Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

You mean there really is a pot and a kettle in objective reality ?

I've thought so all along.

It's the only thing I objectively know actually exists in reality...without a doubt. 

(I feel like I just typed out a string of four-letter words)

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

You could just sum all of that up by saying you believe Helen said what you believe she said and that you also believe what you believe she said.

And somehow you think you objectively know something about Joseph Smith from your belief in what you believe Helen said.

No, thank you. 

We're talking about kinds of evidence and a personal letter is so starkly different from a supposed altered indirect account that it may bear scrutiny.

Of course this is what she said, period.

This is just one example of many credible first hand accounts of faithful believers which might undermine the priesthood worthiness of Joseph. To be sure, were talking about the internal consistency or lack of it of Joseph's behaviour as recorded in scripture and by those who faithfully revered him.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

Church-approved sources are sometimes just what the Church accepts as something a person has said. They're not necessarily saying that Helen told the truth in that statement.

That's a given.

I'd be happy to discuss the structure of objectivity within subjectivity with you if you like. I give a detailed description of it within the last page or so.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

Pot, meet kettle.

I don't mean to be rude. I just couldn't help but chuckle at the irony. You're an enigma to me Ahab.

Are you calling me the kettle of long-windedness or the kettle of firsthand accounts?

That hurts, man. You cut me deep.

J/k

Fortunately, I'm made of stronger mettle than that, tee hee.

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

But it may be a mistake to believe such stories by the time they get through the eyes of a teenager

Helen's account appears to me consistent with the accounts of others at that time.

Quote

Neither a starry-eyed nor love-struck proposal, Joseph Smith’s to Helen resembles others recorded by the Prophet’s wives; each reported that he couched his proposal in the language of revelation, obedience to God’s law, and the promise of eternal rewards. [18] Joseph Smith’s proposals, in other words, mirrored the 1843 revelation on celestial marriage (see D&C 132), which highlighted law (see vv. 3–7, 11–12, 15–19, 21, 24–28, 31–34, 37, 48, 54, 58–66), obedience (see vv. 3–5, 53–55, 64–66), and afterlife blessings (see vv. 19–24, 55, 63). [19]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/subject-can-bear-investigation-anguish-faith-and-joseph-smiths#_edn3

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Helen's account appears to me consistent with the accounts of others at that time.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/subject-can-bear-investigation-anguish-faith-and-joseph-smiths#_edn3

Calm, all I'm saying is that the evidence from witnesses needs to have some immediacy to have a lot of weight with me. If Helen's came out of her own journal, which we know is somewhere we can look at it, that is pretty good evidence. However, by the time supposed statements becomes third or 4rth hand, it loses some of its probative value. This characterizes a good bit of early anti-LDS evidence found in books like Pomeroy Tucker's. It has the value of mere gossip. So, the evidence must be examined on a case by case basis. This is what I was trying to say here:

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

But it may be a mistake to believe such stories by the time they get through the eyes of a teenager, through sometimes 2 other people, and through the pen of a church critic usually about 50 years or more after his death. For instance was Joseph Smith promising salvation or was he promising that she could attain the celestial kingdom? There is tons of conflicting evidence, and most of it is hearsay - not through eye witnesses. Much of the early so called evidence from Church critics is demonstrably false or pretty obviously prejudiced, from authors such as Eber Howe and Pomeroy Tucker. I cannot stop you from believing everything written about Joseph Smith, but I certainly think that is unwise given the propensity of people giving inaccurate history concerning him. If you received a witness regarding the Book of Mormon, do you not trust it? May I suggest considering the parable of the sower of the seed?

Helen's version of events seems level headed and dispassionate rather than someone "out-to-get" Joseph. Further, without knowing more it seems like a first-hand account which gives it good probative value on the issue. I certainly don't dismiss it, but it does seem to come from many years later. I don't know if it was taken from a contemporaneous entry in a diary or not. After the Saints moved out west, the general attitude towards polygamy seemed to change under Brigham Young, and it seems that is when D&C 132 came to light, so that can have an effect on testimony rendered at the time. Nevertheless, you are correct that Helen's statement seems consistent with others, and that lends it some weight in my mind. I certainly don't dismiss it, and say as much here:

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am not sure what your problem with it is. She seemed to understand it for the most part:

