MiserereNobis Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Council of Trent coming up with "consubstantial The Council of Trent did wonderful things, but I think you mean Nicea 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Samantha Oh no, did you let your true identity slip out when you signed your post as this?? 3
mfbukowski Posted February 26, 2021 Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Yes or no on our/your beliefs. But not on others. And since you agree no one can understand God on this side of the "Veil" whatever that is, then why should we rely on anyone who tries to tell what God is or even if there is a God? It's a paradigm like any other. Gotta decide. You are making your own world, gotta make your own decisions. If it doesn't work for you it's a waste of time to argue
mfbukowski Posted February 26, 2021 Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: The Council of Trent did wonderful things, but I think you mean Nicea Oh no, did you let your true identity slip out when you signed your post as this?? Found me out! I was talking to a lawyer while writing and wanted to note her name before I forgot it.!! And wasn't it Trent 2 which finally made it dogma? Edit I stand corrected it was definitely Nicea! I thought it started with Nicea, but wasn't decided until Trent 2 which was held in Constantinople. Must be gettin old It's better than alternative some folks say but I wouldn't be here if I believed THAT! 😇 Edited February 26, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
Teancum Posted March 2, 2021 Posted March 2, 2021 On 2/25/2021 at 7:30 PM, mfbukowski said: It's a paradigm like any other. Gotta decide. You are making your own world, gotta make your own decisions. If it doesn't work for you it's a waste of time to argue If anyone can make their own world then what use is it?
mfbukowski Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) Nevermind Edited March 4, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 (edited) On 3/2/2021 at 2:30 PM, Teancum said: If anyone can make their own world then what use is it? If that is a serious question, then it is absurd. If you can fix your own car, what use is it? If you can make your own chopsticks what use are they? Well I guess I better waste more time on this since you apparently think you "got me" when I left the discussion by laughing at my previous refusal to continue. No more Mr. Nice Guy! Even Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables. OK fine. You are clearly ignorant of contemporary philosophy- that is why I ignored your question. It is a waste of time to speak to you about this but I will because there are others out there who are legitimate seekers and actually believe this stuff about "evidence" Clearly the very fact that this continues as a thread on both sites- indicates some still have these ideas "Logical Positivism"- the view that you are espousing - the idea that even religious ideas need objective evidence to be "true" is a DEAD PHILOSOPHY. Even atheists who have any philosophical sense -know this but most amateurs do not. Go ahead and google "death of positivism" and see how many hits you get The problem with your question which is exactly to the word the question of the "atheist" on Dr. Peterson's website as a reply supposedly to be the coup'de gras on this ridiculous problem both you and he have brought up regarding evidence- and I suppose you are the same person or are simply plagiarizing his inane argument. I hope this reply is not over your head, but if it is that is not my fault. I have added the emphasis The central point is that the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable "is SELF CONTRADICTORY because that statement is itself NOT EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE!! http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p128271/html/ch01s02.html Quote The lingering death of positivism Positivism is a term used frequently in discussions of research in information systems, but rarely is it treated in depth or in terms of its historical development. Many philosophers of science regard positivism as defunct: ‘Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes’ (Passmore, 1967). Why then is the term still used so uncritically in information systems? Positivism is discussed here in some detail to show the shortcomings detected by philosophers of science and to pave the way for less narrow views on theory from the philosophy of science. Some sense of the historical development of positivist schools of thought is beneficial (see Godfrey-Smith, 2003; Magee, 1997). Comte (1864) is generally credited with the coining of the term ‘positivism’, using the word to contrast actual with imaginary, certainty with the undecided, the exact in contrast to the indefinite. Logical positivism as an extreme form of empiricism was developed in Europe after the First World War by what became known as the Vienna Circle, established by Moritz Schlick and Otto Neurath. It was formed in opposition to systems of philosophical thought that the logical positivists found pretentious, obscure, dogmatic and politically unattractive (such as Hegelian idealism). Logical positivism was a plea for Enlightenment values, in opposition to mysticism, romanticism and nationalism (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). A. J. Ayer, G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell were responsible for the transposition of the ideas of logical positivism to England where they had a profound effect, with much of English philosophy retaining a strong empiricist emphasis ever since. Many of the Vienna Circle were Jewish and had socialist leanings. They were persecuted to varying degrees by the Nazis, who made use of pro-German, anti-liberal philosophers, and who also tended to be obscure as well as anti-liberal. In contrast to the logical positivists, Martin Heidegger joined the Nazi party and remained a member throughout the Second World War. Some logical positivists – Carnap, Reichenbach, Hempel and Feigl – escaped to the United States where they were influential in philosophical development after the war. There was some softening and re-specification of the tenets of logical positivism and the later more moderate views are more usually called ‘logical empiricism’ (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). At the base of logical positivism is the famous Verification Principle. This says that only assertions that are in principle verifiable by observation or experience can convey factual information and be meaningful. Assertions that have no imaginable method of verification must either be analytic (tautological) or meaningless (Magee, 1997). Thus, the two central ideas of logical positivism relate to language: the analytic-synthetic distinction and the verifiability theory of meaning. The first idea relates to the distinction between analytic statements, which are true in themselves (basically a tautology), and synthetic statements, which are true or false in relation to how the world is. The second idea is that experience is the only source of meaning and the only source of knowledge. Thus, if a sentence (in a theory, say) has no possible means of verification, it has no meaning. Scientific statements were to consist of verifiable, and hence meaningful, claims. Karl Popper in his autobiography (Popper, 1986) takes the credit for ‘killing’ logical positivism as early as 1934 by pointing out some of its mistakes in Logic der Forschung (Popper, 1934), not published until 1959 in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper, 1980). Popper was opposed to the concentration upon minutiae and especially upon the meaning of words by the logical positivists, and the avoidance of metaphysical problems. A difficulty with the Verification Principle is that it is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable itself and therefore, according to its own criterion, is meaningless. The Verification Principle has the effect of outlawing more or less the whole of metaphysical speculation in philosophy – everything apart from logic. Popper also showed that the Verification Principle eliminated almost the whole of science. An aim of science is the search for natural laws, which are unrestrictedly general statements about the world that are known to be invariantly true: for example, Boyle’s Law, the law of gravity, or E=mc2. Popper showed that these laws are not empirically verifiable, acknowledging that the English empiricist David Hume had made this observation two-and-a-half centuries before. The problem is that of induction: from no finite number of observations, however large, can any unrestrictedly general conclusion be drawn that would be defensible in logic. For example, we cannot prove ‘all swans are black’ no matter how many swans we observe. The point of this discussion of positivism is that positivism is just one philosophical perspective on science, and a form that has largely been debunked. Focussing on positivism as being representative of views about theoretical formulation and epistemology in science obscures the rich value that can be found in many other writings in the philosophy of science, as discussed in the following section. The information systems literature provides many instances where ‘positivism’ is a label given to various, often conflicting, impressions of what scientific thought means. This habit is so widespread that no opprobrium should attach to the identification of particular instances. Positivism is characterised as being associated with naïve realism, a ‘value-free’ view of scientific enquiry, hypothetico-deductive methods, unilateral causal relationships or laws, statistical analysis and so on (see Orlowski and Baroudi, 1991). This depiction obviously does not match the original tenets of logical positivism, and neither is it compatible with the writings of prominent philosophers of science (see Nagel, 1979). Discussion of positivism is lingering on in information systems and our researchers are seemingly unaware that it is moribund. Orlowski and Baroudi (1991), for example, footnote the possibility that positivist dogma may be losing its currency among mainstream natural scientists, seemingly unaware of its recognised killing-off many years previously in what can only be regarded as very mainstream philosophy of science (Popper, 1936; Passmore, 1967). The author believes that ‘positivism’ should no longer be even mentioned as a defensible position in discussions of theory or epistemology in information systems. If what is meant is a scientific perspective, then it is better to say so; to go directly to writings in the philosophy of science and to examine issues separately and carefully. The conclusion from this summary of positivism is that it is not a fruitful source of ideas on theorising in information systems. Edited March 7, 2021 by mfbukowski
MiserereNobis Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: "Logical Positivism"- the view that you are espousing - the idea that even religious ideas need objective evidence to be "true" is a DEAD PHILOSOPHY. Poor Bertrand... 1
MiserereNobis Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The central point is that the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable "is SELF CONTRADICTORY because that statement is itself NOT EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE!! It is kinda like the same problem that "all truth is relative" runs into
Ahab Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: It is kinda like the same problem that "all truth is relative" runs into Yes, and both statements are fairly easy to empirically prove. The central point in the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable" is that whatever is stated must be provable by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I can easily observe or experience something that is true by merely observing or experiencing it. And of course all truth is relative to whatever it is because what else would it be or be relative to. I can do this stuff all day every day.
