Ah, dunsscot my man! You actually demonstrate that you can manage a few clear words in between all those impenetrable philosophical bullshit ones. Kind of like flashes of light from luminescent jellyfish 4000 meters down in the sea. But that merely demonstrates a bloated ego and a disdain for readers, since you demonstrate that you can write somewhat clearly but choose not to.
Nevertheless, I will continue strongly to admonish you sedulously to eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity. The ancient maxim known as KISS applies: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
Your bloated pretentiousness is nicely illustrated by the fact that you sometime misuse your favored words. For example, near the beginning of your post you attempted to insult me: "Here is one place where your snap judgments start to manifest their insidious quiddity." According to Webster's, "quiddity" is a noun meaning "a trifling point" or "quibble" or "eccentricity" or "whatever makes something to be of the type that is is". I suspect you meant the first two, as the last two don't fit the idea of being insulting well. If so, then you misused a noun as an adjective -- something that a truly edjamakated philosopher would never do. On the other hand you might have intended the last definition, which also means "essence", but that's not very insulting and certainly not in keeping with your clever repartee.
As expected, you responded only to my 2nd post, a deliberately provocative and partially fluffy piece, while ignoring my much meatier 1st post. You're too predictable. As julien said, "No doubt you will merely address his (IMO justified) critique of your obfuscated style. The viewers would all much prefer to see you respond to the points in Alan's first post."
Let me begin by summarizing, so as not to let this post get too out of hand. I really don't want to get sidetracked into meaningless "arguments about words" which is precisely the goal of most formal philosophy.
You shouldn't confuse my admitted lack of formal education in formal philosophy with lack of understanding of the notions of formal philosophy or especially of human nature. I know the latter quite well. Having absorbed enough of formal philosophy in my 50 years to know when to quit, my opinion of formal philosophy is nicely summed up by the Bible:
The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: "He catches the wise in their own cunning." And again: "Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile." Hence let no one be boasting in men. (1 Corinthians 3:19-21)
Reading the works of men like Kant, Hegel and so forth leaves me with the feeling that I've waded through a pile of dung that contains a gemstone here and there. Why go to all that trouble when I can find the same gemstones without nearly so much fuss and muss? So no, I'm no philosopher.
Reading your posts happens to be the only information any reader has about you. Thus, you have no business complaining when readers judge you by those few posts -- most of which many readers have judged to be impenetrable bullshit. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," no?
While this forum is certainly one where people are invited to speak freely, that cuts both ways. You want to spew esoteric jargon that amounts to nonsense? Then expect others to freely express their opinions of it.
You claim that you must use jargon in order to be precise. More nonsense. Jargon merely condenses specialized concepts into single words or short phrases understandable to specialists, for efficiency of language. Those concepts are far better expressed to non-specialist audiences by non-specialist words. If you don't understand that or don't agree, you're a fool.
: Mr. "pop" psychologist, how do YOU know that I cannot explain my ideas to others without employing what you call, "opaque jargon"?
Until this post, I didn't. My 2nd post was a challenge to you to get you to realize the stupidity of using opaque jargon that few readers understand without constant reference to a dictionary. Now that we can see that you CAN explain yourself without using such, we understand your pretentiousness and the size of your ego. We also understand that your purpose on this forum is not to enlighten but to try to make yourself look good at the expense of others. In view of this and 1 Cor. 3:19, your educational background is meaningless. By the way, I DO know who I'm dealing with.
:: Here's a particularly good one with respect to bigboi's observation that you're "Talkin loud, but aint sayin nothin": "When one delves into the abstract depths of each man's thought, however, he or she begins to tap the surface of a brilliance that has hitherto been unrealized." Right. In other words, when bullshit words pull the wool over a lot of peoples' eyes, "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome reigns supreme. Duh! Fodeja is perfectly right: your writings are entirely without substance.:
: And your writings lack an awareness of basic philosophy or irony. As Lewis R. Gordon notes, words create worlds. They are there for our use as they obtain in an infinite state of potentiality waiting to play their part in building actual worlds extending to infinity (either possibly or actually). There is a tremendous amount of power in a signifier or a set of graphemes strung out along a page. Irony may also communicate that which "plain" language cannot. So can paradox.
Your comments express mostly opinions and absolutely nothing to back them up. I never claimed to be an expert in "basic philosophy" and in fact, my words indicate to those with a modicum of basic reading comprehension that I have great disdain for classic philosophy in the same manner as does the Bible. Irony? Your writings contain little of it, unless you're trying to say that by showing how wonderful you are, you're showing how stupid ex-JW critics are and that they don't understand it, so that the whole shebang is sort of ironic. If so, you have a long way to go because you haven't given a bit of evidence for anything about irony. The rest of your statements beginning with "As Lewis..." are mere non sequiturs.