" I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises." She seemed to understand the promise of eternal life is subject to how she lived her life. Did Yeshua promise eternal life? Does that mean a believer who determines to go murder someone will receive it? Is the issue the young age? What age do you believe Jews married at in the scriptures? Is the issue polygamy itself? If so, that would have been news to Nathan who only scolded David for the one lamb already belonging/married to someone else. The days may come when Christians will be glad for polygamy. I think you know I have not always defended the belief of some regarding polygamy, but there simply is no carte blanche scriptural prohibition of it. I believe if practiced correctly, it can be scriptural. Again, that doesn't mean Joseph completely understood it, or lived it completely correctly. I believe he was young and impressionable and was trying to live what he believed God wanted. I just don't believe the claims that he was some type of predator or monster. No physical evidence bears that out either. No descendants from married women, etc. There is evidence Emma was not happy with him, so possibly he sinned, but that would certainly not be the first time the Lord rebuked him or that he was guilty of sin.

My point here is that Helen didn't seem to think that Joseph was promising anything more than what scriptures promise if we adhere to our part in a covenant. So it seems Helen understood he wasn't guaranteeing salvation. Her statement seems believable to me. However, I'm not going to get into a case-by-case analysis of the wives on this thread - I think that would be hijacking it. Thanks Calm

Edited April 13, 2017 by RevTestament
typos

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a given.

I'd be happy to discuss the structure of objectivity within subjectivity with you if you like. I give a detailed description of it within the last page or so.

I read what you wrote and what I noticed was that it seemed that you were the one who came to your own conclusions. And that your doubt was due to a lack of your faith in what our Father had told you, or could have told you had you appealed to him for his understanding.

My idea of being objective is to try to consider all possibilities while trying to determine what our Father would agree with and want me to believe. At the root of that is my belief that our Father knows the true history, in all of its details, and anything other than that is what Satan would want me/us to agree with and believe. Any other option, or only part of the truth mixed with some errors or falsehoods.

So for example, when reading what Helen supposedly said on her deathbed, and what you had to say about that, I appealed to God for his understanding and I still have his assurance that Joseph still spoke often as a prophet of God.

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Depends on what you think of as defending him (our Lord) to the death, I think. Peter had the wrong idea when he tried to defend our Lord with a sword, but maybe there is another way to defend our Lord, or his principles, or his people, or something else that is our Lord's, in a way that our Lord would approve of.

I believe this to be an example:

John 21:

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

We are not really saying different things if you acknowledge that "feelings of confirmation" is the final step.  You initially said that we should not rely on feelings but should rely on our "God given brain" in determining morality, but now you acknowledge that feelings are the ultimate deciding factor.  You clearly make a distinction between intellectual pursuits and feelings of conscience, yet you simultaneously insist that there is no distinction.  What gives?

"Study, research, and critical thinking" alone cannot tell you the right answer.  Why?  Because again, there is NO objective way to discover what is morally right or wrong.  All critical thinking/study/research can do is help you decide better how you personally feel about something.  That comes from your "gut" a.k.a "heart" a.k.a "conscience".  It ultimately is a "gut" decision because there is no objective answer.  Study and research can tell you what the capital of Utah is, but it cannot tell you what is morally right and wrong.  There is a limit to such intellectual pursuits in regard to morality.   That is the distinction I am talking about, and that is where your conscience steps in and intellectual pursuits end.  Your conscience goes beyond the limits of intellectual pursuits.  It goes where there are no objective answers or measures for right and wrong.

Let me try to clarify as I think some of what you're saying doesn't represent my position, but I don't disagree with everything, I would emphasize some things differently.  I personally am worried about people in our culture that just listen to their gut.  In other words, they put very little to no thought into decision making, and they hope that praying and getting a warm fuzzy feeling is all they need to know.  I find this behavior dangerous and irresponsible.  

I have a very naturalistic view of the world these days.  I think that proper research and study and critical thinking are what people should do before making decisions.  I hold out the possibility that God is also involved in that process, through insights and inspiration that is largely undetectable by the person doing the study and putting in the effort.  However, I won't say that any decisions I make are condoned by God, that is going to far in my book.

I also don't think that formal prayer is a necessary step, or that its the final step or anything.  I don't think God works in formality or a particular prescription.  Honestly, there is no way for me to measure whether God is involved at all, I just hold it out as a possibility.  Does this mean I don't ever pray about decisions, no, I do pray still, admittedly not in formal ways as often.  

