Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

On the issue of which paradigm is better, on the best way to assess competing truth claims, see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Alma 32 which offers the same values to assess such competing claims. 

Fwiw,

Kevin Christensen 

Paris, France

Thanks Kevin, I went back and re-read some of the discussions in the past couple months where you brought Kuhn into the conversation.  Interesting, I may need to get his book to better understand.  I'm just glad that less and less of these conversations are going over my head the more I read and think about these concepts.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

This isn't a mystery lost to antiquity. We know how early Christians used the word. It seems apparent that Joseph Smith didn't understand that the root of the word meant "gospel". Which makes sense, as Joseph Smith was not fluent in ancient Greek. 

 

I don't believe your knowledge about early Christians is as extensive as you think it is. Can you go back to the very origen and organization of the Church by Peter and the apostles, when they established the offices of the priesthood, before what we now have as the New Testament was written in Greek? Was Greek the native tongue of Peter and the original apostles?

Quote

Only in the sense that we can't know anything at all definitively. But we can say with a high degree of probability that early Christians didn't understand the term "evangelist" to mean "patriarch."

Again, you have no way of ascertaining what the earliest Christians, those who gave names to the various offices in the Church, understood.

Quote

Because Joseph said that an evangelist is a patriarch, instead of saying that a patriárchis is a patriarch. For the same reason that an onion isn't an aardvark. 

 

If Joseph knew through revelation that what is denoted as an "evangelist" in the New Testament as it has been handed down to us was in actuality what is called a patriarch in the gospel as restored by Jesus Christ in latter days, it would be reasonable for him to convey that knowledge in this latter-day gospel dispensation. You are assuming knowledge you do not have -- that what has been translated into the Greek as "evangelist" -- always had the meaning that it does today.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is fun, thanks!  I'm making progress, I follow most of this, but I have some questions/comments still.  

This makes much more sense to me now.  I think the reason I've had a hard time grasping this concept is a cultural negative connotation for the words "inside our head".  I think I've been taught that there is a difference between reality and whats inside my head, and I'm having to break through that cultural baggage in order to understand this philosophical concept.  In essence, everything we know about the world is inside our head with respect to what we perceive using our senses and the constructs of language that have developed over the years.  

Language is also limited in its ability to effectively communicate what our senses have perceived because in many ways it fails to capture and communicate what we have experienced through our senses.  Especially for some of the most dramatic life experiences, it seems like language is a very primitive tool for communication.  But its the best tool we have.  

This element is key to many of my questions.  We are agreeing that something exists independent of human mental states.  So something humans call earth, exists.  What we know about it is in our head, but its also in the heads of all living creatures that interact with the earth.  So a cat or a bird would also know that something humans call earth exists.  We could hypothesize that an alien race will someday visit this area of the universe and that these aliens would also have knowledge of the existence of this planet.  All of this exists independent of human mental states.  

I think we can take this a step further.  I'll use the example of the earth's magnetic field.  These magnetic fields are invisible to human senses, yet they still exist independent of human's ability to perceive them.  But birds perceive them and use them for migrating thousands of miles each year.  Other life forms knew of their existence prior to humans knowing of their existence.  So their existence is independent of human mental states.  

If things exist independent of human mental states then how do we draw the line between this knowledge of existence, and this knowledge of "what we KNOW about it".  Is the magnetic field an attribute of the earth?  I would says yes.  I say that the magnetic field existed independent of human minds, and is an attribute of the earth which also existed independent of a human's mind.  I would also say that atoms exist independent of human minds, and atoms are also a property of the earth that exists independent of a human's mind.  These are all attributes that describe the environments that we inhabit.  How are these not descriptions about what we "know" about our environment?  

Now we're really getting into the meat of this.  How do we measure things.  Humans measure things differently than other life forms. Humans even measure things differently than other humans.  How do we know which measurement is right? 

This seems to be a key question.  Which measurement is correct?  How can we know?  Well, using the tools of this philosophical discussion I would say that we can never completely know the truth about anything, based on this knowledge always being subjective and in our mind.  One person's mind differs from another, so what I know will be different than what you know.  Which person is right?  Neither of us can be 100% completely right, because there is always going to be a limitation to our ability to perceive and our language that we use to communicate that perception.  

I think knowing which measurement is right could be similar to the theory of special relativity and approaching the speed of light.  Perhaps knowing which measurement is right is similar in that no one can know for 100% surety that any measurement is right.  They can approach this 100% accuracy but never reach it because there will always be limits to perceptions, and there will always be a greater knowledge out there somewhere and yet to be learned about any particular thing.    

