“Into the millennium” - Pres. Nelson

[bOObOO]

On 10/3/2021 at 10:29 AM, Fether said:

In his talk, he stated that the foundation being restored under the SLC temple will take “it into the millennium”.

Anyone know how long that new foundation is built to last?

Not in an exact number of years kind of way but I am inspired to think it will withstand being lifted and moved to some other place if the Lord desires to move it or authorize that it be moved to some other place, someday.  Like Zion was lifted before.

Sixteen large, inverted granite arches were built into the new foundation. There is no record as to why they did that. That manner of construction was unknown in this country then. If someday perchance there be a massive force wanting to lift the temple from beneath, then we shall know why they are there..

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-temple-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[pogi]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

Every argument needs premises. The strength of this particular premise was already addressed earlier. Requoting Dan Harris:

Quote

...Anyone who doesn’t see that the Good Life is preferable to the Bad Life is unlikely to have anything to contribute to a discussion about human well-being. Must we really argue that beneficence, trust, creativity, etc., enjoyed in the context of a prosperous civil society are better than the horrors of civil war endured in a steaming jungle filled with aggressive insects carrying dangerous pathogens? I don’t think so.

Even if I was to accept the premise that morality should be based on "the good life", how is this not manifestly subjective?  The "good life"?  "Prosperity"?  According to whom?  The Americans?  The British?  Or the Jarawa people who have to "endure" those nasty "steaming jungles" for thousands of years.  Ewww!

The problem is that modern "civil society" arrogantly thinks they know what is best and what the "good life" is really all about - so much so that morality itself apparently revolves around their idea of the "good life".  Again, impartiality is a myth! 

Relying on this humanistic moral foundation we thought ourselves moral in "civilizing" indigenous peoples.  We know what is best for them because our "reason" tells us so.  

A tale of two peoples.  1) the Jarawa tribe - described as "primitive" and "poor", a hunter gatherer people.  Many with little to no clothing to wear.  No civil government to give order.  No hierarchy. Just people trying to survive.  They live in what most Americans would consider deplorable and unacceptable conditions.  Yet, they may be some of the happiest people in the world.  

Quote

Studies have shown that tribal people on their own land are some of the happiest in the world – the nomadic Maasai tribe were found to be just as happy as the world’s richest billionaires.

2) the neighbors of the Jarawa tribe are the Great Andamanese people.  They were saved by the civilized British who were moral enough to "civilize" these poor indigenous people.  They were once "rich" on the land and now they are dependent on government and disease, TB, and alcoholism abound.  

We each think we intuitively "know" what the good life is, but that is largely a cultural narrative.  Happiness is subjective. 

How do people not see that "the good life" is entirely subjective and culturally based?  Nothing objective about the good life.  Yo understand it we have to rely on subjective questionnaires - "are you happy, etc."?  There is no non-subjective way to arrive at what the good life is without relying on subjective interpretations based on differing cultural perspectives.   

Quote

Studies have shown that tribal people on their own land are some of the happiest in the world – the nomadic Maasai tribe were found to be just as happy as the world’s richest billionaires.

To place "prosperous civil society" at the foundation of morality is indeed questionable.  How many billionaires do you think will be "impartial" (a requirement for morality) enough to try and see things from the Maasai tribes point of view?  How many would be willing to try to live like them to discover if their version of "the good life" is the best version of "the good life"?  The fact is that most billionaires would be completely miserable and depressed in such conditions, and most Maasai would equally be emotionally distressed and robbed by civilizing them and adopting them to the American affluenza lifestyle. 
 

 

Every single one of these terms here are just words.  They can have different meanings across different cultures and perspectives.  Take "trust' for example.  Is "trust" universally a good thing?  I don't think so!  Maybe in the context of a celestial society, it would make sense, but come on...  Trust in other humans has led to far more suffering than I care to think about.  While trust is essential to happiness, it is not something that can be objectively arrived at and requires relative contextualization and there is never a guarantee.  You see, everything has to be contextualized and is relative.  No objective standards to base morality on.   

Lets move on to the next - creativity.  Sounds good and dandy, but is it always?  Is it universally and objectively good?  If "creativity" isn't subjective, I don't know what is.  Please read:

https://unearthmag.com/2021/02/21/why-man-destroys-creativity-gone-awry/

Shall we keep going?

Each of these words are just words and can only be understood relatively.  There is no objective standard for morality.  Period!  What is "good" can only be measured subjectively via surveys. 