I do think that reason is the most important component in distinguishing what is morally right and wrong, because morality is a social construction, not an immutable universal law. What you find moral another culture might not.  I do believe there are universal principles that virtually everyone would agree on, and those principles become the foundation for morals.  I don't think our conscience alone tells us right or wrong, its is a part of the process, but how much of it is nature vs. nurture I don't know, they are both factors for sure.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I belong to an organization which eats chocolate cake, because my preference is chocolate cake.

I have carefully evaluated my preference for chocolate cake in all aspects and listed them in my own life.  I like the color, the flavor and the smell and I am absolutely sure that I like chocolate cake above all other flavors. I have carefully evaluated the organization of which I am a member and it is clear to me that it is the best organization for people who advocate eating chocolate cake.  I am certain that chocolate cake is the best for me and my organization is the best organization for that purpose.

But you get to like cherry pie if you like.

And how does this prove your objectivity?  You seem to be conceding my point that you aren't objective.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You can "red flag" my departure from the scholars all you want, but I will continue to say they are wrong. I've been over this several times. For a textual analysis to be correct the text must comport with their interpretation, but it doesn't. The prophecy itself says it won't be established until the time of the end. It says some will exalt themselves to establish the vision - that kinda sounds like your scholars! i wasn't talking about Daniel 11 & 12 anyway. We were discussing the scholarship of dating the NT gospels, and I told you why I don't believe the scholars. The scholars date the NT gospels late because they don't believe in prophecy. If you aren't familiar with the scholarship maybe you shouldn't be making judgments about it, or my opinion on it. Changing the discussion over to Daniel 9 or 11 certainly is not impressing me that you know what you are talking about. All I am saying is that I took a course in the subject from a well respected professor from a well respected college, so I know the subject matter. 

This is a perfect example of how people can be mislead about something that they have very little knowledge about.  Taking one NT class does not put you in a position to refute mainstream scholarship.  I sincerely hope you will reconsider. The reason I said you shouldn't hang your hat on Daniel 9, is not to change your testimony of Jesus or that the OT alludes to his mission.  A person can hold both positions, a person can accept the strength of mainstream biblical scholarship and maintain a theological belief in Jesus.  The problem with what you're doing is repeated frequently in society.  The recent conference the FIRM folks had at UVU last weekend with their psuedo science is a good example.  They think they understand science well enough to refute carbon dating and to assert a 6000 year old earth.  Many of them have probably taken a class or two themselves, and they understand just enough of something to believe they can reject the mainstream scholars and invent their own interpretations. I recommend to you the Henry Eyring model.  

Quote

Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is figurative. In this connection it seems to me that the Creator must operate with facts and with an understanding which goes entirely outside our understanding and of our experience. Because of this, when someone builds up a system of logic, however careful and painstaking, which gives a positive answer to this difficult question [origin of man], I can’t help but wonder about it, particularly if it seems to run counter to the Creator’s revelations written in the rocks.

On this subject the truth is in the careful biblical scholarship that shows the original history and intent of the author, even though that contradicts some of the traditional interpretations that have been passed down for generations of time. 

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What I said has nothing to do with Mormonism per se. It has to do with understanding the atonement and the nature of God. I don't feel like going over all that again, but I simply disagree with you. I don't mean this in mean way, but I don't believe you understand the atonement. Love is not all that God wants. God demands justice as our judge. 

Thats fine, we can agree to disagree, and I respect your discussion with me and appreciate your willingness to converse.  I think that this idea of a God that demands justice as our judge is a harmful heresy.  

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I read what you wrote and what I noticed was that it seemed that you were the one who came to your own conclusions. And that your doubt was due to a lack of your faith in what our Father had told you, or could have told you had you appealed to him for his understanding.

My idea of being objective is to try to consider all possibilities while trying to determine what our Father would agree with and want me to believe. At the root of that is my belief that our Father knows the true history, in all of its details, and anything other than that is what Satan would want me/us to agree with and believe. Any other option, or only part of the truth mixed with some errors or falsehoods.

So for example, when reading what Helen supposedly said on her deathbed, and what you had to say about that, I appealed to God for his understanding and I still have his assurance that Joseph still spoke often as a prophet of God.

Lack of faith in Joseph Smith is not equivalent to lack of faith in God. Those are two different beings and two different concepts. My faith in God leads me to grow, by rejecting a man as prophet when he has proven with his own words and well-documented actions to be unworthy of the priesthood he claimed to restore.

Tell me, is there a line to cross that a man disqualifies himself as prophet, when you would doubt your spiritual witness and reject that man's claims? Or is it "anything goes" as long as you have what you believe is a spiritual affirmation?