MiserereNobis Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Yes, and both statements are fairly easy to empirically prove. The central point in the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable" is that whatever is stated must be provable by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I can easily observe or experience something that is true by merely observing or experiencing it. And of course all truth is relative to whatever it is because what else would it be or be relative to. I can do this stuff all day every day. This is Ahab's equivalent of G. E. Moore solving the problem of the external world simply by holding up his hands. Or Johnson refuting Berkeley by kicking the stone. 2
Ahab Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Just now, MiserereNobis said: This is Ahab's equivalent of G. E. Moore solving the problem of the external world simply by holding up his hands. Or Johnson refuting Berkeley by kicking the stone. Says you, whatever you meant. Seeing the truth is simply a matter of seeing what is. So easy anyone should be able to do it.
MiserereNobis Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Says you, whatever you meant. Seeing the truth is simply a matter of seeing what is. So easy anyone should be able to do it. You are engaging in philosophy, which means that you need to know philosophy. Just like if you were engaging in math, you'd need to know math. Or any other discipline. Philosophy gets brutalized by amateurs all the time because they think they can do it without knowing much about it. In fact, they often don't even know they are trying to do philosophy. I know this is @mfbukowski's frustration a lot. I share in it. 1
Ahab Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Just now, MiserereNobis said: You are engaging in philosophy, which means that you need to know philosophy. Just like if you were engaging in math, you'd need to know math. Or any other discipline. Philosophy gets brutalized by amateurs all the time because they think they can do it without knowing much about it. In fact, they often don't even know they are trying to do philosophy. I know this is @mfbukowski's frustration a lot. I share in it. I was and still am talking about the truth and what the truth is. If you think philosophy encompasses all discussions on the topic of truth or that it is impossible to talk about the truth without talking about philosophy then no wonder you don't know what God is.
teddyaware Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 On 2/21/2021 at 11:09 AM, AtlanticMike said: Yesterday I met with my one of my non mormon uncles. He is a Christian and attends a few different churches depending on how he feels. I'm trying to get a better understanding of our doctrine so I asked him if he would meet so we could talk doctrine, something I've never done with my non mormon family because it brings up memories of being young and listening to my parents bible bash with my uncles for hours and hours. It's going to be an ongoing relationship, he and I are planning to meet every once in a while to talk religion, so yesterday I didnt want to get into discussing the bible and what verses "prove" Christianity true or Mormonism false in his opinion because, well, no one wins in that battle. So I started with him listening to a talk by Elder Holland, The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent. I wanted his opinion on the over all message. I have to say, it was amazing what he picked up on compared to what my mormon ear hears while listening to this talk. I've probably listened to this talk a dozen times since it was given and never even heard what my uncle picked up on. Here's a list of what he found to be "hurtful" as a Christian while listening to Elder Holland profess our Christianity. Here is what Elder Holland said 1. A trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures 2. The trinity is not to be found in the New Testament 3. That our view of the God Head breaks with post new testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus himself. 4. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that. (Speaking about an embodied God) 5. Then may we live their teachings and become true Christians indeed. (Speaking of our version of the Godhead) 6. Lastly, something I've never picked up on till yesterday, he was upset at the fact that the audience laughed when Elder Holland said "we agree with our critics on atleast that point, that such a formulation of divinity is truly incomprehensible" (speaking of the trinity) It was eye opening to see how a Christian heard Elder Hollands message compared to what I take from this talk. My uncle was picking up on what divides us instead of what unites us. In his opinion, his southern Christian opinion, us not accepting the trinity is a huge issue. The talk to him was very divisive and it just widened the gap between he and my mother. Is this just a southern Christian misunderstanding? How do we move forward with other Christian denominations if we view their version of the Godhead as incomprehensible and they view our version of the Godhead as incomprehensible? First, we should stop laughing and joking about what they believe. And lastly, what is a true Christian in your opinion? https://youtu.be/ Catholics and Protestants will readily admit they believe the Godhead is incomprehensible and cannot, by any means, be defined nor understood by man. There’s nothing at all controversial nor demeaning about saying that the Godhead of Catholicism and Protestantism is incomprehensible to them because they will freely admit to the world they believe the Trinity is indeed an incomprehensible mystery. And the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible. 2
Ahab Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 1 minute ago, teddyaware said: Catholics and Protestants will readily admit they believe the Godhead is incomprehensible and cannot, by any means, be defined nor understood by man. There’s nothing at all controversial nor demeaning about saying that the Godhead of Catholicism and Protestantism is incomprehensible to them because they will freely admit to the world they believe the Trinity is indeed an incomprehensible mystery. And the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible. Well, to be fair, I have talked with some Catholics and other Christians who have told me they comprehend God or how God is one kind of being while also being 3 persons, but, yes, it seems the vast majority of Christians say they do not comprehend what or who they worship.
