mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2022 Posted August 27, 2022 15 hours ago, Stargazer said: Bed now. Seriously. I get it- getting ready for guys coming to put on a new roof. Life. Can't live without it! Later !
mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2022 Posted August 27, 2022 (edited) On 8/26/2022 at 12:25 PM, DT_ said: You're welcome and thank you. I'm still very curious. If God created time, how could God have the time to create time before the creation of time? Would time before time make any sense? Of course not. Time is how OUR brains are programmed because we are finite beings. We see events one after another because we need to be able to recall our own progress intellectually etc. Time is defined by a series of events and is one of the ways our brains are designed so we remember what not to do the next time the wolf tries to eat our babies. It is sequential information- which is one of our immanent limitations. We cannot see everything at once like I can with my garage walls. Edited August 27, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
3DOP Posted August 27, 2022 Posted August 27, 2022 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I get it- getting ready for guys coming to put on a new roof. Life. Can't live without it! Later ! I heard it in a song that "it never rains in Southern California"...A new roof? Why do you need a roof, let alone a new one, anyway?
mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2022 Posted August 27, 2022 On 8/26/2022 at 12:03 PM, Chum said: I hope someone documented the bugs in earlier universes, before those gods got everything figured out. "Oh. I think solid water is going to need to float." Yeah they had to teach those prideful folks who thought the Titanic was unsinkable...
mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2022 Posted August 27, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 3DOP said: I heard it in a song that "it never rains in Southern California"...A new roof? Why do you need a roof, let alone a new one, anyway? Aw man, that ain't true! Them palm fronds are finally getting pretty thin. And the string that ties 'em is starting to break. We are going to try them newfangled plastic tarps this time. They finally left thank goodness so I am here to do real BIDNEZ with that Rorty stuff! Time for a nap everybody! Edited August 27, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted August 28, 2022 Posted August 28, 2022 On 8/26/2022 at 5:46 PM, Stargazer said: OK, I'll admit I haven't given full attention to this. I revel in my attention deficit disorder sometimes. I take it you are referring to your sig: "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. If this is the passage you mean, I'll actually buckle down and read it for effect. Tomorrow. It's a quarter to two in the morning where I am and I was supposed to be in bed three hours ago. -------- ETA: I went and had a quick look on Amazon for the book this quote comes from, and there was this first sentence in the book's description: "In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as historical contingencies, rather than as expressions of underlying, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistorical goals." Commentary: Yep, it's definitely English. Yep, I understand what most of the words mean. But when stuck all together in the sentence I haven't a quiver of an understanding of what the sentence means. Sorry, I'm still up even though I said I had to go to bed. My quick look at Amazon turned into a forehead-wrinkling puzzle. Bed now. Seriously. OK I guess I will start with the last first, because that one is the hardest. The writter uses technical jargon to those who already know what he is talking about. But Rorty would never use such language - his style is very clean. What you quoted was written by some hack reviewer from Amazon, I guess trying to sound impressive. The quote is NOT even from the book! Check it out- https://philpapers.org/rec/RORCIA-4#:~:text=In this 1989 book Rorty,as realizations of suprahistorical goals. But guess what? The writter is not wrong, just a pedantic..... person. Quote "In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as historical contingencies, rather than as expressions of underlying, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistorical goals." Ok the key words there are "ahistorical" and "suprahistorical"- What do they mean? They essentially mean NOT historical or BEYOND historical. He is saying now societies can see themselves as HISTORICALLY determined rather than determined by goals which have nothing to do with history. What does "contingency" mean here.? Essentially they mean- in philosohy- "uncertain" or "undetermined" You sign a contract to buy a house "contingent" or getting a loan. You get the loan, you get the house. You don't get the loan, you don't get the house. It's undermined/uncertain at this point whether or not you will get the house It could go either way until that "contingency" disappears and it is CERTAIN you are getting the loan and therefore the house. At this point the goal of getting the house has nothing to do with history. Therefore to translate what is said into more ordinary language, we could say: "In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Neitzsche Freud and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as undetermined historical uncertainties rather than as expressions of underlying non-historical human nature (religion) or as realizations of goals which are beyond historical goals (ethics) SO what the heck does that mean? The key here is what"underlyng, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistoical goals" mean? It means that goals OTHER THAN or beyond historical facts. Perhaps think of the loan again. Let's say you have a bunch of credit cards and you go out drinking and don't pay the bills. You are totally irresponsible with your credit. You don't get the loan for the house, Your goal was not reached- it did not become "history". The guy NOT getting the house might cite the non-historical reason for him NOT making his goal as because Satan hates him and Satan worked against him. After all human nature is "fallen" and there is nothing you can do to fix that. Or think of women's rights. It might be said that women had to carry water and do all the chores while men kicked back was because women were stupider than men. Of course this is a non-historical "fact" based on the opression of women- it is a FAKE explanation for that opression. Or slavery. Its justification might be based on beliefs of racial inferiority which are non-historically based. Or biology. He/she is better or worse because of superior/inferior biology Or religion. We are better than they are because God likes us better So these philosophers broke that cycle and allowed to see culture as based on language and culture. Reality is a social construct- things happen because of historical issues. The guy gets the loan because he constructed his own reality carefully, making sure he lived in a way that would enable him to have great credit HISTORY. History has produced his own world. Women have increased their rights and created their own new reality by showing others the historical reasons of why they have been opressed. Slavery is becoming overcome by the historical evidence of the abilities of those who used to be seen as inferior. Opressed people in general are creating their own worlds culturally We culturally construct ourselves and our own cultures by our opinions and beliefs, not historical forces This is the basis of the paradigms from philosophers Nietzsche, Freud,Rorty and Wittgenstein and many others in their similar paradigms which see the world as culturally CREATED by history. That is part of the affinity between postmodernism ( we create worlds through language) and the church IF you think it through God is human. Humans create their own worlds in which they live. We are not formed by passive forces- we create ourselves and our own worlds. So the kid who wrote this was pedantic but technically correct and got the paradigm right! Next- the Rorty siggy stuff, if anyone cares Did that help?