Me, I paid attention to my belief structures and the dependent and independent variables. I knew that there was a point, given the doctrine, when the belief system might become self-contradicting.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Lack of faith in Joseph Smith is not equivalent to lack of faith in God. Those are two different beings and two different concepts. My faith in God leads me to grow, by rejecting a man as prophet when he has proven with his own words and well-documented actions to be unworthy of the priesthood he claimed to restore.

Tell me, is there a line to cross that a man disqualifies himself as prophet, when you would doubt your spiritual witness and reject that man's claims? Or is it "anything goes" as long as you have what you believe is a spiritual affirmation?

Me, I paid attention to my belief structures and the dependent and independent variables. I knew that there was a point, given the doctrine, when the belief system might become self-contradicting.

I go line by line and from precept to precept, always appealing to God for his wisdom and his understanding when anyone says anything while I try to understand and know what is true.

So for me there is never a point when I trust "just whatever" anyone says, never assuming anyone is always speaking for God as a prophet of God. I always appeal to God and I trust that he never will contradict himself in what he has told me about the same exact thing.

For example, God has told me that Joseph was speaking for him in specific situations and that I have a correct understanding of what God was saying through him, so now I know that anything or anyone that contradicts that is not in harmony with what God has told me. 

Saves a lot of time and trouble that way, rather than trying to see if maybe I was wrong about something, because the answers I get and the understanding I get come from God directly to me, rather than being a result of my own understanding which may in some cases be wrong.

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I go line by line and from precept to precept, always appealing to God for his wisdom and his understanding when anyone says anything while I try to understand and know what is true.

So for me there is never a point when I trust "just whatever" anyone says, never assuming anyone is always speaking for God as a prophet of God. I always appeal to God and I trust that he never will contradict himself in what he has told me about the same exact thing.

For example, God has told me that Joseph was speaking for him in specific situations and that I have a correct understanding of what God was saying through him, so now I know that anything or anyone that contradicts that is not in harmony with what God has told me. 

Saves a lot of time and trouble that way, rather than trying to see if maybe I was wrong about something, because the answers I get and the understanding I get come from God directly to me, rather than being a result of my own understanding which may in some cases be wrong.

So, in other words, there is no established line, a behavior or sin, for example, that would disqualify a "prophet" in your mind, so as long as you experience a spiritual affirmation that the man is God's prophet.  Correct?

[RevTestament]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a perfect example of how people can be mislead about something that they have very little knowledge about.  Taking one NT class does not put you in a position to refute mainstream scholarship.  I sincerely hope you will reconsider. The reason I said you shouldn't hang your hat on Daniel 9, is not to change your testimony of Jesus or that the OT alludes to his mission.  A person can hold both positions, a person can accept the strength of mainstream biblical scholarship and maintain a theological belief in Jesus.  The problem with what you're doing is repeated frequently in society.  The recent conference the FIRM folks had at UVU last weekend with their psuedo science is a good example.  They think they understand science well enough to refute carbon dating and to assert a 6000 year old earth.  Many of them have probably taken a class or two themselves, and they understand just enough of something to believe they can reject the mainstream scholars and invent their own interpretations. I recommend to you the Henry Eyring model.  

On this subject the truth is in the careful biblical scholarship that shows the original history and intent of the author, even though that contradicts some of the traditional interpretations that have been passed down for generations of time. 

This second part I have highlighted in blue is not a response to me, but I am sure you are trying to include it to support your position. I entirely disagree. To merely accept scholarship because scholars say so is a huge mistake. Using this criterion you should become agnostic or atheist, since perhaps a majority of scholars believe the Torah is made up, and there was no exodus, etc.

Secondly, you ignore the conclusions of Christian scholars strictly in favor of secular scholars.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand that the interpretation of scholars of say Daniel 11 causes the vision to fail. You insist they are right because they are scholars but ignore that their interpretation conflicts with the text itself, and thus fails the primary test of textual scholarship. If they are right that the king of the north is the Seleucid kingdom, how can the vile one be Antiochus Epiphanes if the king of the north comes against him in verse 40? Their textual analysis doesn't comport with the text itself, and thus can be dismissed as error.