This part makes complete sense to me, we are good!

This last part is extremely important to me as I would like to understand your pragmatism and how it applies to these principles that Rorty and other philosophers outlined.  This idea that knowledge is in our head makes me think that anyone's knowledge is of equal validity.     

You seem to be privileging Joseph Smith's knowledge over someone else's knowledge solely on your subjective viewpoint that another person's ideas have born less fruit than Joseph's.  That other person's knowledge is less pragmatically good than Joseph's.  So how do you practically measure who's knowledge is more true?  How to you evaluate knowledge that is entirely subjective.  Let me give another example.

There are people on this earth that "know" that the earth is flat.  They are in a vast minority in 2016, and their knowledge that the earth is flat would seem to be inferior.  My knowledge that the earth is round seems superior.  I think Rorty is saying that the knowledge of these two groups, flat earthers and round earthers, are equally true.  How would Rorty then describe your choice that Joseph Smith's truth is superior to another person's truth.  They both have knowledge that seems to be equally true according to Rorty, if I'm understanding things correctly.  I want to understand how the philosopher's would value one subjective truth over another subjective truth.  

 

YOU'VE GOT IT

Welcome to thinking differently!!  

I just wanted to say this real fast- and that of course Kevin nailed it with his reply about Kuhn

But Kuhn's ideas are largely a popularization and refinement of many who came before.   I don't have time right now to answer your questions in detail and will return later

Which measurement is right?  Fahrenheit or Celsius?  It depends on which works in the culture!   Meters or feet?  Same thing.  Angstrom units or millimeters?  Obviously Millimeters are not small enough to measure light wave/particles so millimeters don't work

No measure is "better" than another- I just would not want to build a skyscraper using cubits.  If cubits were standardized and subdivided they would work fine if accepted by a culture

Do you know where meters came from? Different cultures- and the same with Fahrenheit and Celsius - look them up in wikipedia.

Flat Earthers would easily be confounded by a flight around the world or a trip in space.  Their theory simply would not fit their actual experience of one continuous flight without reaching the "edge" of the earth.  The criterion becomes what works in our experience.  So we have human experience "verifying" and predicting other human experiences.  THAT way of seeing it is the key- human experience does not speak about "the world as it is" - it simply speaks about human experience!

And visions etc are human experiences just as anything else is.  Our world as experienced is full of emotion and nuance and "hunches" and subtle clues and cues which shape our world as experienced.

Although "equal validity" is a term sometimes used, it is just a way to describe this paradigm.  Pragmatically of course it is often the case that certain paradigms are not at all "equal" - as in the flat earth idea.

I do not privilege Joseph Smith's ideas any more than I privilege Kant's ideas or the ideas of my favorite political ideology, or my favorite flavor of ice cream.

The reason I have ANY strong beliefs is because I have thought the issues through and have decided FOR MYSELF that these views work best for me.

I have been searching all my life and found first this philosophy- and went looking for TRUTH which worked with this view of reality.   It was clear for example, that Kant works perfectly with this view.  Pragmatism and phenomenology work with this view.  Later analytical philosophy works perfectly with this view

And last and most importantly, this wonderful church fits perfectly with this view and so do the writings of Joseph Smith which I see as "revelations".  I could see them as philosophical but they are MUCH MORE.   After I became fascinated by the "philosophy of Joseph Smith"  I followed the "philosophy of Joseph Smith" and actually APPLIED it in my life (Alma 32) and PRAYED about this "philosophy" (Moroni 10: 4-5, James 1, 5-6 etc) and I received a strong personal testimony which confirmed to me that 1- the "philosophy" was true and 2- that there was Someone "out there" in the realm of "causes which do not include human mental states" as Rorty put it.   God became as real to me as any other person with whom I could interact.  He is as real to me as any other portion of human experience, including things you stub your toe on without knowing what it "is" - we discussed earlier, and MT Everest, which I have never seen.  I have felt God, myself, I have never felt Mt Everest.

"Equal validity"?  Perhaps, but very very different realms of inquiry and very very different effects in my life.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Quote

If things exist independent of human mental states then how do we draw the line between this knowledge of existence, and this knowledge of "what we KNOW about it".  Is the magnetic field an attribute of the earth?  I would says yes.  I say that the magnetic field existed independent of human minds, and is an attribute of the earth which also existed independent of a human's mind.  I would also say that atoms exist independent of human minds, and atoms are also a property of the earth that exists independent of a human's mind.  These are all attributes that describe the environments that we inhabit.  How are these not descriptions about what we "know" about our environment?  