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2022 Popular Post Posted August 29, 2022 (edited) On 8/27/2022 at 10:11 PM, mfbukowski said: OK I guess I will start with the last first, because that one is the hardest. The writter uses technical jargon to those who already know what he is talking about. But Rorty would never use such language - his style is very clean. What you quoted was written by some hack reviewer from Amazon, I guess trying to sound impressive. The quote is NOT even from the book! Check it out- https://philpapers.org/rec/RORCIA-4#:~:text=In this 1989 book Rorty,as realizations of suprahistorical goals. But guess what? The writter is not wrong, just a pedantic..... person. Ok the key words there are "ahistorical" and "suprahistorical"- What do they mean? They essentially mean NOT historical or BEYOND historical. He is saying now societies can see themselves as HISTORICALLY determined rather than determined by goals which have nothing to do with history. What does "contingency" mean here.? Essentially they mean- in philosohy- "uncertain" or "undetermined" You sign a contract to buy a house "contingent" or getting a loan. You get the loan, you get the house. You don't get the loan, you don't get the house. It's undermined/uncertain at this point whether or not you will get the house It could go either way until that "contingency" disappears and it is CERTAIN you are getting the loan and therefore the house. At this point the goal of getting the house has nothing to do with history. Therefore to translate what is said into more ordinary language, we could say: "In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Neitzsche Freud and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as undetermined historical uncertainties rather than as expressions of underlying non-historical human nature (religion) or as realizations of goals which are beyond historical goals (ethics) SO what the heck does that mean? The key here is what"underlyng, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistoical goals" mean? It means that goals OTHER THAN or beyond historical facts. Perhaps think of the loan again. Let's say you have a bunch of credit cards and you go out drinking and don't pay the bills. You are totally irresponsible with your credit. You don't get the loan for the house, Your goal was not reached- it did not become "history". The guy NOT getting the house might cite the non-historical reason for him NOT making his goal as because Satan hates him and Satan worked against him. After all human nature is "fallen" and there is nothing you can do to fix that. Or think of women's rights. It might be said that women had to carry water and do all the chores while men kicked back was because women were stupider than men. Of course this is a non-historical "fact" based on the opression of women- it is a FAKE explanation for that opression. Or slavery. Its justification might be based on beliefs of racial inferiority which are non-historically based. Or biology. He/she is better or worse because of superior/inferior biology Or religion. We are better than they are because God likes us better So these philosophers broke that cycle and allowed to see culture as based on language and culture. Reality is a social construct- things happen because of historical issues. The guy gets the loan because he constructed his own reality carefully, making sure he lived in a way that would enable him to have great credit HISTORY. History has produced his own world. Women have increased their rights and created their own new reality by showing others the historical reasons of why they have been opressed. Slavery is becoming overcome by the historical evidence of the abilities of those who used to be seen as inferior. Opressed people in general are creating their own worlds culturally We culturally construct ourselves and our own cultures by our opinions and beliefs, not historical forces This is the basis of the paradigms from philosophers Nietzsche, Freud,Rorty and Wittgenstein and many others in their similar paradigms which see the world as culturally CREATED by history. That is part of the affinity between postmodernism ( we create worlds through language) and the church IF you think it through God is human. Humans create their own worlds in which they live. We are not formed by passive forces- we create ourselves and our own worlds. So the kid who wrote this was pedantic but technically correct and got the paradigm right! Next- the Rorty siggy stuff, if anyone cares Did that help? OK - now on to the REAL Rorty stuff. @Stargazer This is the part that explains my siggy 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. OK let's start with a couple of true stories. When I was in 8th grade at Catholic school, our youth group was led by a kid who's dad was an actual Hollywood actor. Let's call him Doug, since that was his name Being fervent, and since Easter was coming we wanted to put on a "Passion Play" about the crucifixion of Jesus. A little ambitious? You can say that again. BUT 8th grade = The Age of Hormones! And besides we had Doug's dad, a professional actor to help us! We wanted it to look as professional as we could. But how could we? I was thinking about how movies are not about "real" things- probably because I was easily scared by them- and my mom kept telling me "Don't be scared! It's just a movie! It's not real! A year or two before I had nightmares about the wicked witch in Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" but then I was 11 years old and clearly too adult to be scared by a little kid's movie! After all I was 10 years old and nearly an adult and should not be crying about a stupid movie! But that gave us an idea about how to do the passion play- it had to LOOK as "real" as we could get it- but we were just kids, so how were we going to pull that off?? I think it was Doug's dad who gave us the idea of doing it all in shadows! Huh?? Catholic elementary schools have "auditoriums" just like a ward building has a "cultural hall"- often complete with basketball hoops- and a stage, curtains etc. So we got some white bedsheets, and our moms sewed them together so that we had a screen large enough to put across the front of the stage. We put a light behind the curtain, and stood between the light and the screen. Shadows! It was like making shadow pictures as a little kid! We put on bathrobes to look like robes. We made cutouts out of cardboard so we could project the experience of “trees” and “rocks” and even houses for the background. The kids acted out bible passages in the shadows, and the guy with the deepest voice became the “narrator”. We got soundtrack movie records from the music from Ben Hur and Quo Vadis, and recorded them on tape and edited the tape, and narrated the action. We made a cardboard “cross” and a kid stood on a stool behind a fake “rock” and put his arms up on the crossmember of the “cross”. We practiced like crazy! Finally the night came for the performance. It went pretty well, no huge mistakes. The pressure was over! It was done! Everybody just wanted to get home. We took