Is Philosophy all in your head? Yes! Like everything else!

[mfbukowski]

I have been discussing some philosophical issues with a friend through email, and I thought it might be useful to put some of it on this board, because I think we need some more philosophical  content here than I have seen hereabouts, of late.

PLUS I have had trouble communicating some philosophical ideas to some very smart LDS folks with good educations- but who have absolutely NO backgrounds in philosophy.

Good for them! 

One can become a doctor or lawyer or CPA, or brilliant businessperson or any one of many other vocations that require heavy brainpower without ever thinking about philosophy,or what it can do for you!

And you would be right!!  You CAN!

BUT I would argue that your life would be better and richer by far with an understanding of what some GREAT THINKERS have thought, and how what they taught just might change your life! 

But the problem is that philosophy is so full of jargon that most of what is written just becomes meaningless for those who do not know the jargon.

You can't read philosophy without knowing the jargon, and you can't learn the jargon without reading it!!   CATCH 22!- (also an example of jargon! )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

I have been pushing a quote from Richard Rorty- perhaps one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century- who also fully represents the entire basis of Postmodernism and relativist thinking.

Incidentally I strongly STRONGLY believe that if our LDS brothers and sisters truly understood these issues, they would have the ability to discuss religious principles in a general way- to secular "religionists" both pro and con. 

 I see this as VERY important for the future of the church

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.

 

I would say those Rorty quotes are good - the whole thing is there in those quotes.  And they are said very directly, I think for anyone to understand if you think about it.

Maybe I can say it again, even more simply.

Of course there is a world out there that we did not personally create.  Things DO exist that are not in your head.   Like duh! 😉 

 

BUT ALL- 100% of all your EXPERIENCES and all you have learned in school or all you have learned, and spoken and heard and seen and smelled and felt ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR MIND

Say that again and again to yourself!!

 

Now mentally try to argue against that point.  What idea or thought or bit of knowledge you have is NOT "in you" in one way or another.  If not you, who makes your words come out of your mouth? 

 

You are not sitting in a "chair", you are sitting in a device invented by human perception of what would be "comfortable" which humans, in English have called "A CHAIR"

 

TRY TO ARGUE AGAINST THAT!!

Your entire universe is "in your head"!!!!!!

 

That's it!

ALL OF WHAT YOU CALL REALITY IS IN YOUR HEAD.

 

Brain damage will affect that and everything you "know".

IN YOUR LIFE, what matters is not how the world is outside of your head. because you CANNOT get "outside" your head.

 

"Now we see through a dark mirror"...of our own thoughts and perceptions!

 

Things do not exist --FOR US-- until we create a NAME for them.

 

"And they CALLED IT "the first day" and God saw that it was "good"

This is the most perfect  "pragmatic" description of all time!!

 

They picked up some matter, and re-arranged it so it was USEFUL to mankind, which made it "GOOD".

That's all of it right there.

You cannot argue against it!!   There can BE no argument against it.

So is THAT a "truth claim"?  What IS truth?   No philosopher has come up with an indisputable definition in 2500 years of western philosophy.

 

What do those words even mean without definitions, made by humans??

So let's start there!

What's wrong with what Rorty says here?

 

My personal goal here is to learn how to better communicate these ideas to our members, avoiding the jargon of typical philosophers

 

 

 

Edited June 12 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been discussing some philosophical issues with a friend through email, and I thought it might be useful to put some of it on this board, because I think we need some more philosophical  content here than I have seen hereabouts, of late.

PLUS I have had trouble communicating some philosophical ideas to some very smart LDS folks with good educations- but who have absolutely NO backgrounds in philosophy.

Good for them! 

One can become a doctor or lawyer or CPA, or brilliant businessperson or any one of many other vocations that require heavy brainpower without ever thinking about philosophy,or what it can do for you!

And you would be right!!  You CAN!

BUT I would argue that your life would be better and richer by far with an understanding of what some GREAT THINKERS have thought, and how what they taught just might change your life! 

But the problem is that philosophy is so full of jargon that most of what is written just becomes meaningless for those who do not know the jargon.

You can't read philosophy without knowing the jargon, and you can't learn the jargon without reading it!!   CATCH 22!- (also an example of jargon! )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

I have been pushing a quote from Richard Rorty- perhaps one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century- who also fully represents the entire basis of Postmodernism and relativist thinking.

