hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Those are all scientific questions about how things work. Philosophy is about WHY questions about things that are important It's all Alma 32 and I don't understand why LDS folks have trouble with their own scriptures. Very simple stuff. A statement is true if it helps you in your life. That's it! I suppose I should just frame it all in those terms and I suppose that would work best. Let me try it I have many here who got it the first time through. I have testimonials from some "stars" of apologetics who have thanked me for the education. Thanks for the suggestion. I explained it to my kids when they were young and they totally got it. It is as easy as understanding that words are not things. Some people think words like "attribute" describe real things instead of our perceptions of things. Ideas are not things in the world nor are words. They think things can be true or false instead of statements about things. They are very confused. There are no true houses unless you are speaking to a group who uses that term oddly. If you understand the Tower of Babel story that language is confounded, you understand it all I frankly don't know how anybody could misunderstand what words I have quoted from Rorty below. Clear as a bell and that is why I chose them. My wife got it the first time through also and now she corrects ME. All I can do is my best. For all the people who "get it", do you ever think to count the people that don't "get it" that you've interacted with? No offense, but this comes across as very condescending. Apparently, if you agree with MFB, then you "get it" and if you disagree with him, you don't "get it" and apparently that's because you're too dumb, because look at all the people including children who totally "get it". Have there been any intelligent people who disagree with you on this subject, or is everyone who doesn't "get it" just not smart enough to comprehend.
jkwilliams Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Have there been any intelligent people who disagree with you on this subject? Not that I've seen. 1
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: How can we exercise Alma 32 in looking at what you have written here? Does believing it bear sweet fruit? Is your life better for the understanding? Suppose we believe that facts existed before God created the world. Could there be "facts" if no one ever tried them out? How could they, as beliefs, ever be tested by the experimental method suggested here? I would propose that God organized reality according to specific rules already in existence, rules know to bear sweet fruit by Him one way or another through his experience or even perhaps known to other generations of Gods- in a "Family Council" of Gods By bringing in Alma 32 and God and theology into this discussion you are completely complicating it and making it confusing. I have to wonder if you aren't doing this intentionally to avoid answering my question about whether facts or attributes or whatever you want to call it (please don't fault me for the semantics or my imprecise use of language as I think you understand what I'm saying) exist independent of humans in your view. 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think that is literally a useless idea! It doesn't matter either way if you want to believe that I guess- but what good is that belief? Why is that sweet to you as a belief? Does it help you live your life better? Then go for it, but it makes no sense to me! Its important to the conversation and I think important to the point that Gray was originally making. Instead of directly addressing the point of disagreement, it seems to me that you're running circles around the real issue. Why do you refuse to give straight answers and try to grapple over the validity of a concept. It seems like you want to poke it it and then run around in circles using other distractionary tactics. It really shouldn't be this hard, and I'm getting tired of the run around.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Not that I've seen. Ha, and if you do see them, its just your subjective human based observation rooted in language, they aren't really there.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, CV75 said: I understand what you're saying because I have seen things that way myself and for convenience often operate under such a premise, but the more practical bottom line (for me personally) is to see things as I've been describing them (see D&C 93:30; existence is only possible when intelligence acts for itself). I say that because by definition, sound (a specific kind of vibration or disturbance of equilibrium) requires ears and a brain in the mix to exist. Sound does not exist independently, in a vacuum (even when under some circumstances vibrations can jump between objects in a vacuum...). Is such and such a vibration a sound if you can't hear it? (No.). This is so for any product of a disturbed equilibrium, hence disturbed equilibria, which themselves are the products of other disturbed equilbria, are a subjective determination. I'm not sure you fully answered my question. Do these disturbed equilibria exist independent of human observation?