off the bathrobes and headed for the other side of where our parents and the audience were, looking to find them so we could get home. I was really tired! It was a lot of stress! I expected the usual happy voices and laughter you would usually hear after a parish dinner or movie. But it was pretty quiet. People were standing in small groups looking very serious. They would grab our hands and say that the show was “wonderful” and “professional” and “moving” and some actually had tears in their eyes! At least one said “it was almost like the show was done by angels” I could not believe it! We were just kids in bathrobes. OK- now a Rorty question- Which experiences were real? Were we really kids in bathrobes or were we almost like “angels” in bringing people to near “spiritual experiences”?? Which reality was “true”? That is for another time- so far we are only discussing my signature and making sure all can understand it. Around the same time I had another similar experience. My father was an aerospace engineer. His grandmother- my great grandmother- was born in Poland in a small village in the late 1860’s. She ran a business and was the matriarch of a large and successful family and she was known for her wisdom. She was sitting in her rocking chair, looking exactly like “Whistler’s Mother”. My dad spoke to her in Polish “Grandma, did you know that this chair that you are sitting in that seems so solid is actually made up of tiny little balls- so small that you cannot see them- called “atoms”. And the material is NOT solid at all- there is space between each atom! In fact all these little atoms are moving constantly! Grandma looked at him with concern. “Oh my dear grandson- are you alright? My rocker is very steady and it does not move unless I am rocking- I am safe- I am so worried about you!” She became quite concerned but we were able to convince her it was a misunderstanding. So which account of her rocker was true? That is for another time- but the answer is that the best paradigm for the purpose of the inquirer can be seen as "true" So for a physicist the atomic paradigm may be the "best" and what is "true". For a great grandmother, seeing her rocking chair as solid and dependable is probably the best paradigm. Rorty: " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states." So we do not make up the world in our minds. Clearly there is something out there. There are things like rocking chairs and crosses that our mental states have not made or imagined- there is something causing these impressions. If you think it is all made up, you might have mental problems!! But what does that have to do with “truth”?? Were the children experienced as little kids in bathrobes “true” OR the children who caused religious or religious-like experiences “true”? That is to be discussed further later- not in this huge post. Were the wiggly atoms “true” or was the solid armchair true? R:To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, None of those “THINGS” are “TRUE”. There are no true armchairs, or true people or true atoms. There are only true statements like “The armchair is solid” – “The armchair is not solid” “The armchair is made of atoms”, “The kids were dressed in bathrobes” The kids looked like Jesus and the apostles” etc. that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Who is making these sentences like “the rocking chair is solid”? “The rocking chair is made of atoms”, and the others? Are these sentences being said by humans? OF COURSE! Who else can make sentences?? That’s because sentences themselves MUST be spoken words- spoken by humans! Dogs don’t talk! Chairs don’t talk! So of course human language and human statements and since we are the only beings making sentences, those sentences are human creations! So far we have: 1- There IS a world out there beyond human perception and not made by us. 2- Things are not true or false- only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false 3- Sentences are only made by humans and so are clearly human creations More Rorty: Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. This is a conclusion which puts together what we have so far. Truth can only be found in human sentences, not things. Truth therefore is not “out there” independent of human sentences. So truth must be something HUMANS CREATE - it does not exist independent of human sentences! 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." So which human interpretation of perceptions is "true"? It is variable according to what paradigm answers the purposes of the inquirer the best and is congruent with other paradigms about the subject Edited August 29, 2022 by mfbukowski 6
CV75 Posted August 29, 2022 Posted August 29, 2022 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: OK - now on to the REAL Rorty stuff. @Stargazer This is the part that explains my siggy OK let's start with a couple of true stories. When I was in 8th grade at Catholic school, our youth group was led by a kid who's dad was an actual Hollywood actor. Let's call him Doug, since that was his name Being fervent, and since Easter was coming we wanted to put on a "Passion Play" about the crucifixion of Jesus. A little ambitious? You can say that again. BUT 8th grade = The Age of Hormones! And besides we had Doug's dad, a professional actor to help us! We wanted it to look as professional as we could. But how could we? I was thinking about how movies are not about "real" things- probably because I was easily scared by them- and my mom kept telling me "Don't be scared! It's just a movie! It's not real! A year or two before I had nightmares about the wicked witch in Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" but then I was 11 years old and clearly too adult to be scared by a little kid's movie! After all I was 10 years old and nearly an adult and should not be crying about a stupid movie! But that gave us an idea about how to do the passion play- it had to LOOK as "real" as we could get it- but we were just kids, so how were we going to pull that off?? I think it was Doug's dad who gave us the idea of doing it all in shadows! Huh?? Catholic elementary schools have "auditoriums" just like a ward building has a "cultural hall"- often complete with basketball hoops- and a stage, curtains etc. So we got some white bedsheets, and our moms sewed them together so that we had a screen large enough to put across the front of the stage. We put a light behind the curtain, and stood between the light and the screen. Shadows! It was like making shadow pictures as a little kid! We put on bathrobes to look like robes. We made cutouts out of cardboard so we could project the experience of “trees” and “rocks” and even houses for the background. The kids acted out bible passages in the shadows, and the guy with the deepest voice became the “narrator”. We got soundtrack movie records from the music from Ben Hur and Quo Vadis, and recorded them on tape and edited the tape, and narrated the action. We made a cardboard “cross” and a kid stood on a stool behind a fake “rock” and put his arms up on the crossmember of the “cross”. We practiced