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even if I was to accept the premise that morality should be based on "the good life", how is this not manifestly subjective?  The "good life"?  "Prosperity"?  According to whom?  The Americans?  The British?  Or the Jarawa people who have to "endure" those nasty "steaming jungles" for thousands of years.  Ewww!

The problem is that modern "civil society" arrogantly thinks they know what is best and what the "good life" is really all about - so much so that morality itself apparently revolves around their idea of the "good life".  Again, impartiality is a myth! 

Relying on this humanistic moral foundation we thought ourselves moral in "civilizing" indigenous peoples.  We know what is best for them because our "reason" tells us so.  

A tale of two peoples.  1) the Jarawa tribe - described as "primitive" and "poor", a hunter gatherer people.  Many with little to no clothing to wear.  No civil government to give order.  No hierarchy. Just people trying to survive.  They live in what most Americans would consider deplorable and unacceptable conditions.  Yet, they may be some of the happiest people in the world.  

To clarify, are you claiming that happiness is in fact better then misery? Or is this just an arbitrary subjective whim on your part?

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

2) the neighbors of the Jarawa tribe are the Great Andamanese people.  They were saved by the civilized British who were moral enough to "civilize" these poor indigenous people.  They were once "rich" on the land and now they are dependent on government and disease, TB, and alcoholism abound.  

We each think we intuitively "know" what the good life is, but that is largely a cultural narrative.  Happiness is subjective. 

But is happiness better than misery? Objectively, why would you think that?

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

To place "prosperous civil society" at the foundation of morality is indeed questionable.  How many billionaires do you think will be "impartial" (a requirement for morality) enough to try and see things from the Maasai tribes point of view?  How many would be willing to try to live like them to discover if their version of "the good life" is the best version of "the good life"?  The fact is that most billionaires would be completely miserable and depressed in such conditions, and most Maasai would equally be emotionally distressed and robbed by civilizing them and adopting them to the American affluenza lifestyle. 

Are you claiming that being happy is better than being completely miserable and depressed? Or are these just arbitrary words that don't objectively mean anything? If happiness isn't better than misery, what would be wrong with the the Maasai and billionaires trading places so that they are all superlatively miserable? What would be wrong with that?

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Every single one of these terms here are just words.  They can have different meanings across different cultures and perspectives.  Take "trust' for example.  Is "trust" universally a good thing?  I don't think so!  Maybe in the context of a celestial society, it would make sense, but come on...  Trust in other humans has led to far more suffering than I care to think about.

What makes you think suffering is bad? 

My point with all of this is that in trying to refute the concept of objective morality, you are implicitly agreeing with it. Sam Harris's book is called "The Moral Landscape" as a metaphor where there are multiple peaks and valleys across a landscape--just as a physical landscape has multiple peaks, the moral landscape has multiple good lives. He would argue that to the extent the Jarawa are happy and healthy, they are leading the good life. In the context of his point, "trust" doesn't mean naively trusting in crooks. It means being a trustworthy person in a trustworthy society--i.e. a "celestial society" as you put it.

But anyway, if you'd like to dismiss what these philosophers think without first going to the effort to understand why they think what they do, that is your prerogative. 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

To clarify, are you claiming that happiness is in fact better then misery? Or is this just an arbitrary subjective whim on your part?

But is happiness better than misery? Objectively, why would you think that?

Are you claiming that being happy is better than being completely miserable and depressed? Or are these just arbitrary words that don't objectively mean anything? If happiness isn't better than misery, what would be wrong with the the Maasai and billionaires trading places so that they are all superlatively miserable? What would be wrong with that?

I I thought I made it clear that I was for the sake of argument accepting the premise that happiness is better than misery.   I personally believe it is true - "men are that they might have joy".   Remove God from the equation though and I don't know that such a philosophy can stand on the foundation of objectivity, or that happiness (and existence, for that matter) is even possible at all.  So I am in no way conceding the point, but I am happy to play along.  I think I can demonstrate that morality is relative even if I did concede that happiness is objectively better than misery - whatever that means. 

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

My point with all of this is that in trying to refute the concept of objective morality, you are implicitly agreeing with it. Sam Harris's book is called "The Moral Landscape" as a metaphor where there are multiple peaks and valleys across a landscape--just as a physical landscape has multiple peaks, the moral landscape has multiple good lives. He would argue that to the extent the Jarawa are happy and healthy, they are leading the good life. In the context of his point, "trust" doesn't mean naively trusting in crooks. It means being a trustworthy person in a trustworthy society--i.e. a "celestial society" as you put it.