Incidentally I strongly STRONGLY believe that if our LDS brothers and sisters truly understood these issues, they would have the ability to discuss religious principles in a general way- to secular "religionists" both pro and con. 

 I see this as VERY important for the future of the church

I would say those Rorty quotes are good - the whole thing is there in those quotes.  And they are said very directly, I think for anyone to understand if you think about it.

Maybe I can say it again, even more simply.

Of course there is a world out there that we did not personally create.  Things DO exist that are not in your head.   Like duh! 😉 

 

BUT ALL- 100% of all your EXPERIENCES and all you have learned in school or all you have learned, and spoken and heard and seen and smelled and felt ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR MIND

Say that again and again to yourself!!

 

Now mentally try to argue against that point.  What idea or thought or bit of knowledge you have is NOT "in you" in one way or another.  If not you, who makes your words come out of your mouth? 

 

You are not sitting in a "chair", you are sitting in a device invented by human perception of what would be "comfortable" which humans, in English have called "A CHAIR"

 

TRY TO ARGUE AGAINST THAT!!

Your entire universe is "in your head"!!!!!!

 

That's it!

ALL OF WHAT YOU CALL REALITY IS IN YOUR HEAD.

 

Brain damage will affect that and everything you "know".

IN YOUR LIFE, what matters is not how the world is outside of your head. because you CANNOT get "outside" your head.

 

"Now we see through a dark mirror"...of our own thoughts and perceptions!

 

Things do not exist --FOR US-- until we create a NAME for them.

 

"And they CALLED IT "the first day" and God saw that it was "good"

This is the most perfect  "pragmatic" description of all time!!

 

They picked up some matter, and re-arranged it so it was USEFUL to mankind, which made it "GOOD".

That's all of it right there.

You cannot argue against it!!   There can BE no argument against it.

So is THAT a "truth claim"?  What IS truth?   No philosopher has come up with an indisputable definition in 2500 years of western philosophy.

 

What do those words even mean without definitions, made by humans??

So let's start there!

What's wrong with what Rorty says here?

 

My personal goal here is to learn how to better communicate these ideas to our members, avoiding the jargon of typical philosophers

 

 

 

What about those things we experience and cannot name or articulate? They are real but beyond description (like we read about in 3 Nephi), unless what I just wrote (and what Mormon wrote) counts! “I experienced something wonderful that I cannot or am forbidden to share” is still a description. If I lacked the ability to speak, I might otherwise communicate non-verbally and in what I have become.

Edited June 12 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What about those things we experience and cannot name or articulate? They are real but beyond description (like we read about in 3 Nephi), unless what I just wrote (and what Mormon wrote) counts! “I experienced something wonderful that I cannot or am forbidden to share” is still a description. If I lacked the ability to speak, I might otherwise communicate non-verbally and in what I have become.

I guess I am not understanding the question.  What about what? 3 Nephi, what chapter and verse?  I would suppose if we cannot name or articulate it AND is real as an experience, but it cannot be articulated, then their description would be impossible and therefore useless to others.

Again perhaps it would be like trying to describe color to a blind person- there is nothing to which color could be compared in such a discussion.

It's also like asking if the quale I experience which I call "red" is the quale you call "green"- another dead question because there can be no basis for discussion.

So in avoiding jargon, let me to add a source explaining the word "quale", aka in plural, "qualia".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Quote

 

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

 

Does that help?

The problem of course is that if you cannot describe the quale in words,  "It's a feeling like...." it's going to be difficult answering in words.

The only way I know to describe what it's like to get punched in the face, is to punch someone in the face, and that is generally unacceptable.  

Emojis are great because they can express feelings directly without putting the nuances into words.

They use un-spoken symbols describing a human face to distinguish certain qualia.  Consider the differences between 🤨 and 😲 and .

No words, but the universal language of the human face!!

[blackstrap]

Makes me wonder what is in the mind of a person born blind, deaf  and mute. 

[mfbukowski]

Ultimately, the real question here will blend into what it is like to feel the Spirit.

And THAT will lead to the 'REALITY' of the qualia that make up what is called "The Holy Spirit" and ultimately "God".

HA
HA
HA.   Caught ya!

So if anyone wants to jump ahead, THAT is the real nefarious purpose here.  😲

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Makes me wonder what is in the mind of a person born blind, deaf  and mute. 

NOW we're cookin.......   

It's their world, just as yours is BUT it LOOKS a little different. 