like crazy! Finally the night came for the performance. It went pretty well, no huge mistakes. The pressure was over! It was done! Everybody just wanted to get home. We took off the bathrobes and headed for the other side of where our parents and the audience were, looking to find them so we could get home. I was really tired! It was a lot of stress! I expected the usual happy voices and laughter you would usually hear after a parish dinner or movie. But it was pretty quiet. People were standing in small groups looking very serious. They would grab our hands and say that the show was “wonderful” and “professional” and “moving” and some actually had tears in their eyes! At least one said “it was almost like the show was done by angels” I could not believe it! We were just kids in bathrobes. OK- now a Rorty question- Which experiences were real? Were we really kids in bathrobes or were we almost like “angels” in bringing people to near “spiritual experiences”?? Which reality was “true”? That is for another time- so far we are only discussing my signature and making sure all can understand it. Around the same time I had another similar experience. My father was an aerospace engineer. His grandmother- my great grandmother- was born in Poland in a small village in the late 1860’s. She ran a business and was the matriarch of a large and successful family and she was known for her wisdom. She was sitting in her rocking chair, looking exactly like “Whistler’s Mother”. My dad spoke to her in Polish “Grandma, did you know that this chair that you are sitting in that seems so solid is actually made up of tiny little balls- so small that you cannot see them- called “atoms”. And the material is NOT solid at all- there is space between each atom! In fact all these little atoms are moving constantly! Grandma looked at him with concern. “Oh my dear grandson- are you alright? My rocker is very steady and it does not move unless I am rocking- I am safe- I am so worried about you!” She became quite concerned but we were able to convince her it was a misunderstanding. So which account of her rocker was true? That is for another time- but the answer is that the best paradigm for the purpose of the inquirer can be seen as "true" So for a physicist the atomic paradigm may be the "best" and what is "true". For a great grandmother, seeing her rocking chair as solid and dependable is probably the best paradigm. Rorty: " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states." So we do not make up the world in our minds. Clearly there is something out there. There are things like rocking chairs and crosses that our mental states have not made or imagined- there is something causing these impressions. If you think it is all made up, you might have mental problems!! But what does that have to do with “truth”?? Were the children experienced as little kids in bathrobes “true” OR the children who caused religious or religious-like experiences “true”? That is to be discussed further later- not in this huge post. Were the wiggly atoms “true” or was the solid armchair true? R:To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, None of those “THINGS” are “TRUE”. There are no true armchairs, or true people or true atoms. There are only true statements like “The armchair is solid” – “The armchair is not solid” “The armchair is made of atoms”, “The kids were dressed in bathrobes” The kids looked like Jesus and the apostles” etc. that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Who is making these sentences like “the rocking chair is solid”? “The rocking chair is made of atoms”, and the others? Are these sentences being said by humans? OF COURSE! Who else can make sentences?? That’s because sentences themselves MUST be spoken words- spoken by humans! Dogs don’t talk! Chairs don’t talk! So of course human language and human statements and since we are the only beings making sentences, those sentences are human creations! So far we have: 1- There IS a world out there beyond human perception and not made by us. 2- Things are not true or false- only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false 3- Sentences are only made by humans and so are clearly human creations More Rorty: Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. This is a conclusion which puts together what we have so far. Truth can only be found in human sentences, not things. Truth therefore is not “out there” independent of human sentences. So truth must be something HUMANS CREATE - it does not exist independent of human sentences! 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." So which human interpretation of perceptions is "true"? It is variable according to what paradigm answers the purposes of the inquirer the best and is congruent with other paradigms about the subject This is probably the best explanation you've given on your siggy! 1
Pyreaux Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) On 8/17/2022 at 4:21 PM, DT_ said: Okay. I have two questions. The second question is dependent on the answer to the first one. I'm interested in your opinions. Is God omniscient? We don't often pontificate on problems intended for metaphysical religions, which Mormonism is not. Mormonism teaches many principles as being relative rather than absolute. What does one mean by Omniscience? all-knowing · all-wise · all-seeing? What is "all"? It is certainly meant to include all knowledge relative to human knowledge, all we know, perhaps He knows all that has transpired before, all history. Perhaps He knows all deeds done in the dark, nothing hidden. Thats near the limit of certainty. Is knowledge limited or ever increasing? Did God create time? No. The laws of the universe are self-existent, unauthored law, which God himself obeys and administers as God. "The light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise, there is no existence" (D&C 93:29-30). Both Time and Eternity is relative. For instance, Eternal punishment is not infinite in Mormonism, because eternity does not mean infinity. Hence the old classic atheistic argument; Why infinite punishment for a finite sin? As infinity only exists in geometry, its not a Hebrew idea of eternal. God did not create time, he may have set some clocks in motion, but the "laws and principles" are uncreated actualities. There are uncreate actualities, like evil. It does not follow, within an LDS worldview, that God is the creator of evil (the choices of other autonomous agents) or chaos (the properties of uncreated chaotic matter). Furthermore, omnipotence is not understood as the power to bring about any state of affairs absolutely, but rather as the power to bring about any state of affairs consistent with the natures of coeternal realities. Thus Mormonism's answer to the classic atheistic dilemma: Why is an All Good and all Powerful God is unwilling or unable to prevent evil? Because evil is an eternal principle, introduced as a necessary condition of achieving the greater good. Such as; the production of genuinely righteous personalities. Good can't truly exist if we do not have the agency to choose evil. Evil is relative to good. Mormonism answered these issues a long time ago, these are not our problems. Edited August 30, 2022 by Pyreaux 2