But anyway, if you'd like to dismiss what these philosophers think without first going to the effort to understand why they think what they do, that is your prerogative. 

Simply because I disagree with your philosophers on some points doesn't mean that I am not educated on the subject.  I am very familiar with Sam Harris and have studied his material extensively.  I quite like him actually, even though I disagree with his conclusions.  I am very familiar with humanistic philosophy, I quite like it actually, even though I disagree with its conclusions.  If we are to believe Sam Harris, then we must concede that free-will is an illusion.  We live in a deterministic universe.  Morality in such a context would be just as illusory as free-will.  How does morality make rational sense in a deterministic universe?  Morality is about shoulds and should nots.  We can't even rationally ask in a deterministic universe, "should humans care about morality?"  In fact, we can't even ask any questions that deal with "should" in a deterministic universe, because "should" implies free-will.  Any should or morality is just an illusion in Sam Harris's world.  Moral accountability doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe.  Is it fair to punish criminals and immoral people if they were determined by the universe to do it?  It doesn't matter if it is fair or not in the end however, because we too are determined by the universe to punish them and have no free-will in the matter.  It is all rather meaningless chance in the end.  It is all an illusion.  "Moral" or "immoral", we are all the same universe moving in its determined course and everything is as it should must be.  So no point in getting all bent out of shape about immoral people, but I suppose you can't really help it.   But lets continue to judge the less rational immoral beings who just don't get it (as if they could get it if they employed their imaginary free-will better). 

Even in the context of free-will though, truth is relative from all mortal perspectives.  It is inescapable.  If morality is a truth, then it is relative.  

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I I thought I made it clear that I was for the sake of argument accepting the premise that happiness is better than misery.   I personally believe it is true - "men are that they might have joy".   Remove God from the equation though and I don't know that such a philosophy can stand on the foundation of objectivity, or that happiness (and existence, for that matter) is even possible at all.  So I am in no way conceding the point, but I am happy to play along.  I think I can demonstrate that morality is relative even if I did concede that happiness is objectively better than misery - whatever that means. 

Simply because I disagree with your philosophers on some points doesn't mean that I am not educated on the subject.  I am very familiar with Sam Harris and have studied his material extensively.  I quite like him actually, even though I disagree with his conclusions.  I am very familiar with humanistic philosophy, I quite like it actually, even though I disagree with its conclusions.  If we are to believe Sam Harris, then we must concede that free-will is an illusion.  We live in a deterministic universe.  Morality in such a context would be just as illusory as free-will.  How does morality make rational sense in a deterministic universe?  Morality is about shoulds and should nots.  We can't even rationally ask in a deterministic universe, "should humans care about morality?"  In fact, we can't even ask any questions that deal with "should" in a deterministic universe, because "should" implies free-will.  Any should or morality is just an illusion in Sam Harris's world.  Moral accountability doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe.  Is it fair to punish criminals and immoral people if they were determined by the universe to do it?  It doesn't matter if it is fair or not in the end however, because we too are determined by the universe to punish them and have no free-will in the matter.  It is all rather meaningless chance in the end.  It is all an illusion.  "Moral" or "immoral", we are all the same universe moving in its determined course and everything is as it should must be.  So no point in getting all bent out of shape about immoral people, but I suppose you can't really help it.   But lets continue to judge the less rational immoral beings who just don't get it (as if they could get it if they employed their imaginary free-will better). 

Even in the context of free-will though, truth is relative from all mortal perspectives.  It is inescapable.  If morality is a truth, then it is relative.  

Regarding ethics, we are at an impasse.

Regarding whether free will can (and does) exist in a deterministic universe, there are two empirical things we need to deal with:

1- Everything in physics and biology tells us that within the domain of applicability of the human brain, the universe is in fact deterministic. There is no evidence of a ghost with a ghostly property called "free will" behind the scenes pulling the strings. Not only is this something that hasn't been observed, it's something we have positive evidence for not existing--ghosts existing and pulling the strings in a way that would be detectible to the human brain contradicts the theory and empirical evidence supporting quantum mechanics. This is why virtually everybody in the field of cognitive neuroscience doesn't believe there is a ghost in the machine. It really isn't a controversial point. 

2- Free will exists. We aren't as free as we think--we often set on a course of action and its only after we start acting that we consciously "decide" to do what we already started doing. The perception that we decided first is an illusion. That said, in other situations we really do think about things and make decisions that for all intents and purposes really are free.

