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

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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:

Now you've opened an "are facts and knowledge the same thing" can of worms.....

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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:

Totally, dude.

Things as we see them, of course. What else could we mean by "things as they are"?  Or are colors illusions?   Absurd! 

I mean, like, dude, is the good old red white and blue an illusion? 😲

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Now you've opened an "are facts and knowledge the same thing" can of worms.....

Nah, it's just an issue of a psychological thing called "certainty".  THAT has nothing to do with what is "real".  People buy a whole bunch of crazy ideas plucked out of thin air, like that we can "see" what we can't possibly see. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally, dude.

Things as we see them, of course. What else could we mean by "things as they are"?  Or are colors illusions?   Absurd! 

I mean, like, dude, is the good old red white and blue an illusion? 😲

 

You were deafened.
At last you could hear.

You were broken.
You were made whole.

You were blinded.
And at last, you saw.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/12/2024 at 6:20 PM, brownbear said:

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? 

Can you see now that this is self contradictory?   You negate your own premise by asking the question.  And-  "is that okay to believe in?"

What does that even mean?   OK as compared to what?

How could anyone possibly "know" if " Joseph Smith didn’t literally see God and Jesus (or any divine being),"?

What kind of God would persecute one for their genuine beliefs, when the belief was so enriching?  When "knowing" if it happened or not  would be impossible?

If there was such a God, I would rather there be no afterlife.   The belief alone is life enriching regardless of "it all really happens that way" or not.

So now your hypothetical subject dies, and finds out that God is actually sadistic:   "YAY! I was right!" ???  I cannot even imagine that. 

OR there is NO God or afterlife

You would never know you were wrong, but you had a great life.

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Can you see now that this is self contradictory?   You negate your own premise by asking the question.  And-  "is that okay to believe in?"

What does that even mean?   OK as compared to what?

How could anyone possibly "know" if " Joseph Smith didn’t literally see God and Jesus (or any divine being),"?

What kind of God would persecute one for their genuine beliefs, when the belief was so enriching?  When "knowing" if it happened or not  would be impossible?

If there was such a God, I would rather there be no afterlife.   The belief alone is life enriching regardless of "it all really happens that way" or not.

So now your hypothetical subject dies, and finds out that God is actually sadistic:   "YAY! I was right!" ???  I cannot even imagine that. 

OR there is NO God or afterlife

You would never know you were wrong, but you had a great life.

 

I’m not sure why someone would ask if it is OK to believe in something they already accept as real. What else could they possibly do; how would they arrive at the question? I think what they are really asking is, is it OK to be mistaken, or to change, and they ask that not in the midst of enjoying the accepted point of reality, but while weighing new experiences and reasoning as foundations of potential realities, including those introduced by other people. Designating things as mistakes or corrections are determined by oneself as they realize they are experiencing value and enjoyment. This is the conversion and deconversion process, which can occur in a vacuum or with the influence of other people.

• I believe the first vision is real / I believe it is not / I never heard of it / I care about such things / I don’t care about such things
• (introduce a new experience, reasoning or influence)
• I believe the first vision is not real / I believe it is real / never hearing of it is no longer an option / I still care about such things / I still don’t care about such things

History and a narratives, as representations of others' reality, are often treated as reality, and what we have in the end is our personal interpretation of those representations.

[CV75]

@mfbukowski

And then someone might come to the decision point of whether to act as though they believe although they do not, which if chosen, is a new belief in a new reality altogether. They will do this as long as they find it useful to do so or until they change. The "as though" can be have an hypocritical or experimental expression, and the attendant action can yield new experiences, reasoning or influence (and as social beings, validation, disapproval, or other involvement or intervention) from others.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

History and a narratives, as representations of others' reality, are often treated as reality, and what we have in the end is our personal interpretation of those representations

This is the key.  And I would change "often" to "always".   The only reality we know about history is representations of other's reality.   It's all "hearsay" and could not be used in a court of law.

What if chocolate doesn't "actually" taste good?  How could we know that??   I am sure that somebody hates that taste, but not me.   So who is "correct"?

And this is why postmodernists eschew "meta-narratives".   If your narrative is as good as my narrative, which opposes yours, who is right?

And why would a kind and loving God punish you for doing your best?

Suppose the "actual savior" lived in China in 500 BC.   Suppose we never needed a Savior at all- but of course we have no way to know that if we were raised Christian?

Would belief in Christ be harmful to our progression?   Was Marx right that religion is the "opiate of the masses"?

Would we burn in hell for not knowing that?   IMO the only possible option for a true and kind "Father in Heaven" is kindness and love for those who are doing their very best.

The Sunday school lesson for this week is about receiving "Christ's countenance " with a "change of heart" (Alma 5-7)

What if we are white and Jesus was black?   Or Asian?   Can we still receive "his countenance'?  

This is what happens when we take language literally and not seeing the "spiritual/subjective" messages behind the narratives.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@mfbukowski

And then someone might come to the decision point of whether to act as though they believe although they do not, which if chosen, is a new belief in a new reality altogether. They will do this as long as they find it useful to do so or until they change. The "as though" can be have an hypocritical or experimental expression, and the attendant action can yield new experiences, reasoning or influence (and as social beings, validation, disapproval, or other involvement or intervention) from others.

"Fake it til you make it"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/behavioral-activation-fake-it-til-you-make-it_l_62d7140ae4b0aad58d139763#:~:text=The concept is more formally,can help your mental health.&text=The phrase “fake it till,in the mental health field.

Bolding added below

Quote

 

“In behavioral activation, there is a different end to the means,” Thomasian said ― it’s more like “I’m going to start running even though it’s the last thing I want to do, because doing so will help my emotional state.”

Besides, if you think of behavioral activation as “faking” your motivation to do an activity, it could affect your intentions and make the technique less likely to work.

“‘Faking it’ implies forced action, a lack of authenticity, connection and a cynicism around an experience,” said Monica Vermani, a Toronto-based clinical psychologist and author of “A Deeper Wellness: Conquering Stress, Mood, Anxiety, and Traumas.” “Framing it as a route or path to betterment, self-improvement, healing, overcoming anxiety and fears, and self-actualization creates a more positive and enjoyable process and experience ― which can help conquer maladaptive patterns.”

 

'Have you received the 'change of heart' through repentance "?

And then we have the scientifically proven principle of the "placebo effect"

Science proves that thinking a placebo will work actually DOES work.   EVERY medicine put on the market has some degree of "placebo effect" when testing if the drug "works" for a given disease, etc.

And sure enough, some people are "cured" by placebos!

But of course that's"all in their heads" and therefore not "real".

 

Edited June 15, 2024 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Now you've opened an "are facts and knowledge the same thing" can of worms.....

Yep, and that is the kind of thing that made me lose interest in philosophy.

That and how they take people like Nietzsche seriously. Really? He is a whiny loser trying to convince himself that bronze age warlords were the ones who had it figured out.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, and that is the kind of thing that made me lose interest in philosophy.

That and how they take people like Nietzsche seriously. Really? He is a whiny loser trying to convince himself that bronze age warlords were the ones who had it figured out.

Odd.

"There are no facts,only interpretations" .

I don't see that as very whiny nor a very "bronze age" attitude.  " Ubermenschen"- whiny?

"God is dead"- meaning the whiny - as he saw it- God who hung from a cross?  

Gosh you almost make me want to cry.    Uh huh. 

. Sounds more like Joseph and Brigham to me

https://www.google.com/search?q=ubermenschen&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=ubermenschen&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10i433i512j0i10i512l8.9011j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Quote

 

What are the 7 principles of the Übermensch?

 

Those attributes are self-determination , creativity, becoming, overcoming, discontent, flexibility, self-mastery, self-confidence, cheerfulness, and courage. The paper then compares Nietzsche's Ubermensch with Aristotle's virtuous person.Sep 19, 2017

 

 

"Whiny?"  Was fur einege Ubermensch ist das?

Edited June 15, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, and that is the kind of thing that made me lose interest in philosophy.

That and how they take people like Nietzsche seriously. Really? He is a whiny loser trying to convince himself that bronze age warlords were the ones who had it figured out.

I almost minored in philosophy and really enjoyed it (the final class I needed didn't work into my schedule the semester I was graduating so I had to go with both a major and minor in history instead), but ultimately the constant questioning with no real conclusions wasn't really for me either.

It's a fun exercise in thinking though, and I enjoyed the part of it that required you to see things from existential perspectives.

[Amulek]

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

ALL OF WHAT YOU CALL REALITY IS IN YOUR HEAD.

Reminds me of that scene from Harry Potter:

"Tell me one last thing,” said Harry. “Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?”

Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry’s ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

 

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Odd.

"There are no facts,only interpretations" .

I don't see that as very whiny nor a very "bronze age" attitude.  " Ubermenschen"- whiny?

"God is dead"- meaning the whiny - as he saw it- God who hung from a cross?  

Gosh you almost make me want to cry.    Uh huh. 

. Sounds more like Joseph and Brigham to me

https://www.google.com/search?q=ubermenschen&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=ubermenschen&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10i433i512j0i10i512l8.9011j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

 

"Whiny?"  Was fur einege Ubermensch ist das?

I read it more as Nietzsche wishing he were one of them. A noble with “Master” morality.

[CV75]

On 6/14/2024 at 7:14 PM, The Nehor said:

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:

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Now you've opened an "are facts and knowledge the same thing" can of worms.....

I'm assuming you have borne testimony; is doing so an example of expressing truth/knowledge/fact?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Reminds me of that scene from Harry Potter:

"Tell me one last thing,” said Harry. “Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?”

Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry’s ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

 

Great quote!

And what it shows is the degree to which the concept of idealism is embedded in the culture- finally.

I see fewer and fewer committing the GREAT SIN  of "appeal to the stone fallacy". 

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

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I read it more as Nietzsche wishing he were one of them. A noble with “Master” morality.

And of course, he WAS.

I think he would be the last to admit that his highest principle- eternal recurrence - is VERY close to defining The Christ that he never knew!

Essentially "eternal recurrence" is the affirmation that "Ubermensch" should be able to AFFIRM EVERY pain, mistake, pleasure and pain they had ever made in their lives - all the negatives and all the positives and desire to re-live every moment and pain repeating eternally, by seeing all the negatives as positives which enabled them to become "gods".

In a sense- is that not what we believe Christ did FOR us?

Isn't that a lot like the Atonement, except of course in the Christian view, Jesus did it FOR us!

He was so close, with the idea that even sin and pain, when overcome, become the seeds of godhood.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm assuming you have borne testimony; is doing so an example of expressing truth/knowledge/fact?

Bearing testimony is an example of expressing my personal belief about truth/knowledge/fact.  It is not a barometer of what is actually true and has no impact on what is actually true. 

Think about those instances of some cult leader (like the guy in New Mexico who believed he was the Messiah) and hearing their followers "bear testimony" of the truth of  his or her teachings.  From my perspective, they are not expressing truth.  In fact, I would say that they are claiming to know things that are actually false.  So, we end up in a situation where they and I "know" contradictory things are true about God.  We can't both be right.  We can both be wrong, or just one of of us can be right and one wrong.  Calling it truth or knowledge really means nothing under such circumstances.

Thus, bearing a testimony is not an example of expressing truth.  It's expressing a position of belief (some would  call it a position of faith), which can be couched in the language of knowledge or fact.

It can even be knowledge or fact, but even then it still remains squarely within the realm of the person's own reality (since the mechanism that changed the belief into fact or knowledge cannot be shared with anyone else).  God could come down and personally confirm that my belief actually is fact, but even then, it remains only an expression of my belief about what is true when I share that experience.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm assuming you have borne testimony; is doing so an example of expressing truth/knowledge/fact?

It is a conviction. Being convinced it is true.

Edited June 16, 2024 by The Nehor

[CV75]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Bearing testimony is an example of expressing my personal belief about truth/knowledge/fact.  It is not a barometer of what is actually true and has no impact on what is actually true. 

Think about those instances of some cult leader (like the guy in New Mexico who believed he was the Messiah) and hearing their followers "bear testimony" of the truth of  his or her teachings.  From my perspective, they are not expressing truth.  In fact, I would say that they are claiming to know things that are actually false.  So, we end up in a situation where they and I "know" contradictory things are true about God.  We can't both be right.  We can both be wrong, or just one of of us can be right and one wrong.  Calling it truth or knowledge really means nothing under such circumstances.

Thus, bearing a testimony is not an example of expressing truth.  It's expressing a position of belief (some would  call it a position of faith), which can be couched in the language of knowledge or fact.

It can even be knowledge or fact, but even then it still remains squarely within the realm of the person's own reality (since the mechanism that changed the belief into fact or knowledge cannot be shared with anyone else).  God could come down and personally confirm that my belief actually is fact, but even then, it remains only an expression of my belief about what is true when I share that experience.

So, your testimony is a barometer of what you personally know to be true. I would say that also means it has an impact on and is a barometer of what you have yet to personally know to be true, what you have known to be true.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a conviction. Being convinced it is true.

The conviction that something is real, as Alma 32 shows, has past, present and future states as it is realized more fully.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, they are not expressing truth.  In fact, I would say that they are claiming to know things that are actually false.  So, we end up in a situation where they and I "know" contradictory things are true about God.  We can't both be right.  We can both be wrong, or just one of of us can be right and one wrong.  Calling it truth or knowledge really means nothing under such circumstances.

Yes, it's from YOUR perspective.

So how then do you KNOW you are right? Go and have a vision?

WONDERFUL! Please God let it happen to me!

BUT the only problem is that YOU cannot convey that truth to anyone else.   So it's "YOUR" truth. Permanently and others may not believe you.

So are you the only person who knows the truth?   Some might disagree. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, it's from YOUR perspective.

So how then do you KNOW you are right? Go and have a vision?

WONDERFUL! Please God let it happen to me!

BUT the only problem is that YOU cannot convey that truth to anyone else.   So it's "YOUR" truth. Permanently and others may not believe you.

So are you the only person who knows the truth?   Some might disagree. 

Exactly what I said in my last sentence.   

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is not a barometer of what is actually true and has no impact on what is actually true. 

So then what IS "actually true"?

Why bother worrying about what cannot be proven?  So I am confused about your position then, I guess, in believing. apparently that there is something that IS "actually true" that no one can ever know...?

Why even use the term "true"?   Doesn't that become a useless concept?

I'd rather say that "It's true for you" than say it is not "true" for everyone.   To me then the idea of what is "actually true" and I am the only one who knows it, an expression of pride.

So "I know the church is true" becomes a statement of pride?   If you don't know the same thing, well poor you!

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So then what IS "actually true"?

Why bother worrying about what cannot be proven?  So I am confused about your position then, I guess, in believing. apparently that there is something that IS "actually true" that no one can ever know...?

Why even use the term "true"?   Doesn't that become a useless concept?

I'd rather say that "It's true for you" than say it is not "true" for everyone.   To me then the idea of what is "actually true" and I am the only one who knows it, an expression of pride.

So "I know the church is true" becomes a statement of pride?   If you don't know the same thing, well poor you!

I was explaining to CV75 that in philosophy, bearing a testimony is not about professing truth and doesn't have anything to do with what is "actually" true. 

But I think you've outlined perfectly the limits of philosophy.  It's useful but not without its weaknesses, and the idea that truth does not exist if it can't be proven to each other is, in my opinion, a big flaw of some philosophical arguments.  Truth is not a useless concept, even though philosophy struggles with it.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was explaining to CV75 that in philosophy, bearing a testimony is not about professing truth and doesn't have anything to do with what is "actually" true. 

But I think you've outlined perfectly the limits of philosophy.  It's useful but not without its weaknesses, and the idea that truth does not exist if it can't be proven to each other is, in my opinion, a big flaw of some philosophical arguments.  Truth is not a useless concept, even though philosophy struggles with it.  

Exactly.

That is why truth is "pragmatic" and seeing it AS pragmatic is the key to it all.  Otherwise the word is meaningless.   Alma 32.  Truth is sweet!  So if we eat a bunch of candy bars have we found "truth"?