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, CV75 said: This is probably the best explanation you've given on your siggy! Thanks. I'm trying! Psalm 115: the clash between reality including human experience and the false idols of scientific empiricism: " 3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. 9 O Israel, trust thou in the Lord: he is their help and their shield." THAT is William James Edited August 30, 2022 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 3 hours ago, Pyreaux said: We don't often pontificate on problems intended for metaphysical religions, which Mormonism is not. Mormonism teaches many principles as being relative rather than absolute. What does one mean by Omniscience? all-knowing · all-wise · all-seeing? What is "all"? It is certainly meant to include all knowledge relative to human knowledge, all we know, perhaps He knows all that has transpired before, all history. Perhaps He knows all deeds done in the dark, nothing hidden. Thats near the limit of certainty. Is knowledge limited or ever increasing? Did God create time? No. The laws of the universe are self-existent, unauthored law, which God himself obeys and administers as God. "The light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise, there is no existence" (D&C 93:29-30). Both Time and Eternity is relative. For instance, Eternal punishment is not infinite in Mormonism, because eternity does not mean infinity. Hence the old classic atheistic argument; Why infinite punishment for a finite sin? As infinity only exists in geometry, its not a Hebrew idea of eternal. God did not create time, he may have set some clocks in motion, but the "laws and principles" are uncreated actualities. There are uncreate actualities, like evil. It does not follow, within an LDS worldview, that God is the creator of evil (the choices of other autonomous agents) or chaos (the properties of uncreated chaotic matter). Furthermore, omnipotence is not understood as the power to bring about any state of affairs absolutely, but rather as the power to bring about any state of affairs consistent with the natures of coeternal realities. Thus Mormonism's answer to the classic atheistic dilemma: Why is an All Good and all Powerful God is unwilling or unable to prevent evil? Because evil is an eternal principle, introduced as a necessary condition of achieving the greater good. Such as; the production of genuinely righteous personalities. Good can't truly exist if we do not have the agency to choose evil. Evil is relative to good. Mormonism answered these issues a long time ago, these are not our problems. Wonderful post read the one on Psalms 115, above. YOU get it Brother! 1
Calm Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 7 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Because evil is an eternal principle Can you define what this means, please. I want to see if I am understanding you correctly (for me evil does not exist independently of an actor so I am assuming you mean it has eternally meant certain behaviour is seen as evil because it is destructive, interfering with progression and other “good” things, etc.)
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Calm said: Can you define what this means, please. I want to see if I am understanding you correctly (for me evil does not exist independently of an actor so I am assuming you mean it has eternally meant certain behaviour is seen as evil because it is destructive, interfering with progression and other “good” things, etc.) Sorry for butting in here, but because of the very existence of "opposition in all things" evil can be seen as the other side of good, just logically, and linguistically I do not create metaphysics, for me, neither good nor evil are out there floating around as abstract forces or Platonic Forms, they are just words describing behaviors and events as favorable for mankind or not. They are adjectives not nouns They are concepts / words we have designed to describe "situations". So no, neither good nor evil "exists" independent of an actor. They are logical principles, so they can be seen as "eternal" in the same way "plus" "exists" in eternal opposition to "minus". But both are descriptions of what humankind likes or dislikes, so of course they both need actors to act so we can describe the behavior with the adjectives "good" or "evil". There goes the "problem " of evil, another Pragmatic victory! Edited August 30, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
Calm Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry for butting in here, but because of the very existence of "opposition in all things" evil can be seen as the other side of good, just logically, and linguistically I do not create metaphysics, for me, neither good nor evil are out there floating around as abstract forces or Platonic Forms, they are just words describing behaviors and events as favorable for mankind or not. They are adjectives not nouns They are concepts / words we have designed to describe "situations". So no, neither good nor evil "exists" independent of an actor. They are logical principles, so they can be seen as "eternal" in the same way "plus" "exists" in eternal opposition to "minus". But both are descriptions of what humankind likes or dislikes, so of course they both need actors to act so we can describe the behavior with the adjectives "good" or "evil". There goes the "problem " of evil, another Pragmatic victory! Which is why I define evil as that which interferes with progression, by which I mean eternal progression towards God, but also it has to be a behaviour that has intent and not something natural that just happens to us that we need to deal with to get back to our efforts to progress (a drunk driver causing an accident resulting in a death is evil, a lightening strike hitting someone causing a death is unfortunate, but not evil even if it feels that way to those who suffer from the loss of a loved one). But I already knew you defined it that way, Mark, :). I want to know if Pyreaux does as well or if he sees it differently. Edited August 30, 2022 by Calm