jkwilliams Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ha, and if you do see them, its just your subjective human based observation rooted in language, they aren't really there. Well, I'm not opening that can of worms again. I'm definitely not smart enough to find my way through that discussion. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 5 hours ago, changed said: All knowing, does that include knowing what it feels like to be damned/isolated/eternally condemned - knowing what that feels like, as well as knowing what obedience and perfection is? Does g-d know what it is to be a sinner, as well as a saint? Not vicarious second-hand knowledge - but first-hand knowledge? ... the nature of g-d, the nature of perfection - is perfection equal to complete, rather than perfection being free of sin? Omniscience... all-knowing vs., all-wise, vs. has personally had all-experiences... not vicarious experiences, not feeling another's pain, but feeling their own pain, their own remorse from their own sins? vicarious knowledge vs. first-hand experience - do you think g-d has had all experiences to gain all-knowledge? the difference between knowledge/wisdom/experience - all-knowing, all-wisom, all-experiences??? how do you gain all-experiences and all-knowledge without both descending into the depths of hell, as well as reaching up into the nature of light? Yin/Yang - can a full knowledge of evil and goodness be contained within the same being? 1. The idea that he actually exists; 2. A correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; and 3. An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the divine will. I've made it through #1, I am a long ways from #2.... Back to the thread - revelation is required - knowing the spirits are real is required, a bit frustrating as we only have control over our own spirit... The Savior did all of that. There are those who believe that the father did as well. There is some evidence that the father played the role of Adam in an alternate eternity.
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: For all the people who "get it", do you ever think to count the people that don't "get it" that you've interacted with? No offense, but this comes across as very condescending. Apparently, if you agree with MFB, then you "get it" and if you disagree with him, you don't "get it" and apparently that's because you're too dumb, because look at all the people including children who totally "get it". Have there been any intelligent people who disagree with you on this subject, or is everyone who doesn't "get it" just not smart enough to comprehend. Ask Rorty that question, not me. Rorty is called the lucid philosopher that's all I will tell you. Best wishes for a great life. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Well, I'm not opening that can of worms again. I'm definitely not smart enough to find my way through that discussion. Maybe we need a special message board for us dumb people.
changed Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The Savior did all of that. There are those who believe that the father did as well. There is some evidence that the father played the role of Adam in an alternate eternity. It seems different to experience something vicariously vs. experiencing your own personal sins... Adam actually did "transgress", still a little different from experiencing the shame of your own sin.
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, changed said: It seems different to experience something vicariously vs. experiencing your own personal sins... Adam actually did "transgress", still a little different from experiencing the shame of your own sin. I was being subtle. There are those who believe that the father was also a savior on another world. Read some of the threads about multiple mortal probations. I don't have any position on the subject. Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Maybe we need a special message board for us dumb people. I would suggest you read some of the German idealists if you think Rorty is a hard read. There is a long line of philosophers including Plato who believe that only ideas are real. I don't think your arguments refute them.
jkwilliams Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Great idea. Point taken.
CV75 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not sure you fully answered my question. Do these disturbed equilibria exist independent of human observation? I answer it in the last sentence (see bold type): "This is so for any product of a disturbed equilibrium, hence disturbed equilibria, which themselves are the products of other disturbed equilbria, are a subjective determination." So, "No," consistent with the preceding explanation as to why. This was in reply to your post about removing subjectivity from the equation in asking me whether trees make sounds.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ask Rorty that question, not me. Rorty is called the lucid philosopher that's all I will tell you. Best wishes for a great life. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html I'm not having a dialogue with Rorty, I'm having a dialogue with you. Besides, I doubt that you and Rorty see eye to eye on everything, if I recall correctly he's an atheist. Are you suggesting that all philosophers who disagree with Rorty are also lacking in intelligence? Its no longer about agreeing and disagreeing, its about smart people vs. dumb people? BTW, I think I agree with the substance in that link, but its not very in-depth in explaining everything.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 21 minutes ago, CV75 said: I answer it in the last sentence (see bold type): "This is so for any product of a disturbed equilibrium, hence disturbed equilibria, which themselves are the products of other disturbed equilbria, are a subjective determination." So, "No," consistent with the preceding explanation as to why. This was in reply to your post about removing subjectivity from the equation in asking me whether trees make sounds. Your answer is still confusing to me. Lets try a thought experiment and see if that helps. Lets say that an asteroid 50 miles in diameter is on a collision course with earth and that it will arrive on April 1st (an ironic twist to April fools day.) This is an extinction level event and there is absolutely no technology that human kind can deploy to avert it. Now, lets say that no humans observe this asteroid on its collision course with earth through a telescope. Lets say that until the actual asteroid enters earth's atmosphere, that no humans anywhere on this planet knew it was even coming, that it catches our species by complete surprise. What does this tell me about the existence of the asteroid? Does this mean that the asteroid didn't really exist until a human first observed it plummeting through the atmosphere in a massive ball of fire? Is this observation of this ball of fire colliding with earth a subjective experience only? What if I worked in an underground mine for a living and I was way underground when the asteroid arrives. I wouldn't hear or see anything. Does this mean the asteroid doesn't exist for me? Would I survive this extinction event because of my inability to subjectively observe the existence of the asteroid as it collides with the earth?