Michael Gazzaniga is an eminent neuroscientist and believes this paradox has a solution. He thinks living in a deterministic universe doesn't preclude the existence of free will. He explains how in his book, Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize his arguments, but if anybody happens to be interested, I'd recommend that book.

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

2- Free will exists. We aren't as free as we think--we often set on a course of action and its only after we start acting that we consciously "decide" to do what we already started doing. The perception that we decided first is an illusion. That said, in other situations we really do think about things and make decisions that for all intents and purposes really are free.

Perhaps it is you who needs to study the philosophical foundations of these philosophers you are quoting if you think that Sam Harris argues that free will exists.  If you are arguing that determinism and free will are mutually compatible, then you are arguing from a philosophical position of compatibilism.  Sam Harris is absolutely not a compatibilist.   These philosophers can't even agree if free-will exists, and you want me to accept that they have morality figured out?      

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Michael Gazzaniga is an eminent neuroscientist and believes this paradox has a solution. He thinks living in a deterministic universe doesn't preclude the existence of free will. He explains how in his book, Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize his arguments, but if anybody happens to be interested, I'd recommend that book.

Sam Harris is also an eminent neuroscientist and he disagrees with Michael Gazzaniga.   Before we can decide what morality is, perhaps we should decide if free-will even exists?  Until that is established, we can't really say much about morality.    Should we throw some more philosophers into the mix to complicate the matter further and demonstrate how no one really knows for sure much about anything?  Nothing objective anyway.  We can't say that we know morality is objective.  We don't even know with any degree of certainty that free will exists.  There are extremely reasonable and eminent philosophers on all sides of the argument.  Morality is on a sandy foundation of free-will and other wishy-washy philosophies.  Nothing objective. 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps it is you who needs to study the philosophical foundations of these philosophers you are quoting if you think that Sam Harris argues that free will exists.  If you are arguing that determinism and free will are mutually compatible, then you are arguing from a philosophical position of compatibilism.  Sam Harris is absolutely not a compatibilist.   These philosophers can't even agree if free-will exists, and you want me to accept that they have morality figured out?      

Sam Harris is also an eminent neuroscientist and he disagrees with Michael Gazzaniga.   Before we can decide what morality is, perhaps we should decide if free-will even exists?  Until that is established, we can't really say much about morality.    Should we throw some more philosophers into the mix to complicate the matter further and demonstrate how no one really knows for sure much about anything?  Nothing objective anyway.  We can't say that we know morality is objective.  We don't even know with any degree of certainty that free will exists.  There are extremely reasonable and eminent philosophers on all sides of the argument.  Morality is on a sandy foundation of free-will and other wishy-washy philosophies.  Nothing objective. 

To be sure I understand where you're coming from, when you say, "nothing objective" in this context, are you referring to philosophy in general, or only the subset of philosophy that doesn't believe in God?

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

To be sure I understand where you're coming from, when you say, "nothing objective" in this context, are you referring to philosophy in general, or only the subset of philosophy that doesn't believe in God?

What I mean by that is that morality, happiness, or truth for that matter, cannot be understood independent from subjective interpretation.  All truth must be filtered via the perspective of the subject.  We can't escape our subjectivity to see if how we perceive something is how it really is.  I subscribe to the philosophies of holism and perspectivism - "there are no facts, only interpretations".  We can debate back and forth whether or not these philosophies are true or not, but these philosophies have been debated from practically the beginning of time and I doubt we are going to make much progress here.  Quite reasonable and brilliant people on all sides.  

When you start deconstructing morality and the foundations that it must stand on for it to be considered "objective", it really starts to fall apart into philosophies that no one can agree on and there is no objective measure to prove who is right or wrong.  The foundation is quicksand.  Nothing solid or objective whatsoever.  So, while you can build up a moral framework around certain assumptions (including the assumption that we have free will, and that morality is anthropocentric, that my faculties of reason are reliable above others who hold to differing philosophies, and that our interpretations actually correspond with some reality outside of what we perceive to be real), the framework itself cannot be anymore solid/reliable than the foundation it stands on.