Pyreaux Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, Calm said: Can you define what this means, please. I want to see if I am understanding you correctly (for me evil does not exist independently of an actor so I am assuming you mean it has eternally meant certain behaviour is seen as evil because it is destructive, interfering with progression and other “good” things, etc.) Yes, but agents of evil are primarily uncreated, as intelligence is uncreated and eternal in origin. These agents a then allowed to exist, as Lehi's 'Theory of Relativity' taught us that evil is a natural consequence of having desired agency, everyone's capacity for evil is ever linked to every agent's capacity for good. In order for God to remove evil is by removing agency itself. But he will not, removing agency and emotion doesn't make a person 'good' or 'happy' simply because you shielded them from 'evil' and 'misery'. There must be opposition in all things otherwise neither exists. Furthermore, evil is eternal in the sense, if God removed agency and thus the capacity for evil, the principle hasn't ceased to exist, it's just an unimplemented principle, if implemented is not suddenly invented. Or there might be a pre-existing external dark force. I've read it, Pre-mortal Spirits needed bodies because in their former states were subject to the oppression of the "forces of darkness". That could mean their personal darkness, other's darkness or the is an actually an external dark force in the pre-mortal existence. After all, who or what tempted the devil to rebel? The Jewish concept, the Evil Inclination? The Dark Side of the Force maybe? Not even God places himself beyond the boundary of his implemented principle of agency, as it seems even God ever has capacity to do evil. Though he won't, as he'd cease to be God. LDS don't think in metaphysics, such as that he creates all things as though it includes uncreated things like; tangible evil, the void of space, or matter, neither can He annihilate matter (it can only become energy {which is refined matter}, matter is eternal). These are things that limit even God. Omnipotence then is all that may or can be done by power conditioned by these other eternal actualities, God can do. But even God may not act out of harmony with the other eternal actualities which conditions or limits even himself. He will not violate our agency. Assuming, as some LDS don't, that it is even truly possible to remove agency in some absolute metaphysical sense. Some think the proposal of Lucifer was either an empty promise, impossible or he was talking about removing opportunities to make moral choices, perhaps by having no moral law at all or by extreme tyrannical control of our very beings so it's impossible to do what you would rather do. Edited August 31, 2022 by Pyreaux 1
CV75 Posted August 30, 2022 Posted August 30, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry for butting in here, but because of the very existence of "opposition in all things" evil can be seen as the other side of good, just logically, and linguistically I do not create metaphysics, for me, neither good nor evil are out there floating around as abstract forces or Platonic Forms, they are just words describing behaviors and events as favorable for mankind or not. They are adjectives not nouns They are concepts / words we have designed to describe "situations". So no, neither good nor evil "exists" independent of an actor. They are logical principles, so they can be seen as "eternal" in the same way "plus" "exists" in eternal opposition to "minus". But both are descriptions of what humankind likes or dislikes, so of course they both need actors to act so we can describe the behavior with the adjectives "good" or "evil". There goes the "problem " of evil, another Pragmatic victory! ...and of course the actors (those who create) require something upon which to act ("the [material] out there"), and when they are done, they describe it (to anyone who they can draw to listen -- who will "come and see") as "good/bad" or "true/false" according to their personal ideal. 1
Stargazer Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 (edited) 18 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Not even God places himself beyond the boundary of his implemented principle, even God ever has capacity to do evil, though he'd cease to be God. That provokes an interesting wrinkle in the ubiquitous atheist trope of the type, "Can God create a mass so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" And the wrinkle is actually a question for theists: "Is God capable of doing evil?" This one does not rely upon a trick. It asks a genuine question about capacity. Is the answer yes or no? If God is not capable of doing evil, then He is not omnipotent. If He's not omnipotent, then He's not God. At least in the classical sense. LDS believe that God is capable of doing evil, as you say. He just doesn't do it. This then leads to the question, "What thing could God do that would be evil?" It's not the same thing that humans can do which might be evil. In our case, doing evil involves breaking a commandment of God. These commandments cannot apply to God. Take the first one, for instance: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Can God break it? ROFL. Another: "Thou shalt not steal." God owns everything, so stealing isn't even definable for God. It seems to me, at least, that there must be a higher level of Law for God. And upon due consideration I feel that the Law that God is subject to is Love. 1 John 4:8 expresses this succinctly: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." So if God is love, there must be objects of that love. What are the objects of God's love? It's pretty clear, in my humble opinion, that the objects of God's love are His creations, particularly Us. God's purpose must be wrapped up very closely with the objects of His love, I feel. And He states His purpose in Moses 1:39, where He says "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." It thus appears that it would be a Sin*** for God to not create children and teach and test them to see if they could be raised to eternal life (which is the life God Himself enjoys). In other words, God avoids Sin by procreating and raising His creations to become like Him. Because that's His purpose, and His glory. Everything that God is must bend towards that purpose. And part of our test seems to be that we're put into a similar situation to the one God is in, where we reproduce and then raise children to adulthood. Are we willing to do it? Will we be righteous in our doing of it? And if we are unable to do this due to circumstances beyond our control, were we at least willing to do it? If we are not willing, or if we intentionally treat our own little creations unjustly, then perhaps we are not worthy of God's life, because that IS His life. Other Christians might say that God cannot do evil because if God does it, whatever "it" is, it is not evil. Which leads to the conclusion that there is no good or evil, because if God cannot do evil because anything He does is good, then God Himself is lawless. I don't think I could trust such a god. But the predestinators among us, such as the Calvinists, would be perfectly happy with that, since god can do what he wants, regardless of the apparent justice of the act. In order to be sure of what I just wrote, I read up a little bit on Calvinism. What a perfectly awful theology. And Saint Augustine, who long predated Calvin, had a touch of it. He explicitly defended god's justice in sending newborn and stillborn babies to hell if they died without baptism. *** I'm capitalizing "Sin" in this case because this is a sin that only God can commit, and I wanted to distinguish it from our petty sins. Edited August 31, 2022 by Stargazer 1
Stargazer Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 On 8/29/2022 at 7:35 AM, mfbukowski said: OK - now on to the REAL Rorty stuff. Thanks for that! It really helps!