This is exactly like Mt Everest above.

"Atoms" and "magnetic fields" are names for experienced phenomena- all experienced by a human mind.

Maybe you don't have it??

The word "earth" does not have "attributes", both are words invented by people.  Humans have EXPERIENCED some phenomena they CALL "earth" which humans DEFINE as an "attribute".

Every question you ask is written in language which is a human invention.  Next time reply without language and see how it goes.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe your knowledge about early Christians is as extensive as you think it is. Can you go back to the very origen and organization of the Church by Peter and the apostles, when they established the offices of the priesthood, before what we now have as the New Testament was written in Greek? Was Greek the native tongue of Peter and the original apostles?

You misspelled "origin", but it works as a rather clever pun nevertheless.

Of course I didn't live during the early days of Christianity, but neither did Joseph Smith. Peter would not have spoken Greek. But that has no bearing on what the word evangelist means, in any language.

 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, you have no way of ascertaining what the earliest Christians, those who gave names to the various offices in the Church, understood.

Neither,  of course, did Joseph Smith. But I can tell you at least what evangelist means, and it's not patriarch. Perhaps there was a concept of the patriarchal blessing in early Christianity, but that would not have been an evangelist. 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Joseph knew through revelation that what is denoted as an "evangelist" in the New Testament as it has been handed down to us was in actuality what is called a patriarch in the gospel as restored by Jesus Christ in latter days, it would be reasonable for him to convey that knowledge in this latter-day gospel dispensation. You are assuming knowledge you do not have -- that what has been translated into the Greek as "evangelist" -- always had the meaning that it does today.

Unfortunately, that's not how revelation works. If you wish to learn what is meaningful in life, revelation is a great tool. If you wish to understand languages and history, scholarship is a great tool. 

Suppose we took your approach here with any other subject. What if the original understanding of "love thy neighbor" was actually "borrow a cup of turnips from thy neighbor". Could we ever know for sure that this was NOT the case? We can't simply assume that love meant love to the earliest Christians. There could be some hidden connection there with turnips.

It just doesn't work. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

You misspelled "origin", but it works as a rather clever pun nevertheless. Of course I didn't live during the early days of Christianity, but neither did Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration; you are not.

Big difference there.

As the Prophet of the Restoration, Joseph had, among many gifts of the Spirit, the gift and power of God to translate ancient languages.

Quote

Peter would not have spoken Greek. But that has no bearing on what the word evangelist means, in any language.

You missed (or are choosing to ignore) my point. Peter would not have used the word evangelist. He would have used a word that was later translated as evangelist. You have no way of knowing what the original word was, let alone whether it was translated optimally.

Quote

Neither,  of course, did Joseph Smith. But I can tell you at least what evangelist means, and it's not patriarch. Perhaps there was a concept of the patriarchal blessing in early Christianity, but that would not have been an evangelist.

Again, you're ignoring my reasoning. Evangelist could have had a variant meaning that was closer to what patriarch means. (I'm willing, for the moment, to engage in dialogue with you, but not if you keep ignoring what I have said.)

Quote

Unfortunately, that's not how revelation works. If you wish to learn what is meaningful in life, revelation is a great tool. If you wish to understand languages and history, scholarship is a great tool. 

You're neglecting the fact that Joseph Smith, as the Prophet of the Restoration, translated languages and gained knowledge of past events by means of revelation. Scholarship, though indeed a great tool, is limited (as any honest scholar will acknowledge). Sometimes, revelation makes up for its deficiencies.

Quote

Suppose we took your approach here with any other subject. What if the original understanding of "love thy neighbor" was actually "borrow a cup of turnips from thy neighbor". Could we ever know for sure that this was NOT the case? We can't simply assume that love meant love to the earliest Christians. There could be some hidden connection there with turnips.

Well obviously, we have no reason to do that, because there has been no indication via revealed word through a prophet to question the way it has been rendered.

 

 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration; you are not.

Big difference there.

What we have in common is an inability to speak ancient Greek. My one leg up is my access to Google.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As the Prophet of the Restoration, Joseph had, among many gifts of the Spirit, the gift and power of God to translate ancient languages.