Edited October 15, 2021 by pogi

[bOObOO]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

What I mean by that is that morality, happiness, or truth for that matter, cannot be understood independent from subjective interpretation.  All truth must be filtered via the perspective of the subject.  We can't escape our subjectivity to see if how we perceive something is how it really is.  I subscribe to the philosophies of holism and perspectivism - "there are no facts, only interpretations".  We can debate back and forth whether or not these philosophies are true or not, but these philosophies have been debated from practically the beginning of time and I doubt we are going to make much progress here.  Quite reasonable and brilliant people on all sides.  

When you start deconstructing morality and the foundations that it must stand on for it to be considered "objective", it really starts to fall apart into philosophies that no one can agree on and there is no objective measure to prove who is right or wrong.  The foundation is quicksand.  Nothing solid or objective whatsoever.  So, while you can build up a moral framework around certain assumptions (including the assumption that we have free will, and that morality is anthropocentric, that my faculties of reason are reliable above others who hold to differing philosophies, and that our interpretations actually correspond with some reality outside of what we perceive to be real), the framework itself cannot be anymore solid/reliable than the foundation it stands on.

Some examples might help to illustrate the point you are making.  I always look for examples to test the truth of any statement.  When you suggest there is no objective evidence of happiness, or that it can't be seen objectively, for example, however you frame that idea, I try to think of an example that will show that, as you suggest, there is no objective way for anybody to see it.  That a smile is not a clue that someone is happy, for example, because that smile might be from something other than happiness. Or someone could just say someone isn't happy and therefore that person would not be considered to be happy, objectively, because doesn't objectivity involve everybody being able to see that "thing"?  Therefore any indication of disagreement shoots down any claim of objectivity simply because there is a disagreement on that issue, with some people saying one thing that contradicts what other people are saying, and thus objectively there is believed to be no way to see what the truth is.  All is then considered to be only subjective opinions and perspectives with no objective way, these people say, to know what the truth is.

I for one am thankful the gospel provides a solution to all of this mess.  I know the way to know what the truth is even if some people don't and think they are right when they disagree with me.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Some examples might help to illustrate the point you are making.  I always look for examples to test the truth of any statement.  When you suggest there is no objective evidence of happiness, or that it can't be seen objectively, for example, however you frame that idea, I try to think of an example that will show that, as you suggest, there is no objective way for anybody to see it.  That a smile is not a clue that someone is happy, for example, because that smile might be from something other than happiness. Or someone could just say someone isn't happy and therefore that person would not be considered to be happy, objectively, because doesn't objectivity involve everybody being able to see that "thing"?  Therefore any indication of disagreement shoots down any claim of objectivity simply because there is a disagreement on that issue, with some people saying one thing that contradicts what other people are saying, and thus objectively there is believed to be no way to see what the truth is.  All is then considered to be only subjective opinions and perspectives with no objective way, these people say, to know what the truth is.

I for one am thankful the gospel provides a solution to all of this mess.  I know the way to know what the truth is even if some people don't and think they are right when they disagree with me.

Even in science, happiness is called "subjective well-being".  There is no objective measure for it.  There may be objective evidences for it (like smiling), but ultimately we can't measure it or describe it in meaningful ways without relying on subjective reporting.  Happiness doesn't exist independent of the human mind for us to measure and observe, and it is entirely relative to the individual and shaped by a myriad of external factors such as social/cultural norms, and internal factors such as temperament.   Happiness is shaped by how we perceive the world, and our perceptions of the world are vastly limited.  Do our internal mental perceptions correspond with some external reality?  There is no way to verify that.  Pure objectivity is a myth.  We ultimately are 100% reliant on subjective perceptions.  The best science can do is help us to verify that we are indeed perceiving the same things in the same way - it can't verify if it actually corresponds with some objective reality outside of our perceptions.     

From a much broader perspective, I am talking about the limits of human reason in deciphering some universal and objective truth.  Holism posits that parts of the whole are interconnected and cannot exist or be understood/interpreted correctly without reference to the whole.  "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".   With the limitations of human perception and the seemingly infinite number of variables which comprise the whole, humankind will never, ever, take in the BIG PICTURE in mortality.  It is as if we can only see 20 pixels on a screen of trillions and trillions of pixels.  They may be blue pixels, but without seeing the yellow pixels next to them, we will never know that they are supposed to be perceived as green in the BIG PICTURE.  We may never realize in mortality that there is a vast array of different colors of pixels that influence how we perceive the pixels that we can perceive of.  