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: This is Ahab's equivalent of G. E. Moore solving the problem of the external world simply by holding up his hands. Or Johnson refuting Berkeley by kicking the stone. Argumentum ad lapidem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone Quote Appeal to the stone, also known as ‘argumentum ad lapidem’, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd and proves this assertion by stating that the argument is absurd. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence. Clearly this definition corresponds to ...... Oh never mind. TAKE THIS Y'ALL!! PLEASE actually listen to the words for ONCE, OK??? Edited March 9, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: I know this is @mfbukowski's frustration a lot. I share in it. No one can possibly fathom the depth of my frustration. No colors anymore I want them to turn black. I did not forsee this thing happening to me. I mean I had to drop the Rorty Bomb in revenge! 🤨🙄🤢 1
teddyaware Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 53 minutes ago, Ahab said: Well, to be fair, I have talked with some Catholics and other Christians who have told me they comprehend God or how God is one kind of being while also being 3 persons, but, yes, it seems the vast majority of Christians say they do not comprehend what or who they worship. I can guarantee you didn’t talk to any theologians about it because it’s only poorly informed lay Catholics and Protestants who think they’ve solved the mystery. 2
Ahab Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, teddyaware said: I can guarantee you didn’t talk to any theologians about it because it’s only poorly informed lay Catholics and Protestants who think they’ve solved the mystery. Well, as we know, the mystery is easily understood by those of us who understand it. It is still a mystery only to those who don't understand it, and the ones who don't understand it are the ones who say it isn't or can't be understood.
teddyaware Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Ahab said: Well, as we know, the mystery is easily understood by those of us who understand it. It is still a mystery only to those who don't understand it, and the ones who don't understand it are the ones who say it isn't or can't be understood. Well of course. But if the very essence of the mystique that makes the Trinity so awesome is the belief that it’s so inscrutable and “totally other” that it never can actually be understood, the chances that anyone will ever get around to solving the mystery are pretty slim. Edited March 9, 2021 by teddyaware 1
MiserereNobis Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 3 hours ago, teddyaware said: And the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible. Well, to be clear, the primary objection isn't that your concept is easily comprehensible. That's probably quite a bit down the list. I also think that if push comes to shove, LDS end up admitting that they don't fully understand the nature of God either. There's this whole thing about us seeing through a glass darkly in this life. So let me ask: do you fully comprehend the nature of God? If not, then I suppose you are ok with things being a mystery in this life, right?
teddyaware Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Well, to be clear, the primary objection isn't that your concept is easily comprehensible. That's probably quite a bit down the list. I also think that if push comes to shove, LDS end up admitting that they don't fully understand the nature of God either. There's this whole thing about us seeing through a glass darkly in this life. So let me ask: do you fully comprehend the nature of God? If not, then I suppose you are ok with things being a mystery in this life, right? Of course there are many mysteries pertaining to God and his kingdom that have not yet been revealed, but for the Latter-Day Saints a basic understanding of the oneness of the three personages of the Godhead isn’t one of them. In LDS theology, the shared common substance that perfectly unifies the Godhead is the uncreated Spirit of Truth with which the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are filled to an infinite and eternal fullness. Since all three members of the Godhead are filled to an eternal fulness with that most holy substance called the Spirit of Truth, the perfect intelligence and wisdom of one is the perfect intelligence and wisdom enjoyed by the others; the most holy thoughts of one are the thoughts of the others; the emotions of one are the same as those experienced by the others, as are the perfect motivations, affections, behaviors, actions and capacity for boundless charity the same for one as they are for the others. This very same most holy substance, that perfectly unifies the Godhead, is the same holy substance that unifies the saints of God with God, and the saints of God with each other. This same unity of Spirit is what will also enable the saints to eventually become infinitely and eternally one with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in the same way these three are now perfectly united as one. The reason why the Latter-Day Saints believe they will one day be filled with all the fulness of God is because the very same Spirit that raised the Son of God from death to glorious immortality, and from life on earth to an inheritance of the fullness of eternal life in heaven, will also raise his worthy sons and daughter from death to life and fill them with the very same uncreated Spirit to infinite and eternal fullness. We Latter-Day Saints take the words Christ’s in the Book of Revelation quite literally when he promises us that we will be joint heirs with him in All he posses. The only thing that will differentiate us one from another is where we will stand in the order of presiding authority and rulership. But the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost will always preside over us, worlds without end. And through the promise of the fullness of the Spirit we also take the promise of Christ quite literally when he assures us that one day we will become kings and queens and wear crowns of eternal glory, to rule and reign with a rod of iron while seated upon the very throne of his eternal power. Through the endowment of the Spirit, we believe it will not be robbery to one day become glorious divine beings who will be worthy of a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory than that enjoyed by the angels. Edited March 9, 2021 by teddyaware 2
Teancum Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 On 3/7/2021 at 6:42 PM, mfbukowski said: If that is a serious question, then it is absurd. If you can fix your own car, what use is it? If you can make your own chopsticks what use are they? Well I guess I better waste more time on this since you apparently think you "got me" when I left the discussion by laughing at my previous refusal to continue. No more Mr. Nice Guy! Even Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables. OK fine. You are clearly ignorant of contemporary philosophy- that is why I ignored your question. It is a waste of time to speak to you about this but I will because there are others out there who are legitimate seekers and actually believe this stuff about "evidence" Clearly the very fact that this continues as a thread on both sites- indicates some still have these ideas "Logical Positivism"- the view that you are espousing - the idea that even religious ideas need objective evidence to be "true" is a DEAD PHILOSOPHY. Even atheists who have any philosophical sense -know this but most amateurs do not. Go ahead and google "death of positivism" and see how many hits you get The problem with your question which is exactly to the word the question of the "atheist" on Dr. Peterson's website as a reply supposedly to be the coup'de gras on this ridiculous problem both you and he have brought up regarding evidence- and I suppose you are the same person or are simply plagiarizing his inane argument. I hope this reply is not over your head, but if it is that is not my fault. I have added the emphasis The central point is that the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable "is SELF CONTRADICTORY because that statement is itself NOT EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE!! http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p128271/html/ch01s02.html Fixing a car is a bit different than making up your own world is it not. One is physical and real. The other may not be. I am uneducated in philosophy. I have tried to drill into it but it does not resonate as I do focus on the physical world and concrete evidence. Thus my comment about creating your own world, theology, god belief, whatever being rather useless. If you think my comments are not sincere or honest or that I am not a " legitimate seekers and actually believe this stuff about "evidence" then that is up to you. I long have given up being worried or taking such views personally.
Teancum Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 On 3/7/2021 at 6:42 PM, mfbukowski said: If that is a serious question, then it is absurd. If you can fix your own car, what use is it? If you can make your own chopsticks what use are they? Well I guess I better waste more time on this since you apparently think you "got me" when I left the discussion by laughing at my previous refusal to continue. No more Mr. Nice Guy! Even Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables. OK fine. You are clearly ignorant of contemporary philosophy- that is why I ignored your question. It is a waste of time to speak to you about this but I will because there are others out there who are legitimate seekers and actually believe this stuff about "evidence" Clearly the very fact that this continues as a thread on both sites- indicates some still have these ideas "Logical Positivism"- the view that you are espousing - the idea that even religious ideas need objective evidence to be "true" is a DEAD PHILOSOPHY. Even atheists who have any philosophical sense -know this but most amateurs do not. Go ahead and google "death of positivism" and see how many hits you get The problem with your question which is exactly to the word the question of the "atheist" on Dr. Peterson's website as a reply supposedly to be the coup'de gras on this ridiculous problem both you and he have brought up regarding evidence- and I suppose you are the same person or are simply plagiarizing his inane argument. I hope this reply is not over your head, but if it is that is not my fault. I have added the emphasis The central point is that the STATEMENT that "all truthful propositions must be empirically verifiable "is SELF CONTRADICTORY because that statement is itself NOT EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE!! http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p128271/html/ch01s02.html I just read the item on logical positivism. Not sure I buy it but I don't know enough not to buy it. Recommend a primer for me on philosophy. Like a Philosophy for Dummies type book. I do consider myself a seeker and have a large void since I no longer accept Mormonism and even have severe doubts about Christianity and even a theological God being as a reality as well. But there is a void for me personally.
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Teancum said: I just read the item on logical positivism. Not sure I buy it but I don't know enough not to buy it. Recommend a primer for me on philosophy. Like a Philosophy for Dummies type book. I do consider myself a seeker and have a large void since I no longer accept Mormonism and even have severe doubts about Christianity and even a theological God being as a reality as well. But there is a void for me personally. Well good, clearly you are making your own world despite all the philosophical evidence that you are opposing. But you are actually a fine example of making your own world. You just need to see it that way. Maybe William James Radical Empiricism would work. There IS a "Philosophy for Dummies" but I am not sure how good it is. I will keep thinking about it. I used to be an atheist myself so I get it. William James and John Dewey helped tremendously to get me on this path. Edited March 9, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
Recommended Posts