I know that Joseph believed he had that ability, but he also believed he had the ability to find lost treasure through supernatural means. There are no shortcuts to understanding. All the revelation in the world cannot help you understand advanced trig, or ancient Greek. That much should be clear to us modern people. 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You missed (or are choosing to ignore) my point. Peter would not have used the word evangelist. He would have used a word that was later translated as evangelist. You have no way of knowing what the original word was, let alone whether it was translated optimally.

The problem with this approach is that Joseph used the word evangelist. We don't have any writings from Peter, in any language.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, you're ignoring my reasoning. Evangelist could have had a variant meaning that was closer to what patriarch means. (I'm willing, for the moment, to engage in dialogue with you, but not if you keep ignoring what I have said.)

Equally likely, it could mean onion or belt buckle. There is nothing in the etymology of the word that suggests patriarch, or onion, or belt buckle. 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're neglecting the fact that Joseph Smith, as the Prophet of the Restoration, translated languages and gained knowledge of past events by means of revelation. Scholarship, though indeed a great tool, is limited (as any honest scholar will acknowledge). Sometimes, revelation makes up for its deficiencies.

I understand that you believe that, but that doesn't seem to be the way it works in the real world. If it did, I surely could have been saved many hours of study in school, and gotten the answers to all my tests by revelation. 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well obviously, we have no reason to do that, because there has been no indication via revealed word through a prophet to question the way it has been rendered.

Revelation gives us no access to ancient history or languages. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

What we have in common is an inability to speak ancient Greek. My one leg up is my access to Google.

I know that Joseph believed he had that ability, but he also believed he had the ability to find lost treasure through supernatural means. There are no shortcuts to understanding. All the revelation in the world cannot help you understand advanced trig, or ancient Greek. That much should be clear to us modern people. 

The problem with this approach is that Joseph used the word evangelist. We don't have any writings from Peter, in any language.

Equally likely, it could mean onion or belt buckle. There is nothing in the etymology of the word that suggests patriarch, or onion, or belt buckle. 

I understand that you believe that, but that doesn't seem to be the way it works in the real world. If it did, I surely could have been saved many hours of study in school, and gotten the answers to all my tests by revelation. 

Revelation gives us no access to ancient history or languages. 

So what it boils down to is that you dismiss Joseph Smith as a prophet. We are at loggerheads there. Your dismissal does not negate the fact that he is a prophet.

And I've already addressed the etymology issue by pointing out that evangelist means one who bears good tidings, and a patriarch does that for the one he blesses. So it's a reasonable possibility that the word had a variant and more focused meaning anciently that was applied to the office of a patriarch.

Another example of your ignoring my reasoning. I don't have time for this if you're going to continue to do that.

 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think most people would like to have the Biblical prophet. Biblical prophets were outsiders - "heretics" who came in and criticized the institution. They were often killed. Only years later were they recognized as prophets. Jesus I think made some comments about the subject. 

You have a flawed concept of the role of prophet. 

As Christ said to Peter, the chief apostle, 
Matt 16  [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

He holds the keys to the priesthood which is the power to administer the ordinances of the Gospel and revelation to lead the church.  It is unnecessary to canonize every revelation and inspiration that he receives in his office as President of the church.  He gives direction to the church, and gives warnings and instruction to the world.

A prophet is not some gypsy fortune teller.

Edited September 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You have a flawed concept of the role of prophet. 

As Christ said to Peter, the chief apostle, 
Matt 16  [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

He holds the keys to the priesthood which is the power to administer the ordinances of the Gospel and revelation to lead the church.  It is unnecessary to canonize every revelation and inspiration that he receives in his office as President of the church.  He gives direction to the church, and gives warnings and instruction to the world.

A prophet is not some gypsy fortune teller.

"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

I think Jesus understood the role. 

 

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So what it boils down to is that you dismiss Joseph Smith as a prophet. We are at loggerheads there. Your dismissal does not negate the fact that he is a prophet.

Not at all. I just disagree that the role of the prophet is to perform these kinds of supernatural feats. I don't think anyone has that ability. Prophets are great spiritual teachers. 

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I've already addressed the etymology issue by pointing out that evangelist means one who bears good tidings, and a patriarch does that for the one he blesses. So it's a reasonable possibility that the word had a variant and more focused meaning anciently that was applied to the office of a patriarch.

That's a pretty long stretch. But why not evangelists as people bearing good news about the products they're selling? In this way we could think of an evangelist as a street vendor. But that's not what the term means either.