Ultimately I am simply saying that it is unreasonable to suggest that reason and logic alone can tell us that morality is objective and universal.  Anything they tell us is just their interpretation of the 20 pixels in the seemingly infinite pixels on the screen.  Every variable/pixel influences how we interpret the next, just like our perceptions of morality are intrinsically connected to our interpretation of free-will, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.  What I am saying it is just as reasonable to have faith in God.  No one can tell me that they know I am wrong based purely on their faculties of reason. 

Even in the gospel, we are all ultimately blind men feeling the elephant.  We ultimately rely an faith and hope.  

 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What I mean by that is that morality, happiness, or truth for that matter, cannot be understood independent from subjective interpretation.  All truth must be filtered via the perspective of the subject.  We can't escape our subjectivity to see if how we perceive something is how it really is.  I subscribe to the philosophies of holism and perspectivism - "there are no facts, only interpretations".  We can debate back and forth whether or not these philosophies are true or not, but these philosophies have been debated from practically the beginning of time and I doubt we are going to make much progress here.  Quite reasonable and brilliant people on all sides.  

When you start deconstructing morality and the foundations that it must stand on for it to be considered "objective", it really starts to fall apart into philosophies that no one can agree on and there is no objective measure to prove who is right or wrong.  The foundation is quicksand.  Nothing solid or objective whatsoever.  So, while you can build up a moral framework around certain assumptions (including the assumption that we have free will, and that morality is anthropocentric, that my faculties of reason are reliable above others who hold to differing philosophies, and that our interpretations actually correspond with some reality outside of what we perceive to be real), the framework itself cannot be anymore solid/reliable than the foundation it stands on.

Ultimately, all deductive logic comes down to a set of unprovable assumptions. You can't prove you aren't a disembodied head in a jar having a dream. You can't prove the universe wasn't created ex nihilo an instant ago and that our memory and our record of this conversation wasn't created in that instant. Ultimately, all foundations are unprovable quicksand.

But arguing that there are "no facts, only interpretations," is a self-defeating proposition. After all, if that statement were factually true, then that statement wouldn't be factually true, it would merely be a subjective interpretation that couldn't be objectively superior than any other subjective interpretation.

If somebody wants to play these mind games in the philosophy department then that's great. Have fun. But they quickly bore me.

In the real world, there needs to be a practical system of ethics, and according to any reasonable criteria I can think of, the ethical system of humanists such as Peter Singer, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker is the best there is. Yes, there are details humanists might disagree on and yes, the real world is complicated and things get fuzzy around the edges. Yet the fact remains that the humanist framework has few assumptions and the assumptions that it makes are easy to accept. That is why, for example, the Deseret News Editorial Board uses a humanist frame of reference when it makes arguments on issues that touch on morality. 

That is where I'm coming from. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and have a great weekend.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Analytics

[bOObOO]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even in science, happiness is called "subjective well-being".  There is no objective measure for it.  There may be objective evidences for it (like smiling), but ultimately we can't measure it or describe it in meaningful ways without relying on subjective reporting.  Happiness doesn't exist independent of the human mind for us to measure and observe, and it is entirely relative to the individual and shaped by a myriad of external factors such as social/cultural norms, and internal factors such as temperament.   Happiness is shaped by how we perceive the world, and our perceptions of the world are vastly limited.  Do our internal mental perceptions correspond with some external reality?  There is no way to verify that.  Pure objectivity is a myth.  We ultimately are 100% reliant on subjective perceptions.  The best science can do is help us to verify that we are indeed perceiving the same things in the same way - it can't verify if it actually corresponds with some objective reality outside of our perceptions.     

From a much broader perspective, I am talking about the limits of human reason in deciphering some universal and objective truth.  Holism posits that parts of the whole are interconnected and cannot exist or be understood/interpreted correctly without reference to the whole.  "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".   With the limitations of human perception and the seemingly infinite number of variables which comprise the whole, humankind will never, ever, take in the BIG PICTURE in mortality.  It is as if we can only see 20 pixels on a screen of trillions and trillions of pixels.  They may be blue pixels, but without seeing the yellow pixels next to them, we will never know that they are supposed to be perceived as green in the BIG PICTURE.  We may never realize in mortality that there is a vast array of different colors of pixels that influence how we perceive the pixels that we can perceive of.  

Ultimately I am simply saying that it is unreasonable to suggest that reason and logic alone can tell us that morality is objective and universal.  Anything they tell us is just their interpretation of the 20 pixels in the seemingly infinite pixels on the screen.  Every variable/pixel influences how we interpret the next, just like our perceptions of morality are intrinsically connected to our interpretation of free-will, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.  What I am saying it is just as reasonable to have faith in God.  No one can tell me that they know I am wrong based purely on their faculties of reason. 