4rth you don't know anything about the course I took. It was a thorough examination of the modern scholarship analysis of the NT at the Duke Theology school. When you have taken such a course you can come claim that I don't know what I am talking about. Time and time again, the scholars use the prediction of the destruction of the temple to date the text after the destruction of the temple. It is one of their primary reasons for the late date they give the NT gospels. Saying they are right merely because they are scholars is ridiculous. Many Christian scholars disagree with the methodology, but you ignore that. It is clear that if they are wrong that Jesus couldn't prophesy the destruction of the temple, then they are wrong about the late date they assign to the NT gospels. Before hanging your hat on these secular, unbelieving scholars, and accusing me of "misleading" the readers, may I suggest you study the issue closer, and understand the various issues involved?

Quote

Thats fine, we can agree to disagree, and I respect your discussion with me and appreciate your willingness to converse.  I think that this idea of a God that demands justice as our judge is a harmful heresy.  

Yeah, I figured you would say something like this, but I believe it is you who doesn't understand:

Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

There have been some others I have discussed the atonement and the concept of Justice with, but if you wish to do that I suggest a different thread. I'm sure there is already one on the subject. You are respectful, and seem very open, and I respect that, but I strongly disagree with you and will not be able to return to the subject until this evening.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, in other words, there is no established line, a behavior or sin, for example, that would disqualify a "prophet" in your mind, so as long as you experience a spiritual affirmation that the man is God's prophet.  Correct?

As Joseph said, a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such, meaning a man is a prophet only when speaking for God.

So to find out if a man is speaking for God I go to God directly to see what God has to say about that.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As Joseph said, a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such, meaning a man is a prophet only when speaking for God.

So to find out if a man is speaking for God I go to God directly to see what God has to say about that.

So, no line.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, no line.

Your misunderstanding. Not what I said.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Let me try to clarify as I think some of what you're saying doesn't represent my position, but I don't disagree with everything, I would emphasize some things differently.  I personally am worried about people in our culture that just listen to their gut.  In other words, they put very little to no thought into decision making, and they hope that praying and getting a warm fuzzy feeling is all they need to know.  I find this behavior dangerous and irresponsible.  

I have a very naturalistic view of the world these days.  I think that proper research and study and critical thinking are what people should do before making decisions.  I hold out the possibility that God is also involved in that process, through insights and inspiration that is largely undetectable by the person doing the study and putting in the effort.  However, I won't say that any decisions I make are condoned by God, that is going to far in my book.

I also don't think that formal prayer is a necessary step, or that its the final step or anything.  I don't think God works in formality or a particular prescription.  Honestly, there is no way for me to measure whether God is involved at all, I just hold it out as a possibility.  Does this mean I don't ever pray about decisions, no, I do pray still, admittedly not in formal ways as often.  

I do think that reason is the most important component in distinguishing what is morally right and wrong, because morality is a social construction, not an immutable universal law. What you find moral another culture might not.  I do believe there are universal principles that virtually everyone would agree on, and those principles become the foundation for morals.  I don't think our conscience alone tells us right or wrong, its is a part of the process, but how much of it is nature vs. nurture I don't know, they are both factors for sure.  

You are right, morality is largely a social construct in society.  Should popular opinion and behavior decide what is morally right for you though?    Is the most popular moral the one worthy of adopting?  If so, why?  If not, why?  Lets reason about this if that is what you want.  What can intellectual objectivity really tell you about what is morally right or wrong for you?    All that your brain can discover through study etc. is the subjective opinions of others.  How should morality ultimately be judged by the individual though?  If you are looking for morality outside of yourself, who is the authority that you can turn to and why?  Lets see how far our objective intellectual brains can take this without relying on internal feelings of conscience.

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your misunderstanding. Not what I said.

It's a reasonable inference.  If there is not no objective line for you, identify an example of a line.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

It's the only thing I objectively know actually exists in reality...without a doubt. 

(I feel like I just typed out a string of four-letter words)

You know what?  I think I figured this out.  You and I understand what WE mean by "objective"- for us it is a theoretical construct of a world of "truth" which supposedly exists independent of human perception- and we recognize that ever word we say and everything we see, hear, etc is filtered through a human system of sensation of unknowable outside stuff which we acknowledge as outside stuff.  We don't drive off cliffs but we know that what we see nevertheless is mediated and constructed by a human mind.

THESE FOLKS however - probably most readers of this thread and definitely Ahab and hope are using THIS definition of "objective" which begs the question in its very defininition of their point of view.  For them, "objective" is a good thing- for us, it is a ridiculous impossible notion.

This is the only definition they use or think in terms of:

Quote

 

ob·jec·tive

əbˈjektiv/

adjective

1.

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

"historians try to be objective and impartial"

synonyms:impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"

 

So we see how language itself controls the mind.  For them "objective" is a good thing- it is a balanced view of the world, for us, that very notion is an illusion.