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Another example of your ignoring my reasoning. I don't have time for this if you're going to continue to do that.

 

The problem is your reasoning works to obscure understanding. It's not generally applicable (as I've shown in many examples). 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly like Mt Everest above.

"Atoms" and "magnetic fields" are names for experienced phenomena- all experienced by a human mind.

Maybe you don't have it??

The word "earth" does not have "attributes", both are words invented by people.  Humans have EXPERIENCED some phenomena they CALL "earth" which humans DEFINE as an "attribute".

Every question you ask is written in language which is a human invention.  Next time reply without language and see how it goes.

I loved your testimony that you shared in the other post, it makes a whole lot more sense to me now, thanks for sharing that.  

For this piece, I'm still struggling a bit.  Atoms, magnetic fields, these are examples of things that exist independent of human mental states.  What I'm saying is that other life forms experience this phenomena and can sense the existence of these things(well at least with magnetic fields where I site birds as the example.) 

Quote

"Where" is everything you know?  If you didn't have a brain or it was not functioning, would you know ANYTHING?   How did it get "in there"?  Through your senses!  It is in your mind/brain/consciousness/ spirit- the point is if YOU KNOW it, it is IN YOU, not out there!

Isn't it both in my mind and actually out there?  If other life forms can experience these phenomena, don't they exist just as we agreed that the earth or Mt. Everest actually exist?  I understand that the way we describe these things is inside our human brain with culture and language influence, I get that.  But isn't it factually accurate to say that these particular concepts, magnetism, atoms, gravity, that these things exist in the universe independent of humans (using human words to describer these concepts).  I think the evidence is that they do exist independent of human mental states.  

I still want to distinguish the conscious from sub conscious mental experiences.  I want to say that there is something qualitatively different between what actually exists in the universe and something that we might experience in a dreaming mental state.  Perhaps this doesn't matter within a philosophical discussion.  Are dreams we experience just as real as our awake experiences?  I would say no, but what would you say?  From my vantage there is a difference between a fantasy imaginary world and the real world.  I hope I'm not confusing the issue, but I'm having a hard time understanding this piece.  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I loved your testimony that you shared in the other post, it makes a whole lot more sense to me now, thanks for sharing that.  

For this piece, I'm still struggling a bit.  Atoms, magnetic fields, these are examples of things that exist independent of human mental states.  What I'm saying is that other life forms experience this phenomena and can sense the existence of these things(well at least with magnetic fields where I site birds as the example.) 

Isn't it both in my mind and actually out there?  If other life forms can experience these phenomena, don't they exist just as we agreed that the earth or Mt. Everest actually exist?  I understand that the way we describe these things is inside our human brain with culture and language influence, I get that.  But isn't it factually accurate to say that these particular concepts, magnetism, atoms, gravity, that these things exist in the universe independent of humans (using human words to describer these concepts).  I think the evidence is that they do exist independent of human mental states.  

I still want to distinguish the conscious from sub conscious mental experiences.  I want to say that there is something qualitatively different between what actually exists in the universe and something that we might experience in a dreaming mental state.  Perhaps this doesn't matter within a philosophical discussion.  Are dreams we experience just as real as our awake experiences?  I would say no, but what would you say?  From my vantage there is a difference between a fantasy imaginary world and the real world.  I hope I'm not confusing the issue, but I'm having a hard time understanding this piece.  

Let's try it one more time

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  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."

Can you answer your own question using the above conceptual template?

Try it right now on a piece of paper or make a text file with your answer and then I will repeat what Rorty is saying to answer your question.  Don't read the rest of the post til you do that.   Honestly I think this exercise would help

 

 

"Atoms"- the CONCEPT in language, taught by science do not exist independent of human thought because they are human CONCEPTS

Like" Mt Everest" (note the quotes) they are what Rorty would call "effects of causes which do not include mental states"

We cannot literally speak of them even without making them "human concepts"!   The minute you say they are NOT human concepts you violate what they are by MAKING THEM human concepts!

So it is clear that there are  "un-nameable phenomena" that one bumps into but the minute we see them and name them- they are human concepts!

Maybe this will help- do undiscovered species of plants and animals "exist"??

Where are they?  What can you tell me about them?  How do you know they "exist"?  What can you tell me about them?  Are they purple butterflies or fish that fly?  Are they reptiles or fish?  Where do they live?

They are undefined phenomena- but so far they are not even "phenomena"!!   We postulate there ARE undiscovered species- but do we KNOW for sure?  

Until they are "discovered" do they count as "species" at all?  There is nothing we can say about them at all.  Are they "real"??

At this point THESE are "effects of causes which do not include mental states"

They are perhaps in the same category as space aliens and Mt Everest before it had a name.  No one knew about it/them and they were irrelevant to human culture.

Right now space aliens are irrelevant to human culture.  Are they "real"?  When they BECOME relevant to human culture through our perceptions- it will be HUUUUGGGGGE!

 

[Atheist Mormon]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration; you are not.

There's nothing to back up this claim......It's not like I'm saying "Einstein is the discoverer MC square".....

Art Bulla even claims to be a Prophet. ( The reason I'm not claiming to be a Prophet is, I don't want to make a fool out of myself).

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

There's nothing to back up this claim......It's not like I'm saying "Einstein is the discoverer MC square".....

Art Bulla even claims to be a Prophet. ( The reason I'm not claiming to be a Prophet is, I don't want to make a fool out of myself).

Uh........   MC square, huh?  I guess that's that square in Salt Lake named for MC Hammer, right?

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

• Does speed of light helps?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

• Does speed of light helps?

What does the speed of light have to do with the mall?  

Edited September 13, 2016 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What does the speed of light have to do with the mall?  

What mall are you talking about? Read my answer to your claim.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

• Does speed of light helps?

Please explain it

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What mall are you talking about? Read my answer to your claim.

I think you are confused.  

(Please ignore me, I was just passing through)

Edited September 13, 2016 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's try it one more time

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  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."

Can you answer your own question using the above conceptual template?

Try it right now on a piece of paper or make a text file with your answer and then I will repeat what Rorty is saying to answer your question.  Don't read the rest of the post til you do that.   Honestly I think this exercise would help

My first attempt:

I’m struggling with Rorty’s second sentence about truth.  I agree that things exist independent of the human mind, his first statement.  The second statement about truth, I find that a strong part of me is either not comprehending or pushing back against it.  I’m struggling to accept this idea that truth is entirely a construct of humans.  

My body, my soul is crying out against this idea and saying that there is something there that isn’t relative to the ability of a human to conceive of its existence.  There must be something universally true about these things in space and time that doesn’t change just because a human creates a construct with which to interpret them.   I’m getting stuck here and I’m trying to think and re-think this paradigm about truth and my brain hurts… 

I haven't read the rest of your post.  I'm going to come back to this thought experiment later and make a second attempt.  

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Please explain it

When Scott Lloyd said; "Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration; you are not" I tried to respond this title holds no power, except for the believers who think, he is someone special. Not like Einstein who comes out the most outrageous claim of "Space & Time Theory" and yet the subsequent testings prove him right.

Moral of the story is Joseph was not the first guy to claim being the only "Chosen" Prophet, end of the day he could not stop bullets cut him down.

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

When Scott Lloyd said; "Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration; you are not" I tried to respond this title holds no power, except for the believers who think, he is someone special. Not like Einstein who comes out the most outrageous claim of "Space & Time Theory" and yet the subsequent testings prove him right.

Moral of the story is Joseph was not the first guy to claim being the only "Chosen" Prophet, end of the day he could not stop bullets cut him down.

"Space and Time Theory"...oh, you mean the Theory of Relativity that Joseph Smith presented in the Pearl of Great Price ninety years before Einstein? 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

"Space and Time Theory"...oh, you mean the Theory of Relativity that Joseph Smith presented in the Pearl of Great Price ninety years before Einstein? 

As much as I think Atheist Mormon is being way over the top here in the most cliched way possible, that's a bit of a stretch to say the least. But maybe it was intended to be funny.  

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My first attempt:

I’m struggling with Rorty’s second sentence about truth.  I agree that things exist independent of the human mind, his first statement.  The second statement about truth, I find that a strong part of me is either not comprehending or pushing back against it.  I’m struggling to accept this idea that truth is entirely a construct of humans.  

My body, my soul is crying out against this idea and saying that there is something there that isn’t relative to the ability of a human to conceive of its existence.  There must be something universally true about these things in space and time that doesn’t change just because a human creates a construct with which to interpret them.   I’m getting stuck here and I’m trying to think and re-think this paradigm about truth and my brain hurts… 

I haven't read the rest of your post.  I'm going to come back to this thought experiment later and make a second attempt.  

Tell me what a true thing is or could be

What makes a chair "true"?  What makes a mountain true?