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said: Both are or were relatively true, I would say. You were 1) really kids (aka children, not baby goats) in bathrobes and 2) you were almost (if not really) angels (messengers) in bringing people to near spiritual experiences. It was the same reality as viewed from different perspectives within it. Okay. How do you account for people being able to see things they believe are true but which are not true? Or do you believe everything people see is true, with no way to see what is not true? Do you agree both perspectives are true? I believe I can see the truth from both of those perspectives. I appreciate the use of repetitive statements and questions. I still say both were true in the sense that both were real and present in reality during the time of that event as viewed by people from particular perspectives. I would rather say ALL of those THINGS are true. There are no true armchairs, or and true people or and true atoms. There are only true statements like “The armchair is feels solid” – “The armchair is not solid” “The armchair is made of atoms”, “The kids were dressed in bathrobes” The kids looked like Jesus and the apostles” etc. I would also say truth is not dependent on sentences or any other means to communicate what is true. Truth would exist even if nobody said anything about what is true. We can all see and know what is true without saying a word. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng Our ability to communicate our thoughts and feelings with words to each other is a wonderful thing, sometimes, but communication is not what determines whether or not some thing is true. We can make statements which agree with what is really true but we can also make statements which do not measure up to truth or reality. How do you propose someone correctly determine if what someone says is the truth? What would you measure their statement against as a standard of what is the truth? Example: Bob says something. Jim then wonders if what Bob has said is the truth. What would YOU say to Bob? How would YOU help Bob to know what is true? Premise 2 is false, according to what I have been taught about truth. You seem to believe that premise is true. How do you propose we reach a consensus about whether or not that premise is true? Until we agree we will not agree on that point. Truth is not dependent on sentences. Sentences only communicate whether or not something is true, and sentences aren't necessarily true. How do you determine whether or not a sentence is true? At this point I will cease to comment. I have said all I want to say about this, for now. Maybe later I will say more while staying on topic with the point in a thread. God our Father does know every thing that exists in reality, which is every thing that is true. There isn't any thing he does not know. One of my goals is to eventually know every thing as well as he knows every thing. I also want to love as much as he does. Thanks for an informed response, I have been LDS for over 40 years after coming from a philosophical background, due to spiritual experiences. I had philosophically discovered how to justify spiritual experiences philosophically and have been trying to find the holy grail to how to communicate philosopically with educated faithful LDS folks, who for good reason have not been philosophically educated. The problem is that the secular world in which we live has been brainwashed by scientism and only sees that spiritual experience is "bunk", because the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. That is "false" according to my philosophical paradigm; to me spiritual experience is as "real" as walking down the street, not getting hit in the crosswalk and admiring the beautiful color of the sky which we call "blue", but even educated LDS folks adhere to some kind metaphysical world which we cannot experience, to which squiggles on a page ("words") supposedly can "correspond". Believing the correspondence theory of truth demands belief in some metaphysical world outside of what we experience -"out there" which we cannot access. So speaking of "true chairs" implies the actual existence of "false chairs". You could go to a furniture store and label some as true, and others as false. I disagree that that is sensible But YES it all relies on perspective! And that was the main point, that there are many perspectives/ paradigms. If you get that way of seeing, we are on the same team!
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 (edited) @Jim Dandy Said: "How do you account for people being able to see things they believe are true but which are not true? Or do you believe everything people see is true, with no way to see what is not true?" I think truth is ineffable, and cannot be defined philosophically. It hasn't been successfully defined in 2500 years of western philosophy. Kuhn, Pragmatism, and paradigms are the best way to see it, as you put it "from different perspectives" and purposes. I see paradigms ( theories) that work or don't work, some better than others, all are relative For me, seeing things "not true" only applies to mirages and optical illusions. Truth is kind of like "obscenity" We know it when we see it, we use the term and know what it means, but we can't define it Edited August 31, 2022 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Jim Dandy said: 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: How do you account for people being able to see things they believe are true but which are not true? How do you know which are true and which are not?
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said: I understand some of the frustrations stemming from people not agreeing with each other, but I don't think the crux of the frustrations stem from the relativity or correspondence of truth. Things are often like other things or are used as symbols to represent other things, so comparing something "out there" to what we can see around us down or around here can be beneficial in communications, even though people understanding each other still won't necessarily lead to agreement. An example in my mind of a "false chair" would be something that isn't a chair in reality. One of the 3 chairs in the story of Goldilocks and the 3 bears, for example. That is not reality, so those are not true chairs. Although we're supposed to pretend and imagine they are as we read and try to understand that story. What we're dealing with here, talking with people who don't believe what we believe in our religion, is a lack of belief that our stories are real. They don't believe they are true accounts of history as written by the real men who wrote them as God inspired them to write. We sometimes call these people unbelievers because they don't believe us and what we call scripture, but let's try to look at this issue from a scientific perspective while asking what it would take for them to be able to believe what we tell them.. Would it make any difference if the unbelievers had lived during a specific time when a prophet was writing scripture as God inspired him to write it? Or to see a prophet lead God's people as God inspired him to lead those people with God's guidance? What if they actually saw a prophet write scripture and then later saw that scripture combined in a book with other scripture? Imagine a mortal man living 3000 years, healthy, from the time of one of Noah's grandsons to however that math works out. Would it help if they could actually talk to a prophet, or several prophets, maybe even a whole school filled with prophets to ask those prophets whatever questions they wanted to ask? Those prophets were still mortal men who most likely made some mistakes. How is any unbeliever supposed to be able to find out who is really speaking for God, when he is? How is anyone supposed to know the truth of things they can't see with their mortal eyes? Prophets don't wear halos and precepts of truth down flow down to a prophets mind in some visible ray from heaven. What is there to test, scientifically? Where is the physical evidence that would show that some truth had come to man from God? So what we're really talking about here is how to gain knowledge which can only be obtained from God through faith. All the she scientific evidence... the who said what, when, why and where... isn't enough to help anyone get that faith. This is the crux of the problem so let's get to it. These are YOUR ideas, how do you know history is "True"? My way is simpler I believe they "really happened" but find that irrelevant to their value as principles to live by. They stand alone. Nobody worries if Platonic forms are "real" or where "inalienable rights" float in our "refined material" universe It always comes down to this in philosophy. Frankly now I see the addiction to history as idolatry. We worship unprovable stories instead of our own true experiences! More in a minute.. editing right now.. Psalm 115