Even in the gospel, we are all ultimately blind men feeling the elephant.  We ultimately rely an faith and hope.  

 

 

Wow, I am getting a lot of negative vibes from your words.  You may not perceive them negatively, but I do.  I think what we need here is one clear example of what objectivity is. What's an example of something you are saying can't be seen, objectively?

I once saw a professor of Philosophy write this statement on a chalkboard, directly above a chair that was sitting on the floor under it:  Prove this chair exists.

Is this the kind of thing you are talking about when you go on with this mumbo jumbo?  The fact that the chair existed in that moment could clearly be seen by the fact that this professor had referred to it as "this" chair. 

Words and the silly games people play with them.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But arguing that there are "no facts, only interpretations," is a self-defeating proposition. After all, if that statement were factually true, then that statement wouldn't be factually true, it would merely be a subjective interpretation that couldn't be objectively superior than any other subjective interpretation.

I think we are going to go down a semantic rabbit hole without defining terms.  I don't know what you mean by "factually true".  I am probably using those terms differently than you.  I can almost guarantee that we do not understand "truth" in the same way. 

Nietzsche would suggest that all interpretations of the world are false.  I would suggest that they are un-whole or incomplete. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If somebody wants to play these mind games in the philosophy department then that's great. Have fun. But they quickly bore me.

My point is simply to show that reason has its limits.  Everything is philosophy.  Take your pick.  There will be another one that disagrees with it.  Reason cannot solve the riddle. You cannot reason your way to objective morality without discounting other reasonable perspectives. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In the real world, there needs to be a practical system of ethics, and according to any reasonable criteria I can think of, the ethical systems of humanists such as Peter Singer, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker is the best there is.

You and I both subscribe to the philosophy pragmatism it appears.  Yet again, more philosophy...there is no way to avoid it.  I promise, you will find other reasonable philosophers who disagree with us.  My point is that reason may not be as reliable as you think.  I am trying to instill some humility in what you think you know.  I think you take it on faith, just as much as I do.   I am glad you have found something that works for you.  What works for you may not work for me.  I cannot disassociate myself from my perspective and the spiritual experiences that I have had and which work for me (practical system of happiness) and adopt a secular world-view of morality and pretend to be happy. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Yes, there are details humanists might disagree on and yes, the real world is complicated and things get fuzzy around the edges. Yet the fact remains that the humanist framework has few assumptions and the assumptions that it make are easy to accept.

It makes some pretty huge assumptions. Without first establishing those assumptions, it doesn't even make sense.  Because the foundation cannot be established, it is ultimately a faith based structure. 

[bOObOO]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Reason cannot solve the riddle. You cannot reason your way to objective morality without discounting other reasonable perspectives. 

True, but that is okay because some reasonable perspectives are not true and are not good.  You don't believe reasonable people must always agree, do you? Do you also understand that some reasonable perspectives are right while some others are wrong? 

Is anybody here under the impression that truth or righteousness is determined by vote, or that what some people think is good all reasonable people must also agree that is good?  Anybody?  Anyone on this planet, even?  Well if anyone does he is wrong.  

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

You and I both subscribe to the philosophy pragmatism it appears.  Yet again, more philosophy...there is no way to avoid it.  I promise, you will find other reasonable philosophers who disagree with us.  My point is that reason may not be as reliable as you think.  I am trying to instill some humility in what you think you know.  I think you take it on faith, just as much as I do.   I am glad you have found something that works for you.  What works for you may not work for me.  I cannot disassociate myself from my perspective and the spiritual experiences that I have had and which work for me (practical system of happiness) and adopt a secular world-view of morality and pretend to be happy. 

Actually you could do that if you were determined to do it.  All you would need is some reason, any reason, to believe something contrary to what you believe right now.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Wow, I am getting a lot of negative vibes from your words.  You may not perceive them negatively, but I do.  I think what we need here is one clear example of what objectivity is. What's an example of something you are saying can't be seen, objectively?

I once saw a professor of Philosophy write this statement on a chalkboard, directly above a chair that was sitting on the floor under it:  Prove this chair exists.

Is this the kind of thing you are talking about when you go on with this mumbo jumbo?  The fact that the chair existed in that moment could clearly be seen by the fact that this professor had referred to it as "this" chair. 

Words and the silly games people play with them.