Helen Keller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

Helen Keller became deaf and blind at 19 months old, so there was SOME sense of "what it is like" to NOT be deaf and blind.

Quote

 

In 1886, Keller's mother, inspired by an account in Charles ****ens' American Notes of the successful education of Laura Bridgman, a deaf and blind woman, dispatched the young Keller and her father to consult physician J. Julian Chisolm, an eye, ear, nose, and throat specialist in Baltimore, for advice.^[21][9] Chisholm referred the Kellers to Alexander Graham Bell, who was working with deaf children at the time. Bell advised them to contact the Perkins Institute for the Blind, the school where Bridgman had been educated. It was then located in South Boston. Michael Anagnos, the school's director, asked Anne Sullivan, a 20-year-old alumna of the school who was visually impaired, to become Keller's instructor. It was the beginning of a nearly 50-year-long relationship: Sullivan developed as Keller's governess and later her companion.^[19]

Sullivan arrived at Keller's house on March 5, 1887, a day Keller would forever remember as "my soul's birthday".^[18] Sullivan immediately began to teach Helen to communicate by spelling words into her hand, beginning with "d-o-l-l" for the doll that she had brought Keller as a present. Keller initially struggled with lessons since she could not comprehend that every object had a word identifying it. When Sullivan was trying to teach Keller the word for "mug", Keller became so frustrated she broke the mug.^[22] Keller remembered how she soon began imitating Sullivan's hand gestures: "I did not know that I was spelling a word or even that words existed. I was simply making my fingers go in monkey-like imitation."^[23]

The next month Keller made a breakthrough, when she realized that the motions her teacher was making on the palm of her hand, while running cool water over her other hand, symbolized the idea of "water". Writing in her autobiography, The Story of My Life, Keller recalled the moment:

I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten—a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that w-a-t-e-r meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. The living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, set it free!^[18]

Keller quickly demanded that Sullivan sign the names of all the other familiar objects in her world.^[24]

 

 

Quote

 

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

 

John 1, KJV

 

Genesis 1 :10, KJV, underlining added:

Quote

¹⁰ And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess I am not understanding the question.  What about what? 3 Nephi, what chapter and verse?  I would suppose if we cannot name or articulate it AND is real as an experience, but it cannot be articulated, then their description would be impossible and therefore useless to others.

Again perhaps it would be like trying to describe color to a blind person- there is nothing to which color could be compared in such a discussion.

It's also like asking if the quale I experience which I call "red" is the quale you call "green"- another dead question because there can be no basis for discussion.

So in avoiding jargon, let me to add a source explaining the word "quale", aka in plural, "qualia".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Does that help?

The problem of course is that if you cannot describe the quale in words,  "It's a feeling like...." it's going to be difficult answering in words.

The only way I know to describe what it's like to get punched in the face, is to punch someone in the face, and that is generally unacceptable.  

Emojis are great because they can express feelings directly without putting the nuances into words.

They use un-spoken symbols describing a human face to distinguish certain qualia.  Consider the differences between 🤨 and 😲 and .

No words, but the universal language of the human face!!

I was trying to set you up for a spike : descriptions and languages are useless to those who do not accept or understand them.

The most fundamental description and language I have at my disposal is what I am, which is presumably useful for me. Whether or not and how I successfully convey myself to others is something else.

“I experienced something wonderful that I cannot or am forbidden to share” is still a description. Referencing the forbiddenness to share, as in, “too sacred to share” (3 Nephi 26:16, 27:23, 28:13-14) counts as a description. It is real to me, but successfully conveying it to others is a function of non-lingual/verbal communication such as my behavior and other symbols of its goodness.

I am very unskilled with emojis!

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was trying to set you up for a spike : descriptions and languages are useless to those who do not accept or understand them.

The most fundamental description and language I have at my disposal is what I am, which is presumably useful for me. Whether or not and how I successfully convey myself to others is something else.

“I experienced something wonderful that I cannot or am forbidden to share” is still a description. Referencing the forbiddenness to share, as in, “too sacred to share” (3 Nephi 26:16, 27:23, 28:13-14) counts as a description. It is real to me, but successfully conveying it to others is a function of non-lingual/verbal communication such as my behavior and other symbols of its goodness.

I am very unskilled with emojis!

Great post, thanks for the clarification.

The other point that needs to be brought up is that EVERYTHING that one says that "I know", MUST be conveyed symbolically and therefore can become ambiguous.