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2022 Posted August 31, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said: Movies... do you classify those as mirages or optical illusions? How about visual images you see in your mind while reading a book... any book that inspires you to have visual images? Mirage or optical illusion? Or how about vision? What do you think a vision is? Should I suppose you would disagree with ANYONE who says he or she can define what truth is? Who do you mean when you say "we"? Do you mean a collective definition of truth everyone agrees or would agree with? Quote Movies... do you classify those as mirages or optical illusions? Of course not. These are more like "literature" or the bible or BOM etc. as subjectively true, - they manifest themselves as "true" by living the principles- or science as objectively true. Different points of view as you said. Quote How about visual images you see in your mind while reading a book... any book that inspires you to have visual images? Mirage or optical illusion? Or how about vision? What do you think a vision is? These are all experiences. Some work others don't. If they are functional in content, we call them "true" Everything we see is interpreted by our cerebral cortex and patched together as are dreams. The difference is that a mirage says "I am water" in our experience up until a certain point where it becomes sand. Then we notice our perceptions have been illusions. When you LIVE the principles in Alma 32, you find them "sweet" just as the book said you would. We call that "truth" Quote Should I suppose you would disagree with ANYONE who says he or she can define what truth is? Who do you mean when you say "we"? Do you mean a collective definition of truth everyone agrees or would agree with? I am speaking about professionals in their fields who know what works and doesn't work for its intended purpose. Is this a true statement? "The covid vaccine is safe and effective in preventing covid". Notice the statement does not say "Covid vaccine is true" which is like saying "Armchairs are true". It puts the statement in the realm in which it is being stated. I know for a fact that Alma 32 when speaking of truth is an effective principle to believe in making one's life "sweet" Anyone can put forth a theory of truth but it must be tried by people experienced in arguments for an against truth determinations-- which would be philosophers, or prophets. I accept Alma 32's defintion and Richard Rorty's lack of definition, as he modifies it. Alma would agree completly with Rorty, taking into account that Rorty is an atheist- sort of- but that's a long story. I accept the same paradigm for truth as Richard Rorty, philosopher. Here a TED video I thought to be excellent. There is NOTHING humans can know that have not come through a human brain interpreting its surroundings. There is NOTHING we can know about what is NOT KNOWABLE. Virtually all we know that is important to us cnnot be shared. How do you feel about your significant other? What gives you purpose in life? That's enough for now. This frankly is usually where communication breaks down. One must accept "subjective" as "real" to accept that religious experience is "real'. Either the subjective is "real" or we live in a world that is beyond human perception or understanding or being "real" and is not of God. https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality Quote from video: Quote Imagine being a brain. You're locked inside a bony skull, trying to figure what's out there in the world. There's no lights inside the skull. There's no sound either. All you've got to go on is streams of electrical impulses which are only indirectly related to things in the world, whatever they may be. So perception -- figuring out what's there -- has to be a process of informed guesswork in which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn't hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what's out there in the world. Religious experience of course gets in there as well. It is the "still small voice" which evolved, or we are programmed to receive, according to your point of view. I believe the Latter Edited August 31, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 3 hours ago, Jim Dandy said: I understand some of the frustrations stemming from people not agreeing with each other, but I don't think the crux of the frustrations stem from the relativity or correspondence of truth. Things are often like other things or are used as symbols to represent other things, so comparing something "out there" to what we can see around us down or around here can be beneficial in communications, even though people understanding each other still won't necessarily lead to agreement. An example in my mind of a "false chair" would be something that isn't a chair in reality. One of the 3 chairs in the story of Goldilocks and the 3 bears, for example. That is not reality, so those are not true chairs. Although we're supposed to pretend and imagine they are as we read and try to understand that story. What we're dealing with here, talking with people who don't believe what we believe in our religion, is a lack of belief that our stories are real. They don't believe they are true accounts of history as written by the real men who wrote them as God inspired them to write. We sometimes call these people unbelievers because they don't believe us and what we call scripture, but let's try to look at this issue from a scientific perspective while asking what it would take for them to be able to believe what we tell them.. Would it make any difference if the unbelievers had lived during a specific time when a prophet was writing scripture as God inspired him to write it? Or to see a prophet lead God's people as God inspired him to lead those people with God's guidance? What if they actually saw a prophet write scripture and then later saw that scripture combined in a book with other scripture? Imagine a mortal man living 3000 years, healthy, from the time of one of Noah's grandsons to however that math works out. Would it help if they could actually talk to a prophet, or several prophets, maybe even a whole school filled with prophets to ask those prophets whatever questions they wanted to ask? Those prophets were still mortal men who most likely made some mistakes. How is any unbeliever supposed to be able to find out who is really speaking for God, when he is? How is anyone supposed to know the truth of things they can't see with their mortal eyes? Prophets don't wear halos and precepts of truth down flow down to a prophets mind in some visible ray from heaven. What is there to test, scientifically? Where is the physical evidence that would show that some truth had come to man from God? So what we're really talking about here is how to gain knowledge which can only be obtained from God through faith. All the she scientific evidence... the who said what, when, why and where... isn't enough to help anyone get that faith. You can't see that since ALL our perceptions are organized by our spirits/mind/brain/visions and that includes spiritual experience? What is your account then or justification of say, Joseph's vision as "real" when discussing this with an atheist ? If it doesn't make sense to them, nobody will try Moroni's promise! If they understand that spiritual experience INCLUDES one's conscience, they might consider it. Everyone has experienced that! Enough already. ...
Calm Posted September 1, 2022 Posted September 1, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Dandy said: Real people. True people. How are you using “true” here? Not sure what a “true person” vs a “false person” would be. Edited September 1, 2022 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts