...facts don't exist...until

[3DOP]

..."a man puts something of his own into them..."

---Dr, Zhivago, speaking of the journalists reporting from the western front (if you are from Russia) in the First World War. (Dr. Zhivago, by Boris Pasternak, translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, 2010 copyright, originally published in Italian by Giangiacomo Feltinore Editore, Milano, Italy, 1957, p. 137)

The publishing of Dr. Zhivago is a story unto itself. But what Pasternak writes about, in my opinion, bears directly on whether the LDS or Catholic worldview is true (or more true if you insist). I suggest that Dr. Zhivago (Pasternak) was unknowingly LDS. What do you all think, at least with regards to the quotation?

l reject Dr. Zhivago's assertion. I don't think anyone has ever taught to me to be in defiance of Dr. Zhivago. It is the way I have always been. Would a child conclude that "facts don't exist until a man is found who puts something of his own into them"? Is there a sun that gives light to, and warms the earth, without a man? As a man I say what I would have said as a child with regard for neither Plato nor Pasternak: "Yes. There has been, and presumably will be, a sun that has so effected this earth, even if we should destroy ourselves."

3DOP

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

"You just said that a fact is senseless unless one puts sense into it. Christianity, the mystery of the person, is precisely what needs to be put into the fact for it to acquire meaning for man."  Before that, Zhivago's childhood friend, Gordon, says "...there are no peoples, there are persons." (context for "mystery of the person", p. 141)

No peoples? Only persons?

Tomorrow for many Catholics it is the Feast of Christ the King. Everybody who claims to be Christian will say that Christ is king. Anyway...Is Christ the King of persons? Is Christ the King of peoples? Both? One or the other? Does God have an interest in the salvation of peoples as well as people?

Just to be forthcoming, I am a maximalist here. Both. I deplore the secularization of peoples as I would the secularization of persons. But peoples precede persons. God's rights can not end with the person and His will extends to peoples and persons.

Edited October 30, 2016 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

The old question is whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is no one there to hear it.  Add to that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (that the act of observation changes the phenomenon), and we have very muddy waters.

The other question is about whether God sees humans as individuals or as communities.  Probably both, depending on circumstances.  However, the Jews like to picture their community as a group in a boat.  When one member of the group decides to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat, the group is justified in flinging him out of the boat, if necessary.  Whether we define it as a social or religious contract, we are all obligated to one another.  None of us is in this life alone, and none of us obtain salvation on our own.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

..."a man puts something of his own into them..."

---Dr, Zhivago, speaking of the journalists reporting from the western front (if you are from Russia) in the First World War. (Dr. Zhivago, by Boris Pasternak, translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, 2010 copyright, originally published in Italian by Giangiacomo Feltinore Editore, Milano, Italy, 1957, p. 137)

The publishing of Dr. Zhivago is a story unto itself. But what Pasternak writes about, in my opinion, bears directly on whether the LDS or Catholic worldview is true (or more true if you insist). I suggest that Dr. Zhivago (Pasternak) was unknowingly LDS. What do you all think, at least with regards to the quotation?

l reject Dr. Zhivago's assertion. I don't think anyone has ever taught to me to be in defiance of Dr. Zhivago. It is the way I have always been. Would a child conclude that "facts don't exist until a man is found who puts something of his own into them"? Is there a sun that gives light to, and warms the earth, without a man? As a man I say what I would have said as a child with regard for neither Plato nor Pasternak: "Yes. There has been, and presumably will be, a sun that has so effected this earth, even if we should destroy ourselves."

3DOP

 

Pasternak like most authors in the 20th century was a postmodernist.  

I am a postmodernist and so would agree with your thesis.

But don't confuse Bukowski with LDS Doctrine. There are very few LDS postmodernists, but our inevitable Victory is assured.

It is the only way to make belief in the supernatural rational.

Edited October 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The old question is whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is no one there to hear it.  Add to that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (that the act of observation changes the phenomenon), and we have very muddy waters.

The other question is about whether God sees humans as individuals or as communities.  Probably both, depending on circumstances.  However, the Jews like to picture their community as a group in a boat.  When one member of the group decides to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat, the group is justified in flinging him out of the boat, if necessary.  Whether we define it as a social or religious contract, we are all obligated to one another.  None of us is in this life alone, and none of us obtain salvation on our own.

I have no idea what this thread is about..but what you wrote is just beautiful.

[mfbukowski]

From a postmodernist perspective your question about the sun is really not relevant. If you look at the quote in my siggy from Rorty, hopefully that will be clear. Yet it never seems to be.

Rorty does not deny the existence of an outer world. That is insanity. His point is simply that we cannot Escape our perceptions of that world. The sun feels hot to you because that is your perception of it. It is indeed hot. But what we call hot is a human perception. Without human language you could not even utter the sentence the "The Sun is hot".

Is the Sun hot from the Viewpoint of the Sun? The question is unintelligible. We don't know what it's like to be the sun or if the sun could possibly have a viewpoint. We only know what it's like to be human.

We can only see things from a human viewpoint.

I am dictating into my cell phone so please excuse the punctuation etc.

Edited October 30, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The old question is whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is no one there to hear it.  Add to that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (that the act of observation changes the phenomenon), and we have very muddy waters.

The other question is about whether God sees humans as individuals or as communities.  Probably both, depending on circumstances.  However, the Jews like to picture their community as a group in a boat.  When one member of the group decides to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat, the group is justified in flinging him out of the boat, if necessary.  Whether we define it as a social or religious contract, we are all obligated to one another.  None of us is in this life alone, and none of us obtain salvation on our own.

I recall some recent talks about "stay on the Ship".

Interesting idea that the critics may be chopping a hole in the bottom, And yet we complain about excommunications.

[Five Solas]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pasternak like most authors in the 20th century was a postmodernist.  

I am a postmodernist and so would agree with your thesis.

But don't confuse Bukowski with LDS Doctrine. There are very few LDS postmodernists, but our inevitable Victory is assured.

It is the only way to make belief in the supernatural rational.

I'm curious why you think that's important (your last sentence), assuming it were possible. 

--Erik

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The old question is whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is no one there to hear it.  Add to that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (that the act of observation changes the phenomenon), and we have very muddy waters.

The other question is about whether God sees humans as individuals or as communities.  Probably both, depending on circumstances.  However, the Jews like to picture their community as a group in a boat.  When one member of the group decides to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat, the group is justified in flinging him out of the boat, if necessary.  Whether we define it as a social or religious contract, we are all obligated to one another.  None of us is in this life alone, and none of us obtain salvation on our own.

Robert hi. Thanks for the reply.

Regarding the tree in the forest...I am not concerned if there is a sound perceived. The question is about whether there is a fact. Contrary to Zhivago, I can believe in the existence of a tree falling in the forest in a world where no intelligence can know of it. I do not mind if sound is defined as interior. But a tree falling is a fact that is exterior. I will be content to allow others to define what is a sound, if others will agree that a tree falling in the forest is a fact, whether or not it makes a sound. 

As for persons, not peoples, It appears to me that this character, who seems to be sympathetic, is redefining the Gospel in exclusively individualistic terms which ignores being translated from the power of darkness unto the kingdom of the Son of His love. Regardless of our views on and our misunderstandings about what the other thinks regarding "original sin", it seems like we could agree that the fall of Adam, whether he be historical or allegorical, shows us that God sees humanity as a family. Adam's fall affects the entire human race just as Christ's incarnation and redemptive work affects the entire human race. We need to get out of the "community of Adam" and into "the community of Christ". Evangelicals cannot be allowed to monopolize the doctrine of regeneration. Catholics and Mormons should also say that we must be "born again". Why? Because the first birth does not put us in the right community.

It should not be needed to be said that God will judge us on our own merits as well. It isn't persons or people. It is persons and peoples.

Over-emphasis on the individualistic side of the Gospel has led to problems of our day which are insoluble apart from a reevaluation of Gospel principles. I will argue that it is good and just, after due deliberation to fling the member of the group out of the boat who is damaging the entire group by chopping a hole in the boat. I like that image. I agree we are obligated to one another. I would extend the image to suggest that if it is not allowed to chop holes in our boat, we may also object if someone wishes to bring pornography into the boat. It might be objected that no on else has to look at it. I don't care. I will throw it into the sea. If Christ's Gospel is true, it is permissible for "boats" that believe in Gospel morality to refuse to allow pornography.

I say this because I think the Gospel stops short of a total separation of "church and state". Christ's kingdom is assuredly not of this world. Christ's kingdom poses no threat to Caesar. Christ's kingdom acknowledges the authority of Caesar while insisting that all authority ultimately comes from God. All legitimate political authority is to be respected and obeyed (when not in conflict with higher laws).

In order to try to offer an antidote to the problems of our times, where Christians fear to assert Christian morality in the public square, Pope Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King in 1925, less than one hundred years ago. While rejecting theories of government that would only be satisfied with a Mosaic model of theocracy, while acknowledging that all models of government from monarchy to aristocracy to democracy can be compatible with the Gospel and the spiritual kingdom which should reign over any public authority, Pius wrote:

Quote

"It would be a grave error to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to Him by the Father, all things are in His power. All men, whether collectively or individually (emphases in bold mine), are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society."  

---The Liturgical Year, by Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B., St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, Vol 14, p. 475

This is what convinces me to reject a libertarian view of an individualistic Gospel, espoused by Zhivago's friend Gordon, which ends up in denying that we may discipline those in the boat who, however privately they practise their sins and follies, will necessarily threaten the physical or moral integrity of the boat.

As for American principles from which I can never be separated, I am unpersuaded that the authors of the laws which protect freedom of speech would have approved that the laws they wrote extend to the gross immorality which must supposedly be tolerated now in the name of "freedom of speech."

Edited October 31, 2016 by 3DOP

[Okrahomer]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

..."a man puts something of his own into them..."

But what Pasternak writes about, in my opinion, bears directly on whether the LDS or Catholic worldview is true (or more true if you insist). I suggest that Dr. Zhivago (Pasternak) was unknowingly LDS. What do you all think, at least with regards to the quotation?

I'm not going to comment on your OP, but I hope you'll forgive a personal story that only relates tangentially:

I met Boris Pasternak’s niece when I was a missionary in Germany.  She had joined the LDS Church prior to the assignment that brought me to the city where she lived.  She was a school teacher who had never married.  She enjoyed entertaining and feeding the missionaries, and she did it often.  

Since I was new to the area, I did not know her well.  I sought out an opportunity to tell her how grateful I was for her hospitality.  I suggested that we were causing her too much work, and that she really should let us do the dishes and sweep the floor before we left.  I will never forget her response:

“Oh, Bruder!  When regular people come to visit, I clean my house after they leave.  When the missionaries visit, I clean my house before they arrive.”

Thanks to your OP, I was reminded of what a wonderful person she was.  It was one of the rare privileges of my mission to have known her.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Okrahomer

[3DOP]

22 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I'm not going to comment on your OP, but I hope you'll forgive a personal story that only relates tangentially:

I met Boris Pasternak’s niece when I was a missionary in Germany.  She had joined the LDS Church prior to the assignment that brought me to the city where she lived.  She was a school teacher who had never married.  She enjoyed entertaining and feeding the missionaries, and she did it often.  

Since I was new to the area, I did not know her well.  I sought out an opportunity to tell her how we grateful I was for her hospitality.  I suggested that we were causing her too much work, and that she really should let us do the dishes and sweep the floor before we left.  I will never forget her response:

“Oh, Buder!  When regular people come to visit, I clean my house after they leave.  When the missionaries visit, I clean my house before they arrive.”

Thanks to your OP, I was reminded of what a wonderful person she was.  It was one of the rare privileges of my mission to have known her.

Good story Okrahomer. Thanks for sharing.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'm curious why you think that's important (your last sentence), assuming it were possible. 

--Erik

What philosophers like Rorty, who is himself an athiest say about positions like mine is that such positions are "rational".  Rorty's wife was in fact raised Mormon, and was herself a philosopher of some note,  and Rorty was well aware of the Mormon position but he would find even me much too literal for him to actually take such positions himself.  Rorty gave a talk on the compatibility of religion and science based on his views, and mentioned both Catholicism and Mormonism and said it was rational in terms of private beliefs to have such beliefs.  I can reference that to a video if you care.  The view is based on Wittgensteinian "language games"- that science and religion are different subjects and have nothing to do with each other, and are therefore as compatible as say baseball and Impressionist painting.   Two totally unrelated fields of endeavor cannot be seen as "incompatible"- there is no common reference point.  Rorty in fact had a home teacher who visited her- she was not a believer, I think but never bothered to take her name off the church rolls.  The home teacher chosen was himself a philosophy professor!  https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/   So it IS "possible" for non-Mormon and atheist philosophers to see religion as in some ways "valid".

The other question is an excellent one no one has ever asked me before- about why that is important.

As in all areas what is "important" to an individual is entirely personal and is really a psychological question about what makes a person "tick"

I have always questioned everything and needed to have an explanations which I found to be "reasonable" for virtually everything I do.  I drive my wife crazy, because in cleaning the garage, say, I will have an opinion on why you should or should NOT move the car first and the order in which things "must" be done.  It's not OCD, my mind works in flow charts.

I started out Catholic then became an athiest for quite a while because I saw no rational reason to believe, yet that pesky "spirit" we keep talking about kept bugging me.  I studied pragmatism finally and realized that there was a way to see the "spirit" which made sense.

So yes I realize that no one has a good "reason to believe" other than the spirit.   On the other hand, philosophers will tell you that having no reason for certain beliefs other than psychologial reasons (you find them comforting for example) is itself completely "reasonable"!

Novices at this game will always play the argument that if there is no truth then relativism itself cannot be shown to be true.

Unfortunately a good relativist will simply tell you that even relativists believe that relativism is only relatively true  but is the best explanation we can come up with.

So even beliefs some find "irrational" can be relatively more rational than others for a given purpose, especially when personal psychology comes into effect.   There are scientific principles which are unquestioned as being "reasonable" yet they rest on a kind of intuition themselves which is not reasonable.

Why for example should we have "evidence" for a belief?  That seems totally evident to most people- yet can it be proven?  No.   Why not?  Because it is based on a "should" and "shoulds" can never be "proven" except by intuition.   Pick a totally repugnant belief- we should not kill babies for fun.   How can you prove that?  You can't- it is just intuitive.  Everyone knows it and agrees on it, unless you are in an institution or prison.

Occam's razor- "The simplest explanation is the best"

Why?

Well it's just.... reasonable!   No- it's not- WHY is it reasonable?   "It just makes sense"

So we have all kind of beliefs that "just make sense".

For me, why we should have a reason for believing in religion- "just makes sense" even if that reason is "the spirit" and I can give a reasonable answer for why that is reasonable!

And if that reason works for famous non-believer philosophers who are a ton smarter than I am, who am I to disagree?

 

 

[Gray]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pasternak like most authors in the 20th century was a postmodernist.  

I am a postmodernist and so would agree with your thesis.

But don't confuse Bukowski with LDS Doctrine. There are very few LDS postmodernists, but our inevitable Victory is assured.

It is the only way to make belief in the supernatural rational.

Or as I have come to think of it, sneaking into Mormonism via the back door of postmodernism

[Okrahomer]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Good story Okrahomer. Thanks for sharing.

Sorry for the typos. 

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

Or as I have come to think of it, sneaking into Mormonism via the back door of postmodernism

Nah, we march right up the front steps on a white horse carrying a flag!

Our philosophical roots are in Romanticism - that was in the very air Joseph breathed along with Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper and the boys in his backyard, with some Emerson thrown into the pot.   That line of thought leads directly to William James another American, and with it, Pragmatism.   Tame the West- create our own destiny- create your own worlds from matter unorganized.  Noble savages etc.

The problem we still have are the links to sectarianism the Protestant converts brought in- 

Quote

In the spring of 1914, at a bi-annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Levi Edgar Young, a relative of Brigham Young, stood at the pulpit of the Mormon tabernacle in Salt Lake City and declared that “if Dr. William James, of Harvard College, had come to Utah before he died, he would have found a society that, above all other human societies, illustrates better the theory of pragmatism, brought about by that great psychologist[,] than any other society on earth today.” [1] James almost had the chance to do just that-to visit Utah-having been invited by Brigham Young Academy president Benjamin Cluff to come to Provo, Utah, to lecture-an invitation James unfortunately had to decline due to his poor health. [2] But even though James never had the chance to see pragmatism in action in the Mormon West, he was no stranger to the faith. He had had several Mormon students at Harvard, including Levi Edgar Young, and had on one occasion dined with Benjamin Cluff during Cluff’s visit to Cambridge in 1892.

http://juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism#United_States

Edited October 31, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Regarding the tree in the forest...I am not concerned if there is a sound perceived. The question is about whether there is a fact. Contrary to Zhivago, I can believe in the existence of a tree falling in the forest in a world where no intelligence can know of it. I do not mind if sound is defined as interior. But a tree falling is a fact that is exterior. I will be content to allow others to define what is a sound, if others will agree that a tree falling in the forest is a fact, whether or not it makes a sound. 

Rory vs Rorty.  Gotta watch the spellings here closely.  One letter separates universes!

Just for clarity, no sane person thinks there is no exterior world.  Rorty does not think that nor do I.

For some reason it seems no one comprehends Rorty's statement which makes the point so well.   Let me see if I can translate it for the folks here.

Quote

 

 " 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.

     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." 

 

Now I will take it apart bit by bit.

Quote

Rorty: " 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.

This is the point you make above where you say

Quote

Rory: I can believe in the existence of a tree falling in the forest in a world where no intelligence can know of it.

No one is doubting that the world is not "out there" or that it is not "our creation".  

Events happened in Siberian forests in 2000 BC which were "not caused by human mental states".

We can be sure that, using human language, "trees fell" and "animals were eaten" and that "photosynthesis occurred " To to say these were "facts" is to use human language where (we suppose) there was no humans.  Rorty prefers to call these events "the effects of causes which do not include human mental states".

I think that terminology makes perfect sense.   We don't know nor is it possible to say that a certain unknown tree fell an an unknown exact location at an unknown exact time and on an exact day.

It is not a "fact" that it fell unless we know those other "facts".  It cannot be true or false that said event "actually happened".  In a real sense we cannot know that a certain tree even existed at certain geographic co-ordinantes on a certain date at a certain time much less that it "fell"

So what does that to the truth of the statement "THIS tree fell at this location at this date and time?"   How can we know that this statement is true or false?

Rorty's point is that we cannot know.

THAT TREES FELL in Siberia, "is to say, with common sense, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states".

OK I hope we understand Rorty at least that far now.  Next part:

Quote

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.

So "where" then is the truth or falsity of the statement "Tree abcdefg-12345678 fell at co-ordinates xyz at time qrpt in the Siberian forest on April 17, 2857 BC"

We cannot know that such a "tree" existed at those co-ordinates.  Without human language we cannot even call that thing a "tree".  We cannot say that due to calendar changes that there even WAS (let's suppose) an "April 17th" in that location on what could be that "date".   Was the alleged forest even in what we know as "Siberia"?

Even if we say there was a "woody substance" at that location etc and gave the chemical composition- that would only complicate the issue, because "woody substance" and the chemical composition are all concepts created in human languages.

So is the truth or falsity "in" those things "not caused by human intelligence"?

How could "truth" BE IN THINGS at all?   Are there true trees?  True tables?  True hurricanes?

There are only true statements, true sentences, true propositions etc.

I don't see how that is debatable!?

And aren't statements sentences and propositions proposed by humans in human languages?   Is that debatable?

Truth exists only in human sentences and not "out there" in the world.Now the summary which should at this point be self evident

Quote

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." 

 

I don't see a way to even make this debatable.

 

[thesometimesaint]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it. Did it really fall?