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Point taken. Yep them old German idealists just couldn't splain nothjin. Kant, Hegel and the boys even that walt whitman guy was shore dummies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism#United_States and them deist guys- fergetaboutit.
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not having a dialogue with Rorty, I'm having a dialogue with you. Besides, I doubt that you and Rorty see eye to eye on everything, if I recall correctly he's an atheist. Are you suggesting that all philosophers who disagree with Rorty are also lacking in intelligence? Its no longer about agreeing and disagreeing, its about smart people vs. dumb people? BTW, I think I agree with the substance in that link, but its not very in-depth in explaining everything. He's an atheist in name only and actually found religion later on and his kids were raised Mormon. He was searching for a polytheistic system (also William James) in which Jesus was a "friend" and part of humanity as opposed to classic Christianity. He sought a humanistic Christianity in which essentially humanity itself was worshiped. Of course some disagreed with Rorty but they had comparable theories to support them. Those views are perfectly valid. So what? Rorty's wife was Mormon- at least baptized as such and she had a home teacher as well https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/ Later in life Rorty found religion or it found him. What he finally espoused was essentially a secular kind of Mormonism in my opinion. I am sorry you have failed to understand his importance to all this and suggest you continue reading but quite honestly I am about done with this nonsense. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/05/how-richard-rorty-found-religion I hope at least this article makes sense to you.
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 As my parting shot on this thread I just want to repeat what I thought was my most important post that kind of went un-noticed in the fray. I won't answer any more about this here I am done, but this I think captures the essence of it for those who still do not understand my siggy. I hope this helps- if not, it's the best I can do I am sure John Williams will have some further comments but as I said I am done here. Life beckons. Rorty translated into Mormonese: 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." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. Mormonese: Quote To say that the world is out there and not organized by our HUMAN FATHER for the human mind to understand, is to say, with common sense, that most things in time and space are "out there" independent of Human Intelligence. But common sense is incorrect because it leaves out God as the Organizing Human Intelligence. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that in Matter Unorganized, where there are no sentences and Intelligence to organize them, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are the creation of Human Intelligence. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind and Intelligence, because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there as Matter Unorganized, but descriptions of the world organized by Intelligence, are not. Only descriptions of the world as organized can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the organizing, describing activities of human intelligent beings- cannot.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: He's an atheist in name only and actually found religion later on and his kids were raised Mormon. He was searching for a polytheistic system (also William James) in which Jesus was a "friend" and part of humanity as opposed to classic Christianity. He sought a humanistic Christianity in which essentially humanity itself was worshiped. Of course some disagreed with Rorty but they had comparable theories to support them. Those views are perfectly valid. So what? Rorty's wife was Mormon- at least baptized as such and she had a home teacher as well https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/ Later in life Rorty found religion or it found him. What he finally espoused was essentially a secular kind of Mormonism in my opinion. I am sorry you have failed to understand his importance to all this and suggest you continue reading but quite honestly I am about done with this nonsense. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/05/how-richard-rorty-found-religion I hope at least this article makes sense to you. I've tried to understand, and I continue to try and wade through the scattered and distracted tangents you keep bringing up. You've demonstrated no level of humility in the exchange and your efforts to explain things have been at least as ineffective as my attempts to understand. Perhaps I take these conversations too seriously and to you they are just a game, I don't know.
mfbukowski Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I've tried to understand, and I continue to try and wade through the scattered and distracted tangents you keep bringing up. You've demonstrated no level of humility in the exchange and your efforts to explain things have been at least as ineffective as my attempts to understand. Perhaps I take these conversations too seriously and to you they are just a game, I don't know. They are not. In fact i take them too seriously and frankly find them upsetting and frustrating. I thought we were getting somewhere- sorry- I have done my best.
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: As my parting shot on this thread I just want to repeat what I thought was my most important post that kind of went un-noticed in the fray. I won't answer any more about this here I am done, but this I think captures the essence of it for those who still do not understand my siggy. I hope this helps- if not, it's the best I can do I am sure John Williams will have some further comments but as I said I am done here. Life beckons. Rorty translated into Mormonese: 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." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. Mormonese: Quote To say that the world is out there and not organized by our HUMAN FATHER for the human mind to understand, is to say, with common sense, that most things in time and space are "out there" independent of Human Intelligence. But common sense is incorrect because it leaves out God as the Organizing Human Intelligence. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that in Matter Unorganized, where there are no sentences and Intelligence to organize them, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are the creation of Human Intelligence. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind and Intelligence, because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there as Matter Unorganized, but descriptions of the world organized by Intelligence, are not. Only descriptions of the world as organized can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the organizing, describing activities of human intelligent beings- cannot. I thought this was creative, but its not Mormonese, its Bukowskiese. I don't think Rorty's quote has anything to do with God or religion. Seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. One last thing, in case you read it, even if you don't respond. Another reason I think you may be misusing Rorty's quote. When he says "Only descriptions of the world can be true or false" he's talking about language descriptions of the world. When we put our observations into words and describe them. These descriptions of the world/universe are founded in human perceptions and human language, but that doesn't mean that the world/universe wouldn't exist without the presence of humans. He never said that. Humans put their observations of the world into the context of language and assign the terms true and false to the parameters of these observations. All of that is human created, the way we observe and describe and experience the world/universe. But that doesn't mean that the world/universe wouldn't exist and function independently. It also doesn't mean that some of our descriptions about the world/universe, some of our true and false claims, aren't accurate and might not have some universal applicability to them. Edited March 28, 2018 by hope_for_things
hope_for_things Posted March 28, 2018 Author Posted March 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: They are not. In fact i take them too seriously and frankly find them upsetting and frustrating. I thought we were getting somewhere- sorry- I have done my best. Well they have been frustrating to me as well. Perhaps that's why you get condescending is because you're frustrated. I keep feeling that we could come to an understanding if we were talking face to face rather than communicating through a message board. Such are the limitations of this medium. I'm trying...
CV75 Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Your answer is still confusing to me. Lets try a thought experiment and see if that helps. Lets say that an asteroid 50 miles in diameter is on a collision course with earth and that it will arrive on April 1st (an ironic twist to April fools day.) This is an extinction level event and there is absolutely no technology that human kind can deploy to avert it. Now, lets say that no humans observe this asteroid on its collision course with earth through a telescope. Lets say that until the actual asteroid enters earth's atmosphere, that no humans anywhere on this planet knew it was even coming, that it catches our species by complete surprise. What does this tell me about the existence of the asteroid? Does this mean that the asteroid didn't really exist until a human first observed it plummeting through the atmosphere in a massive ball of fire? Is this observation of this ball of fire colliding with earth a subjective experience only? What if I worked in an underground mine for a living and I was way underground when the asteroid arrives. I wouldn't hear or see anything. Does this mean the asteroid doesn't exist for me? Would I survive this extinction event because of my inability to subjectively observe the existence of the asteroid as it collides with the earth? This is more of the same. How do you think I would respond to this thought experiment, remembering that all experience and observation (whether actual or imagined) is subjective and without such there are no events (i.e. products of disturbed equilibrium), and the further back or forward in the chain of disturbances you go, the further removed the experience and observation and the actual or imagined event get from each other. Edited March 28, 2018 by CV75
Recommended Posts