They CANNOT see it that way.  How can we communicate with them or should we just give up?  i know we have discussed this before but I don't think from this perspective    Incidentally pogi sees it our way too... that might be an interesting three way thread- how do we communicate with these folks?   I think it is important that we do.  I think we see things "as they are" and they just can't get those filters off.  Brutal I know - but we both get frustrated.  You just want to slap somebody....  in a nice way of course.

Edited April 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, morality is largely a social construct in society.  Should popular opinion and behavior decide what is morally right for you though?    Is the most popular moral the one worthy of adopting?  If so, why?  If not, why?  Lets reason about this if that is what you want.  What can intellectual objectivity really tell you about what is morally right or wrong for you?    All that your brain can discover through study etc. is the subjective opinions of others.  How should morality ultimately be judged by the individual though?  If you are looking for morality outside of yourself, who is the authority that you can turn to and why?  Lets see how far our objective intellectual brains can take this without relying on internal feelings of conscience.

Exactly.  See immediately above

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And how does this prove your objectivity?  You seem to be conceding my point that you aren't objective.  

By your definition, yep, guilty as charged and proud of it.

And now I understand the problem- I was using your definition of objectivity to apply to my subjective vision as "fair and balanced".

For me, knowing before the journey began, knowing it from my philosophy studies, that there WAS no such thing as "objective", let's say I went in search of all the possibilities to find the subjectively best flavor for me in the most fair and balanced way I could.

In our silly chocolate cake analogy, I had fairly and without prejudice subjectively evaluated all the flavors of cake known to my experience and of those, after years of deliberation discovered with certainty that my preference was chocolate and joined with others who had presumably done the same.

But then I came to understand that some of them had only tasted chocolate because all other flavors were forbidden to them and their parents had told them that chocolate was the one true flavor and now they thought themselves to be adventurous to go out and objectively taste everything - not understanding that even their alleged "objectivity" was an illusion and was still merely a quest for their own preference which was totally subjective.

And yea, it came to pass that I did go on their message board and I said unto them by the words of my mouth: "Hearken to the words of my mouth!"

And it came to pass that I did say unto them "Thou art foolish for thinking that you have objective evidence for your belief in chocolate, for verily I say unto thee that there is no such thing as a world which cannot be seen or felt, verily not even felt in your heart, which shows unto you that chocolate is the best, for verily I say unto you, you must listen to the spirit which our Creator hath given unto you to find for yourselves whether or not these things are not true, that if you plant in your hearts the knowledge of chocolate you will finde that it is sweet unto you and that taste for chocolate will grow delicious unto your soul and you will see that chocolate will bring you much peace in your life.

And thus did I speak these things unto them.

And they did scoff and did throw stones at me and did say unto me "Thou false prophet! " 

Edited April 13, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's a reasonable inference.  If there is not no objective line for you, identify an example of a line.

The objective line is the line between what God tells me is true vs anything or anyone contradictory, with me knowing God doesn't ever contradict himself or what he has told me.

 

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know what?  I think I figured this out.  You and I understand what WE mean by "objective"- for us it is a theoretical construct of a world of "truth" which supposedly exists independent of human perception- and we recognize that ever word we say and everything we see, hear, etc is filtered through a human system of sensation of unknowable outside stuff which we acknowledge as outside stuff.  We don't drive off cliffs but we know that what we see nevertheless is mediated and constructed by a human mind.

THESE FOLKS however - probably most readers of this thread and definitely Ahab and hope are using THIS definition of "objective" which begs the question in its very defininition of their point of view.  For them, "objective" is a good thing- for us, it is a ridiculous impossible notion.

This is the only definition they use or think in terms of:

So we see how language itself controls the mind.  For them "objective" is a good thing- it is a balanced view of the world, for us, that very notion is an illusion.

They CANNOT see it that way.  How can we communicate with them or should we just give up?  i know we have discussed this before but I don't think from this perspective    Incidentally pogi sees it our way too... that might be an interesting three way thread- how do we communicate with these folks?   I think it is important that we do.  I think we see things "as they are" and they just can't get those filters off.  Brutal I know - but we both get frustrated.  You just want to slap somebody....  in a nice way of course.

Yikes, this post is condescending. 

Regardless, it is a given that absolute objectivity is impossible. But that does not doom the concept to uselessness, on the contrary.

Objectivity is used constantly and to productive ends. 

Try "if, then," for instance.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Meadowchik