I was thinking the other day about a passage I saw that said;

" Newton discovered gravity"  I think I mentioned that already here.

What a STRANGE choice of words!!  Like "Columbus discovered America"

Do those statements convey "truth"?

But can we consider them "false"?   Clearly it can go either way, depending on how you look at it.

Is "God created the Earth" another one.?  Or was it "cosmic forces" that created the earth?  Is God a "cosmic force"?

Obviously one could discuss these for eternity without getting an answer, it becomes a question of semantics.   Is God a cosmic force?  Is that "TRUE"?

[mfbukowski]

And now for the great Rorty video PLUS other stuff, that disappeared for a while

https://www.google.com/search?q=rorty+for+dummies&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=rorty+for+dummies&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l5.6565j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:91b8ce47,vid:fQnxVlLqgeY,st:0

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Now mentally try to argue against that point.  What idea or thought or bit of knowledge you have is NOT "in you" in one way or another.  If not you, who makes your words come out of your mouth? 

Thank you for the OP.  I admit to being in a category you described, a lawyer who has not formally studied philosophy.  I enjoyed pondering the quotes in the OP.

My answer to the question above is that my belief in Deity and in Deity’s assurance that they are willing to commune with mortals, is underpinned by several experiences when the words that came out of my mouth were not mine, but from another source, a source I believe is divine.  I have no other explanation for those experiences. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great post, thanks for the clarification.

The other point that needs to be brought up is that EVERYTHING that one says that "I know", MUST be conveyed symbolically and therefore can become ambiguous.

I was thinking the other day about a passage I saw that said;

" Newton discovered gravity"  I think I mentioned that already here.

What a STRANGE choice of words!!  Like "Columbus discovered America"

Do those statements convey "truth"?

But can we consider them "false"?   Clearly it can go either way, depending on how you look at it.

Is "God created the Earth" another one.?  Or was it "cosmic forces" that created the earth?  Is God a "cosmic force"?

Obviously one could discuss these for eternity without getting an answer, it becomes a question of semantics.   Is God a cosmic force?  Is that "TRUE"?

I think it is easy to grasp the principle that “reality is everywhere,” but less easy to see that our brains/heads, which are not everywhere, process our perceptions and experiences and organize our slice or version of this “everywhere reality” into memory, meaning and applied usefulness.

Then, the social aspect of our makeup attempts to extend this organizing process by communicating via language (reporting, testifying, behaving, etc.). The net effect is the compounded convening of like-minded (“like-languaged”) individuals.

I think it is often less easy to see that most human language is non-verbal, while some disciplines narrowly employ a strictly literal approach, also organized in heads and deemed useful. Or that most mental states, such as intuition, emotion, etc. (even instinct!) operate quite effectively non-verbally.

Edited June 13 by CV75

[brownbear]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My personal goal here is to learn how to better communicate these ideas to our members, avoiding the jargon of typical philosophers

I think this is an amazing goal.

Earlier in your post you mentioned “truth claims”. To the informed member of the church, truth claims relate to Book of Mormon historicity, first vision discrepancies, Book of Abraham issues, and reality of the priesthood restoration.

To the non-philosophically minded, truth means “did it happen relatively accurately to how it was communicated to us?” If the Book of Mormon was written by ancient authors, but with a few of Joseph Smith’s words or ideas, that would be considered “true”. If we wrote inspired fiction, that would not be “true”. According to this definition. 

Viewing things from this pragmatic/philosophical approach can define “truth”, but the lay member, will always default back to the “truth claims” questions until they learn the language of nuance and philosophy.

An added question is that if something only exists in our mind, but not in reality (I know that everything is in your mind, but stay with me), is that okay to believe in? If we view the first vision as “true” in a pragmatic sense, but Joseph Smith didn’t literally see God and Jesus (or any divine being), is there still merit for that truth to be our perception? 

If we doubt historicity and priesthood restoration actually happened, is there still merit to act as if it did? I guess the big question is how can you bridge that gap between “old truth” and “new truth”?

[mfbukowski]

And now here is the version of Pragmatism to which I subscribe, William James' notion of "Radical Empiricism"

Yes, it is Wikipedia, but I have reviewed it and hereby present the article as an accurate description of James' views.

Nihil Obstat.  

This work from James is what brought me into the church.  I had been a Pragmatist for quite awhile before reading James's essay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Quote

 

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.^[1]

Radical empiricism[edit]

Radical empiricism is a postulate, a statement of fact, and a conclusion, says James in The Meaning of Truth. The postulate is that "the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience." The fact is that our experience contains disconnected entities as well as various types of connections; it is full of meaning and values. The conclusion is that our worldview does not need "extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure."

Postulate[edit]

The postulate is a basic statement of the empiricist method: Our theories shouldn't incorporate supernatural or transempirical entities. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that emphasizes the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. James allows that transempirical entities may exist, but that it's not fruitful to talk about them.

Fact[edit]

James' factual statement is that our experience is not just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena. Experience is "double-barreled"; it has both a content ("sense data") and a reference, and empiricists unjustly try to reduce experience to bare sensations, according to James. Such a "thick" description of conscious experience was already part of William James' monumental work The Principles of Psychology in 1890, more than a decade before he first wrote about radical empiricism.

It differs notably from the traditional empiricist view of Locke and Hume, who see experience in terms of atoms like patches of color and soundwaves, which are in themselves meaningless and need to be interpreted by ratiocination before we can act upon them.

Conclusion[edit]

James concludes that experience is full of connections and that these connections are part of what is actually experienced:

Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. (James 1912, Essay I)

Context and importance[edit]

James put forth the doctrine because he thought ordinary empiricism, inspired by the advances in physical science, has or had the tendency to emphasize 'whirling particles' at the expense of the bigger picture: connections, causality, meaning. Both elements, James claims, are equally present in experience and both need to be accounted for.

The observation that our adherence to science seems to put us in a quandary is not exclusive to James. For example, Bertrand Russell notes the paradox in his Analysis of Matter (1927): we appeal to ordinary perception to arrive at our physical theories, yet those same theories seem to undermine that everyday perception, which is rich in meaning.

Radical empiricism relates to discussions about direct versus indirect realism as well as to early twentieth-century discussions against the idealism of influential philosophers like Josiah Royce. This is how neo-realists like William Pepperell Montague and Ralph Barton Perry interpreted James.

The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support is also important in discussions about the adequacy of naturalistic descriptions of meaning and intentionality, which James attempts to provide, in contrast to phenomenological approaches or some forms of reductionism that claim that meaning is an illusion.^{[citation needed]}

 

IMO, the most important statement here regarding religion is repeated here:

Quote

The postulate is a basic statement of the empiricist method: Our theories shouldn't incorporate supernatural or transempirical entities. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that emphasizes the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. James allows that transempirical entities may exist, but that it's not fruitful to talk about them.

For the word "transempirical" we can substitute the word "supernatural" in the context of our discussions here, though it is not exactly the same context, but it "works" for our level of discussion.

So he is saying that statements about supernatural matters ought not be considered "empirical" in this theory- at all-  BUT it DOES include "sensory perception in the formation of ideas".  What he means here is that it is valid and empirically correct to say that something is empirically "red" because red is a sensory perception.

We should not throw the word "red" out of empiricism, and use only wavelengths of light - because sensory perceptions can be seen as empirical because they are sensory perceptions; they are not "revelations" or "supernatural" events.

Yet what of "the burning bosom?"  Is that a SENSORY perception OR is it supernatural?

I count it, of course, as a "sensory perception".   All humans, I would argue have morals and believe certain principles , and avoid behaviors which "VISCERALLY disgusting" like perhaps, murdering babies for fun.  I am sure you can imagine others I will not mention connected to, say the holocaust etc. 

The very term "burning in the bosom" uses visceral sensory experience to describe the feeling.  Alma 32 speaks about the "sweetness" of truth.

I have discussed the nature of what "Qualia" are on this board before, and my conclusion that "feeling the spirit" is a kind of physical compass in our brains that tell us what is termed "right from wrong".   Sometimes I compare it to the internal mechanism found in animals with tiny brains- birds for example- to fly THOUSANDS of miles over oceans - to end up on some small island somewhere on which they were born.

And so I regard the "Light of Christ" as a real phenomenon which we perceive by a kind of "sixth sense" which we all possess.

That is not a scientific theory- nor do I claim it to be a 'revelation"- it is a postulate in my personal version of James' empiricism.  

And in another book by James- "The Varieties of Religious Experience" he puts forth the same position.

There is a reason we call some strong feelings as "GUT" feelings.

Atheists have them as much as believers.

I also believe that variances between atheists and believers can be a matter of semantics.   Maybe some year we will get into Wittgenstein, who has THAT totally covered.

Edited June 13 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

What about those things we experience and cannot name or articulate? They are real but beyond description (like we read about in 3 Nephi), unless what I just wrote (and what Mormon wrote) counts! “I experienced something wonderful that I cannot or am forbidden to share” is still a description. If I lacked the ability to speak, I might otherwise communicate non-verbally and in what I have become.

It's a "gut feeling". Go for it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, brownbear said:

If we doubt historicity and priesthood restoration actually happened, is there still merit to act as if it did? I guess the big question is how can you bridge that gap between “old truth” and “new truth”?

Study it out in your mind and then pray about it.

The 'old truth' just doesn't work.

How do you get to see the "real truth as it is" to compare it with some theory?

Impossible.   We cannot see things "as they are", we only have HUMAN PERCEPTIONS and somebody else's interpretation to go by.

No thanks.

It just doesn't make sense.

Whenever I see the words "truth claims" I know the guy presenting his church criticism on absolutely nothing.

Ask him "what is truth"?  He will give you the standard meaning of "correspondence with the world"

What world is that?

My great grandmother came from Poland, with her family of 10 kids, raised them, started a candy store and taught herself all about American business.  She was no dummy.  

But then my father,  in the 1950's, an aerospace engineer, wanted to teach her atomic theory.

He told her her rocking chair was not actually solid, but made up of tiny balls including energy, that were constantly moving and in fact were NOT solid at all , but had space between them.

She started yelling for help because her dear grandson had lost his mind and needed to go to the hospital!!

So which was right?   Her "old" truth that the chair was solid, and the "new truth" -atomic theory??

Both are right from different perspectives.

There is no such thing as "one truth" in these simple contexts.  Wittgenstein called these different contexts "language games" which indeed is what they are!

[brownbear]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Study it out in your mind and then pray about it.

You mention that these visceral reactions we have, may indeed be the “Light of Christ” and the spirit. I guess that could be the response to your prayer. If from an outside source or an inside one, the experienced feeling may in fact be the same. 

I am curious, however, in your measuring stick for pragmatism. Why should one invest time in Mormonism versus any other given worldview? In a similar vein, do you act as if you believe all of the standard narratives? Does the pragmatic benefit come from “playing the role” of an orthodox member? Can this approach work even if one is agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?

[brownbear]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

She started yelling for help because her dear grandson had lost his mind and needed to go to the hospital!!

This is very funny 😂

[CV75]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a "gut feeling". Go for it.

And the gut and brain are inextricably interdependent, driving each other's states!

[CV75]

15 hours ago, brownbear said:

You mention that these visceral reactions we have, may indeed be the “Light of Christ” and the spirit. I guess that could be the response to your prayer. If from an outside source or an inside one, the experienced feeling may in fact be the same. 

I am curious, however, in your measuring stick for pragmatism. Why should one invest time in Mormonism versus any other given worldview? In a similar vein, do you act as if you believe all of the standard narratives? Does the pragmatic benefit come from “playing the role” of an orthodox member? Can this approach work even if one is agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?

I would say that as people share perceptions and experiences on prayer and answers, we get a good deal of opportunity to draw conclusions concerning our own experience with them. Much of our experience (including that of osmosis) is long forgotten, but once we become more intentional on the subject, agency always precedes discernment of "what is real" because a) we decide what to consider and b) we decide what to do with what we consider. Something has to “click” in order to do that.

This “click” into interest in our religion usually arises out of a personal relationship, a piece of literature, a visit to a historical site or testimony meeting, etc. This can happen in reverse also and people can leave the faith. So, it is not a matter of "should" but of invitation an choice. The saints' exposure to worldviews ideally comes from loving others and vice-versa, but other permutations that involve chance, trial-and-error and ill-will also occur.

I’m not sure that worldviews get adopted in one swallow, but we do often choose new directions with a single decision and then slowly build the resulting experiences (and resulting biases) into worldviews. Playing a role, as with undercover work or anthropological investigation, serves one primary purpose, and good-faith, intentional experimentation on religious matters (as with Alma 32) serves another. This is not to say that role-playing cannot by happenstance lead to genuine relationships ("The Music Man"), but it is fraught with harm along the way; and, if someone is intentional, they normally won't lead with that approach.

An agnostic or theist, or someone with doubts about a particular narrative might derive some social benefit and insight by playing the orthodox role, but other factors are required to create that pragmatic spiritual “click.”

[The Nehor]

On 6/12/2024 at 2:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

So is THAT a "truth claim"?  What IS truth?   No philosopher has come up with an indisputable definition in 2500 years of western philosophy.

When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was Jesus didn’t answer.

The D&C has a definition for truth but it doesn’t seem to be very good.

Edited June 14 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, brownbear said:

You mention that these visceral reactions we have, may indeed be the “Light of Christ” and the spirit. I guess that could be the response to your prayer. If from an outside source or an inside one, the experienced feeling may in fact be the same. 

I am curious, however, in your measuring stick for pragmatism. Why should one invest time in Mormonism versus any other given worldview? In a similar vein, do you act as if you believe all of the standard narratives? Does the pragmatic benefit come from “playing the role” of an orthodox member? Can this approach work even if one is agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?

Think Symbolical! 

The very most basic PURPOSE of the "Restoration" of ancient Christianity is the notion that a NEW STATEMENT of the message of Jesus Christ needed to come forth and in fact it HAS done just that due at least partially to the ideas in pragmatism.

I see pragmatism and neo-pragmatism as THE statement and logical bones of the original MESSAGE (Gospel) of Jesus Christ brought forth again for our POSTMODERN AGE.

Postmoderns see truth as variable and often speak of "YOUR truth" instead of "THE truth", and so does the CoJCLDS.   How often have you heard that we need our own personal testimonies of every principle??  THAT is postmodernism!

The idea that the "Universe" speaks to us appears everywhere, and it seems to me that this belief is virtually the same as the "Light of Christ" and/or "The Holy Ghost"

Listen to Oprah Winfrey talk about the Holy Ghost??   Check it out: for some reason I cannot capture a link but it WILL come up if you simply google "Oprah Universe"

Atheists speak of their morality and admit there is some kind of force or Daemon that speaks to them.  Christopher Hitchens, notable atheist: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfQtbPzUwk

Humanism:  In many ways, the aims of humanism can be seen as a non-theist "religion" promoting the "best paradigms" for the good of mankind- without actually defining the basis on which the assumptions of "good" are defined.  But the bottom line, both the church and humanism have parallel goals for the "improvement" of mankind.

Also we do not believe in "miracles" as supernatural, but God using natural principles we do not yet know scientifically. Natural Law.  Would TV in the 15th century be seen as "miraculous"?

We are materialists-even spirit is said to be "matter, but more refined".    Compare that to E=MC2.ra

God is immanent and not transcendent, - he gave up transcendence to accept  immanence IMO to be Our "Father".   No I have not explained that belief, and someday I will explain it, but not here or now

And then there is Alma 32, to me a spiritual re-iteration of the scientific method.

In short, I believe that the church is what it has said it is- the original Gospel of Jesus Christ INTERPRETED in contemporary language games.

For me, it was like "love at first sight".  But then upon reading Moroni 10: 4 et al, I had a very strong revelation experience.

Nothing more was necessary.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was Jesus didn’t answer.

The D&C has a definition for truth but it doesn’t seem to be very good.

Alma 32.

You won't find anything better.

[brownbear]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32.

You won't find anything better.

There was a great quote by Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories that was missed by many. He stated that "the data do not support a historical Book of Mormon", which got widespread sharing. However, he followed it up with essentially that "faith is to hope for things which are not seen". I believe he was reflecting on Hebrews 11:1 and Alma 32

Quote

• Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Quote

• 21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
• 26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
• 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When Pilate asked Jesus what truth was Jesus didn’t answer.

The D&C has a definition for truth but it doesn’t seem to be very good.

Disagree.

For SPIRITUAL/SUBJECTIVE TRUTH these is about the best one can get.

Even Oprah would agree!  (google "Oprah universe)    

https://www.google.com/search?q=oprah+universe+whispers&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=oprah+universe&aqs=chrome.1.69i59j0i512j0i22i30j0i390i512i650j69i60.14839j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0c523ac8,vid:22bSDShY9LI,st:0

 

D&C 84:45–46 and  D&C 88:6–13)

Quote

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

 

Quote

 

3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.

4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son—

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things

 

 

Edited June 14 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Disagree.

I was thinking more D&C 93:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

So it is just the facts and anything beyond that: