Eden In Missouri?

[mfbukowski]

No, you simply change a description. Redefining truth as description doesn't make it so. In fact, it is rather circular, wouldn't you say? I know you love Rorty and all but dear me, do you not believe in truth? What do you mean when you bear your testimony and say, "I know the church is true"?

Oh my. Here we go again. I mean it the way William James would mean it.

The History of Philosophy. I don't know if Father Copleston, SJ got that far.

You need some newer sources I guess.

But I will be glad to duke it out if you really want to. I guess you really want to since this keeps coming up.

How about a few selections from William James to get started?

"Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.”

"It does not follow, because our ancestors made so many errors of fact and mixed them with their religion, that we should therefore leave off being religious at all. By being religious we establish ourselves in possession of ultimate reality at the only points at which reality is given us to guard. Our responsible concern is with our private destiny, after all.”

"There are two lives, the natural and the spiritual, and we must lose the one before we can participate in the other.”

But if you really want 25 words or less on what I think here it is:

http://theomorphicma...Nature of Truth

We can start a new thread on theories of truth and the History of Philosophy if you like, but don't you think it will be tiresome?

But maybe it will be instructive to others, and might be worth doing.

After all I really would like to taker on your common sense Neoplatonism - it would be fun.

Re-defining truth is circular? Why don't you tell me something true without words. Go ahead.

Oh- and this one might help too: http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/search/label/Epistemology

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Really? This is the example that truth changes? C'mon, your mind is more subtle than that. The changing definitions of words/language doesn't change truth. To resolve your apparent contradiction involving Pluto all we need to do is add some more info, such as a time-stamp and an understanding of who defines the word planet. How about: "Twenty years ago the definition of planet as accepted by the astronomical community included 9 celestial bodies. Today, after changing the definition, it includes 8." Clearly truth did not change, but just the definition of the word planet as agreed upon by the majority of astronomers in a society.

Precisely what "truth" did not change? And how do you know it did not change? THAT is the real question.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure did. Did you read the one I linked to?

I did and commented on it. Did you miss my response?

The prophesied grand council in which Christ meets with leaders of all dispensations is not the same thing as the folklore that the entire Church will be required to go en masse to Jackson County.

I don't know where you get the false notion of "a universal requirement to go." Mormon folklore perchance?

Perhaps from your own post #52, wherein you said:

"You realize that we're all going back there someday?

That was what prompted me to post the link to the article about "Missouri Myths."

Edited October 3, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Arbiter]

Growing up I don't think the GoE in Missouri was taught much. Therefore in my mind's eye I only think of the one the bible purports. Does that answer your question?

Yes. I think you're saying the biblical Eden doesn't trouble you, but the Missouri one does. Certainly you're not alone. But really, they are both pretty wild stories. Neither one can be substantiated by anything like archeology, or science or anything. I personally like the biblical one better too. But I don't care. Since nobody is telling me I have to believe it or I don't get into heaven, I just don't care. I'll find out one day. I probably won't care then either.

Did you have teacher's teach that that the GoE was in Missouri, ever?

Yes. I've heard that all my life. I don't think it's part of the canon of the Church though. Not something you have to believe or you don't get a temple recommend -- like that. Tell me why it troubles you so.

[Calm]

Tacenda, have you ever visited the Middle East? Perhaps it seems more likely that the Garden of Eden was in a place that appears exotic to you, but what does it really matter if it has been taken from the earth where it was? And surely God with his power can restore it to the earth no matter where he wants even raising a mountain in the sea to set it upon or changing the entire face of the earth into one gardenlike state.

[MiserereNobis]

We can start a new thread on theories of truth and the History of Philosophy if you like, but don't you think it will be tiresome?

But maybe it will be instructive to others, and might be worth doing.

Yes, I agree, it would be tiresome, even if it would be instructive to others. So, how about when you make a statement that is postmodern, I'll just respond with "postmodernism" and when I make a statement that is (neo-)platonic, you can just respond with "neo-platonism" and then we'll leave it at that. Those who are interested can then research it themselves.

Have you ever read any Ken Wilber? He was instrumental on my path towards faith. And he would attack both of us for limiting our philosophical views

[mfbukowski]

Have you ever read any Ken Wilber? He was instrumental on my path towards faith. And he would attack both of us for limiting our philosophical views

A little too complicated metaphysically for my taste- but dude THIS ain't Neoplatonism:

Theory of truth

Wilber argues that manifest reality is composed of four domains, and that each domain, or "quadrant" has its own truth-standard, or test for validity, as follows:[26]

Interior individual/1st person - "If we look at the actual interior of an individual [entity], then we have an entirely different type of validity claim. The question here is not, is it raining outside? The question here is, When I tell you it is raining outside, am I telling you the truth or am I lying? You see, here it is not so much a question of whether the map matches the objective territory, but whether the mapmaker can be trusted.... you can always check and see if it's raining... Interior events are located in states of consciousness, not in objective states of affairs, and so you can't empirically nail them down with simple consensus location. I might lie to you. I might lie to myself. I might misrepresent and not know it."[27]

Interior collective/2nd person - "The subjective world is situated in an intersubjective space, a cultural space... without this cultural background... I wouldn't have the tools to interpret my own thoughts to myself. So here the validity claim is not so much objective propositional truth, or subjective truthfulness, but intersubjective fit. This cultural background provides the common context against which my own interior thoughts and beliefs will have some sort of meaning, and so the validity criteria here involves the "cultural fit" [of a statement] within this background... What is so remarkable about common understanding is not that I can take a simple word like "dog" and point to a real dog and say "I mean that." What is so remarkable is that you know what I mean by that. [so it is] a matter of how we arrange collectively, our ethics, morals, laws, culture, group or collective identities, background contexts..."[27]

Exterior individual/3rd person - "We check to see if the proposition corresponds with or fits the facts, if the map accurately reflects the real [exterior] territory... if we cannot disprove it we may assume it is accurate enough. But the essential idea is that... my statement somehow refers to an objective state of affairs, and it fairly accurately somehow corresponds with those objects or processes or affairs. [...] All of which is fair enough and important enough, and I in no way deny the general importance of empirical representation. It's just not the whole story..."[27]

Exterior collective/3rd person - "The main validity claim is functional fit, how entities fit together in a system... So in systems theory you will find nothing about ethical standards, values, morals, mutual understanding, truthfulness, sincerity, depth, integrity, aesthetics... It describes the system in purely objective exterior terms, from without. It doesn't want to know how collective values are intersubjectively shared in mutual understanding. Rather, it looks at how their objective correlates functionally fit in the overall system."[27]

"All four of these are valid forms of knowledge, because they are grounded in the realities of the nature of every holon. And therefore all four of these truth claims can be confirmed or rejected by a community of the adequate [those competent in that knowledge]. They each have a different validity claim which carefully guides us, through checks and balances, on our knowledge quest. They are all falsifiable within their own domains, which means false claims can be dislodged by further evidence ...."

It's straight perspectivism with some kind of metaphysics about "communities" thrown in. And he still doesn't understand that you cannot check to see if a statement corresponds to "reality"- why is that so hard for some people?

But it's not unlike what I am saying- religion has nothing to do with science. But I think honestly that it is very confused.

This guy is unknown among philosophers as far as I can see- maybe I am wrong

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I agree, it would be tiresome, even if it would be instructive to others. So, how about when you make a statement that is postmodern, I'll just respond with "postmodernism" and when I make a statement that is (neo-)platonic, you can just respond with "neo-platonism" and then we'll leave it at that. Those who are interested can then research it themselves.

But I am certainly not willing to imply that both are equally "valid" ways of seeing the universe- if I were, the entire history of Philosophy would have been for nothing and I do not believe that for one minute.

What I put out here is the product of 2000 years of progress, in my opinion.

Technically Catholics are the ones who should be talking about the Great Apostasy and how all modern thought is Anathema.

So I guess to be consistent, I guess I should be on your case all the time questioning every such claim you make.

Oh well- we'll see how it goes, how much time I have and mostly how much I care about carrying on about it all.

[mfbukowski]

If anyone can just explain to me how sentences "correspond" to a reality beyond appearances and how we can get outside of those appearances to find TRVTH I would appreciate it.

I am just gonna have to stick with Rorty until someone sets me straight:

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say

that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are

elements of human languages, and that human languages are human

creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human

mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is

out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the

world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the

describing activities of human beings - cannot.

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

A little too complicated metaphysically for my taste- but dude THIS ain't Neoplatonism:

Yeah, like I said, he would attack both of us (that includes me) for our views. I'm not a follower of Ken Wilber, but he was instrumental in my journey towards faith. He helped me bridge the rational vs. mystical gap.

And he still doesn't understand that you cannot check to see if a statement corresponds to "reality"- why is that so hard for some people?

Oh, he's a smart dude. I'm sure he understands that claim, he just disagrees with it.

This guy is unknown among philosophers as far as I can see- maybe I am wrong

I'm not sure how wide his readership is in academic circles, but that doesn't matter for me.

[MiserereNobis]

But I am certainly not willing to imply that both are equally "valid" ways of seeing the universe- if I were, the entire history of Philosophy would have been for nothing and I do not believe that for one minute.

What I put out here is the product of 2000 years of progress, in my opinion.

Technically Catholics are the ones who should be talking about the Great Apostasy and how all modern thought is Anathema.

Indeed. Modernism is a declared heresy in the Catholic Church. Pope St. Pius X called it "the synthesis of all heresies." Priests used to have to take the anti-modernist oath at ordination (that stopped in the late 60s or early 70s, I believe). Traditional priests still take it. The relativism of truth in particular, in whatever form it takes, is an anathema.

So I guess to be consistent, I guess I should be on your case all the time questioning every such claim you make.

Oh well- we'll see how it goes, how much time I have and mostly how much I care about carrying on about it all.

Yeah, I hear ya. I don't think I would care that much to carry on either. I think we should just agree to disagree. Deal?

[mfbukowski]

And here is the real clincher.

Let's assume that there is a world out there that true sentences correspond to, and we make the statement "Joseph (or pick your favorite saint seeing whomever you wish) saw God"

That statement could never be "true" because it could not be verified as corresponding to any reality whatsoever. This is essentially logical positiivism.

So if you believe that correspondence of a sentence to a world "out there" beyond appearances is what makes a sentence "true" then sentences about Religion or morals can NEVER be known to be "true".

There is no way of showing how they correspond to anything "real".

Religious people cannot be speaking truth in any way, or be said to "know" ANYTHING IS TRUE if the verification of truth lies in correspondence to some "reality" out there which is independent of appearances.

So let's put the shoe on the other foot- I will argue as a positivist- a true correspondence person against anyone who thinks that religious propositions correspond to anything to make them true by checking them against "reality".

There is a reason Bertrand Russell and Dawkins are atheists you know-

[mfbukowski]

Clearly truth did not change, but just the definition of the word planet as agreed upon by the majority of astronomers in a society.

Ok now magically you are right.

There is a Truth out there which language corresponds to.

Now tell me all about the words "substance" and "being" and what "reality" they correspond to? Where is it? Where are "essences" and where is "human nature" or for that matter "God's nature"?

Where is Jesus' body and where is the Mary the children saw at Fatima?

Ah- a mystery. But then it is not true is it??

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Ok, I'll try. Let's use Pluto for an example. Whatever Heavenly Father intended Pluto to be, it is. What we know about Pluto changes as we gain more knowledge but whatever God intended for Pluto doesn't change, only our awareness of it. No matter how many true or false sentences we construct about Pluto it still is what God intended it to be. The only way to know the complete truth about Pluto is to know the mind of God concerning Pluto, then it becomes a revealed truth. But even then Pluto hasn't changed, it still is what God intended it to be.

But "what God intended for Pluto" is neither true or false. It just is. So by #1, it is not truth. The only thing that can be true or false is a sentence describing what God intended for Pluto. And you can change that sentence. Therefore, you can change truth.

[mfbukowski]

But "what God intended for Pluto" is neither true or false. It just is. So by #1, it is not truth. The only thing that can be true or false is a sentence describing what God intended for Pluto. And you can change that sentence. Therefore, you can change truth.

The other problem of course is that we cannot know "what God intended for Pluto" since that is in the mind of God. So if truth is correspondence to what God intended for Pluto we have two problems to overcome to know the truth about Pluto- 1- we have to know what God intended for Pluto AND 2- whether or not our sentences "actually correspond" to something we "call Pluto" which we cannot see or experience because then after all what we supposedly "know about" is ONLY Pluto's appearance and not it's "reality"

So it raises two questions each of which is unknowable: 1- What did God intend and 2- how does the appearance of Pluto correspond to the "reality" of Pluto.

So in that scenario, we could never know anything true about Pluto

Except of course that he was a talking dog who was Mickey Mouse's pet.

Edit: oops- forgot that Pluto could not talk!

Edited October 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think we should just agree to disagree. Deal?

But this is so much FUN!

[Damien the Leper]

Immaterial.

See http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

This is part of the point I was trying to make. I believe it was Claudio Costa who gave the talk. The point is that it wasn't an inspirational talk. It was more like self-asserting propaganda.

[Cobalt-70]

I explicitly reject #2 (yes, goodbye linguistic constructivism). #2 should read: The only things that can communicate a description of truth or falsehood are sentences. Then we get the correct #4: Therefore, the communication of the description of truth can change. QED.

If we take your syllogism as given, then my syllogism is false only if there are things that are true or false which cannot communicate a description of truth or falsehood. I challenge you to think of an example of any such thing.

[jaguar pa]

Do people undrstand that most of their electricity is from MAGNETS! ya those things that aare black magic.you know you couldn't survive without magnetism you would die of radiation from the sun and no god is not shielding you from it the earth's magnetic field is deflecting it

[rodheadlee]

But "what God intended for Pluto" is neither true or false. It just is. So by #1, it is not truth. The only thing that can be true or false is a sentence describing what God intended for Pluto. And you can change that sentence. Therefore, you can change truth.

from Dictionary .com

Truth:  noun, plural truths

1.the true or actual state of a matter

Edited October 4, 2012 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

The other problem of course is that we cannot know "what God intended for Pluto" since that is in the mind of God.

So in that scenario, we could never know anything true about Pluto

Jacob 4:8 Behold, great and marvelous are the ^aworks of the Lord. How ^bunsearchable are the depths of the ^cmysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man ^dknoweth of his ^eways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the ^frevelations of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

Edit: oops- forgot that Pluto could not talk!

Are gestures sentences? If so, Pluto could talk, and so could Marcel Marceau.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do people undrstand that most of their electricity is from MAGNETS! ya those things that aare black magic.you know you couldn't survive without magnetism you would die of radiation from the sun and no god is not shielding you from it the earth's magnetic field is deflecting it

You have made several assertions here. Are they true? How do we know whether they are true or not true? Can we know? Can we use the self-defining axioms and evidences of science to logically verify this falsifiable claim made by Jaguar Paw? Would that constitute the correspondence theory of truth?

Moreover, what are the far reaching implications of whatever conclusions we adopt in this particular matter? If any.

[mfbukowski]

Are gestures sentences? If so, Pluto could talk, and so could Marcel Marceau.

Yep- sign language definitely qualifies as "language"!

[mfbukowski]

Jacob 4:8 Behold, great and marvelous are the ^aworks of the Lord. How ^bunsearchable are the depths of the ^cmysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man ^dknoweth of his ^eways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the ^frevelations of God.

What does this have to do with what I said?