Do you disagree with the parable of the blind men and the elephant that Elder Uchtdorf used in conference?

Quote

 

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see, " quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain, " quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: 'E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see, " quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

 

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you disagree with the parable of the blind men and the elephant that Elder Uchtdorf used in conference?

 

No.  Do you believe one person could touch every part of an elephant that every blind man could touch to determine that what they are touching is an elephant?

Edited October 15, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

True, but that is okay because some reasonable perspectives are not true and are not good.  You don't believe reasonable people must always agree, do you? Do you also understand that some reasonable perspectives are right while some others are wrong? 

If all we rely on is reason, then who is to say what is right and wrong?

Secular morality based on reason alone can't solve that issue.  That is my point. 

 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

No.  Do you believe one person could touch every part of an elephant that every blind men could touch to determine that what they are touching is an elephant?

No.  Not in mortality at least.  If they could, they would be God (the all-seeing eye).  Unless you can perceive of all things that God can perceive of, then there are still parts of the elephant that you have not touched and you can't know it in its fullness. All you have is an interpretation.  A proximation of what you have experienced.  

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

If all we rely on is reason, then who is to say what is right and wrong?

Secular morality based on reason alone can't solve that issue.  That is my point. 

 

Okay, in fewer words, that sounds much better. I agree that reason and logic alone are not enough to determine what is or is not true, especially something which at the moment we do not sense with our 5 natural senses. 

I do not say "can't" sense because sometimes what we can't sense in one moment we can sense in some other moment.  And when saying our 5 natural senses I am not including what is often thought of as our 6th sense, which I think is something like intuition.

There may be a better way to phrase this, but I will say that our spirit is what senses spiritual things.  We have 5 other senses we use to sense other things, and we also have a sense of humor.  And even though we have 7 senses to work with, we can still be wrong about something even when we are trying our best to use all of our senses effectively.

[bOObOO]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

No.  Not in mortality at least.  If they could, they would be God (the all-seeing eye).  Unless you can perceive of all things that God can perceive of, then there are still parts of the elephant that you have not touched and you can't know it in its fullness. All you have is an interpretation.  A proximation of what you have experienced.  

Oh the outside of an elephant is easy to sense.  What's harder is knowing what the elephant is thinking and where it is going.  Or where it came from if you have never seen an elephant being born.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Oh the outside of an elephant is easy to sense.  What's harder is knowing what the elephant is thinking and where it is going.  Or where it came from if you have never seen an elephant being born.

Good point.  But you do realize that the elephant is just a metaphor right?  The elephant represents the whole in holism.  It is God and all that he perceives of - all that exists.  The whole entirety of the outside of the elephant is not "easy" to sense, let alone the inside.  There is still so much that we don't know about our own human bodies, let alone the earth, every creature on it, let alone everything in the solar system, and universe, and beyond.  What we can perceive of is just a handful of pixels on a screen of seemingly endless pixels.  How ignorant we are to pretend like we can reason our way to capital T Truth with our limited perspectives.      

Edited October 15, 2021 by pogi

[bOObOO]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Good point.  But you do realize that the elephant is just a metaphor right?  The elephant represents the whole in holism.  It is God and all that he perceives of - all that exists.  The whole entirety of the outside of the elephant is not "easy" to sense, let alone the inside.  There is still so much that we don't know about our own human bodies, let alone the earth, every creature on it, let alone everything in the solar system, and universe, and beyond.  What we can perceive of is just a handful of pixels on a screen of seemingly endless pixels.  How ignorant we are to pretend like we can reason our way to capital T Truth with our limited perspectives.      

There comes some more of those negative vibes again.  What God can see is that some of us see things that some others of us do not see.  Seeing the whole of an elephant involves simply seeing all... that we... can... see... collectively... of an elephant... even while some people say there is no elephant and other people can clearly see that there is.  The parable shows me that disagreements seem to throw a lot of people off track.  As if the fact that people disagree on different issues confuses people about what they should believe and see regarding the Truth.  Like, in another context, when some people say there is an elephant while some other people say there is not.  Well is there an elephant or is there not one?  And if there is one, what is true regarding it?  All it takes to know there is one and anything about one is to see one or otherwise experience one in some way.  And then one will know for one's self whether or not there is an elephant regardless of what other people have to say about it, either way.  Just be careful to not mistake the words of some blind men for words of truth from someone who can see all there is to know about elephants.  Knowing who to believe is the key to success.

Edited October 15, 2021 by bOObOO