me (and I don't see why I should take your opinion above that of the longest living President of the Church.)

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted (edited)

"Mankind are organized of element designed to endure to all eternity; it never had a beginning and never can have an end."

Notice the word "designed"?

Ah, but here, you have to keep in mind that he wasn't speaking 21st century English. From Webster's 1828 dictionary...

DESIGNED, pp. Marked out; delineated; planned; intended.

DELINEATED, pp. Drawn; marked with lines exhibiting the form or figure; sketched; designed; painted; described.

MARKED, pp. Impressed with any note or figure of distinction; noted; distinguished by some character.

Edited by Log
Posted (edited)

Well, if you don't mind, why is it important to you for there to be a unitary "ground of all being?"

Something inside tells me that there is.

And when I try to conceive of reality any other way, I experience a profound stupor of thought.

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted

IM, MFB has a very unique approach to epistemology and communication theory - don't take him too literally, nor too seriously.

I guess it is unique, it seems to be the most coherent way of interpreting modern epistemology not to mention mormon doctrine generally. Maybe I am biased since i have my degree in philosophy though.

Posted (edited)

I guess it is unique, it seems to be the most coherent way of interpreting modern epistemology not to mention mormon doctrine generally. Maybe I am biased since i have my degree in philosophy though.

Do you have a Bachelor's or a PHD?

(And what did you think of Immanuel Kant?)

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted

Bachelors. I took a class on pragmatism and another on epistemology. The epistemology class had as our most recent reading a look at pragmatic epistemology since quine and that seems to have become all the rage in the modern philosophy world.

Posted

Something inside tells me that there is.

And when I try to think of things any other way, I experience a stupor of thought.

Well, as I have told you elsewhere, there are none of us that know very much about these topics; if we did, I doubt we'd be on this board. There is a way to cut through all the red tape and know for yourself, and that is to do as Joseph did, and ask God with real intent, with all your soul. In the end, no amount of speculation can bring us to the truth, or, even if it did, would permit us to know we had it.

Posted

Well, as I have told you elsewhere, there are none of us that know very much about these topics; if we did, I doubt we'd be on this board. There is a way to cut through all the red tape and know for yourself, and that is to do as Joseph did, and ask God with real intent, with all your soul. In the end, no amount of speculation can bring us to the truth, or, even if it did, would permit us to know we had it.

Is it too off topic? or how do we discern between something that is difficult to understand and something that is a stupor of thought. Those two sensations almost seem the same.

Posted

Well, as I have told you elsewhere, there are none of us that know very much about these topics; if we did, I doubt we'd be on this board. There is a way to cut through all the red tape and know for yourself, and that is to do as Joseph did, and ask God with real intent, with all your soul. In the end, no amount of speculation can bring us to the truth, or, even if it did, would permit us to know we had it.

And if you ask, and you keep getting that stupor of thought (when you try to imagine a universe without some ground of being) is God giving you an answer?

Posted (edited)

And if you ask, and you keep getting that stupor of thought (when you try to imagine a universe without some ground of being) is God giving you an answer?

Not necessarily - that could merely be sleep deprivation!

But no, God can also answer with a "no" as well. I once was admitted to BYU. It was something I really wanted to do badly. The answer was "no."

Frankly, the "translation model" of revelation (D&C 9, wherein the revelatory translation process was described) has never been useful to me in my personal life.

Edited by Log
Posted (edited)

He was a real p...

It's a little off topic, but I thought he was right on the mark about the nature of right and wrong.

I mean, one of the things I liked about Kant (iirc) is that he maintained that God says certain things are wrong because they are wrong, as opposed to certain things being wrong simply because God says they are.

If you think about it, there's a big difference (and I agree with Kant, don't you?)

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted

It's a little off topic, but I thought he was right on the mark about the nature of right and wrong.

I mean, one of the things I liked about Kant (iirc) is that he maintained that God says certain things are wrong because they are wrong, as opposed to certain things being wrong simply because God says they are.

If you think about it, there's a big difference (and I agree with Kant, don't you?)

In this instance I would agree with Kant if that is what he said.

Posted (edited)

In this instance I would agree with Kant if that is what he said.

Academic achievements (whether yours, mine, or RadioFree Death's), and our class room impressions of German philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche are still a little off topic here, but why did you call Kant a real P...?

Getting back on topic (if that's o.k.?), Brigham Young's words do seem to suggest an answer to the OP, and here's the quote again:

"Mankind are organized of element designed to endure to all eternity; it never had a beginning and never can have an end."

If the word "designed" implies some purposeful intention (as I believe it always has). it would suggest the idea of some Mind (or Intelligence) above the God who organizes pre-existing elements (like Plato's Demiurge.)

And if that which is designed by this Mind (or Intelligence) "never had a beginning, and can never have an end," C.S. Lewis was right about a cause not always having to proceed an effect.

It's been a long time since I read Lewis, but I think he suggested his reader imagine one book on top of another. If whatever you thought became reality, those books would exist one on top of the other for as long as you willed them to (and if you always willed them to exist there, and you yourself had no beginning, they wouldn't have a beginning either.)

Anyway, Brigham certainly thought of our God as an exalted man, he says that the stuff man is made of is designed, and he says it had no beginning.

The only way he could be right on all three counts is if our God is something like Plato's Demiurge, and there's a timeless Supreme Being above Him (who gives Him the stuff He's working with, and wills it to endure to all eternity.)

This actually makes sense to me, and I was wondering if it does to anyone else?

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted

It has to do with Heidegger being a boozy beggar.

http://www.hicom.net...ooks/philo.html

Most relevant post of the evening! Not true, but that doesn't seem to matter ;)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...