:: Let me comment on some of this glop, in the hope that you're not purely a troll:"To Larc, Introspection, and others" you wrote: "I want to examine how human cognition functions in an environment where ex-JWs thrive and flock." This statement might be fine in a philosophy paper where wordiness is valued over substance, but when you're talking to real-word people a simple, "I want to understand how online ex-JWs think" would suffice.:
: Your lack of philosophical GNWSIS again shines through.
More to the point: my disdain for bloated bullshit shines through.
: I said what I meant and meant what I said
Which proves my point: you're a bloated bullshitter.
: (an example of antimetabole).
Good! Yet another example of pointless, bloated bullshit. An "antimetabole" is "a figure in which the same words or ideas are repeated in reverse order." The fact that you actually point this out proves that you're a bloated bullshitter.
: I am here to examine how cognition functions amongst ex-JWs. Cognition entails more than "thought." Any good dictionary or basic psychology book will (sic) you that.
And common sense along with any basic psychology book will tell you that a phrase like 'how people think' may well entail far more than the internal operations of the brain, including the actions that those thoughts might provoke. Context helps a lot to understand such verbal shorthand. Let me explain the concept of "context" in this instance. Clearly, "online JWs" can only express their thoughts via the keyboard and computer screen. Therefore, understanding "how online ex-JWs think" necessarily means understanding the words that they type and that appear on others' computer screens. Thus, the phrase "how online ex-JWs think" obviously includes the notions of how they act and interact, how they express their thoughts via their keyboards, etc.
:: You also wrote, "I want to ... show that the very structures that make knowledge possible are inclined to seek and know an infinite horizon of being." This is complete bullshit. It is meaningless, bloated jargon. "Structures" are insentient and are not "inclined to seek and know" anything.:
: Does a thing have to be sentient to be inclined toward something?
Not "to be inclined" in the most general sense, but certainly "to be inclined to seek and know".
: In this case, I think not. The structure that I referred to using the plural form of the morpheme, structure, is actually the transcendental structure of human consciousness. That is, the very transcendental ("lying at the base of experience") a priori conditions that make cognition possible. Now do you understand, AlanF?
No. If you will sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity you might convince someone of something.
:: The phrase "an infinite horizon of being" is completely meaningless without a great deal of explanation -- which you have not given, and are clearly incapable of giving.:
: We are hasty and presumptuous, aren't we (used in the editorial sense), AlanF? I think you better watch those snap judgments. Until you've seen me present information to the uniniated on the subject of being qua being. I suggests you refrain from saying what I am capable or incapable of doing.
You demonstrated before this post that you like to use obscure language to confuse readers. You continue to demonstrate it in this post. Whether your being "incapable" of giving a clear explanation is due to mere unwillingness, or to an inherent mental defect, I'll let you hoist yourself by your own petard.
: Additionally, "an infinite horizon of being" is a well-known phrase used by the late Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner, who used the formulaic construction to refer to (gasp!) God. Read Rahner's work and get on track. And if you need help after class, I'll be glad to stick around and help you struggle with Rahner's notion of an infinite horizon of being as well as his theological approach wherein he employs transcendental reflection to elucidate the OUSIA of God and the notion of obediential potency vis-a'-vis human subjects.
There you go! That wasn't so hard, was it? But I'm totally disinterested in Mr. Rahner and his ideas, so I'll leave it there.
:: Perhaps in your philosophy classes this phrase was beaten to death, and so you understand what you mean -- but no one else does.:
: Take a poll. Even a prepubescent child would know what an "infinite horizon of being" was. Give the "ignorant rabble" (Voltaire) some credit.
You're quite the asshole, aren't you. And I don't mean the good kind.
:: This is a good illustration of the fact that you don't understand your philosophical material well enough to know the difference between what specialists and laymen will understand or fail to understand when you use jargon. Again, in your chosen field you're a moron.:
: Let me guess. You're not a moron in your field, right?
Quite right. I understand my field well enough to know what non-specialists have trouble with. Equally important, when discussing my field with non-specialists I show enough respect for them to avoid using jargon that I know they won't understand. I might explain some jargon and then use it, but that's what a good teacher does. I never use jargon as a weapon to demonstrate my 'superiority' over non-specialists.
:: To TD you argued, in essence, that it is hunkey dory for the Governing Body to disfellowship good people merely for disagreeing with their teachings, even if those teachings are false.:
: Watch the use of those two signifiers, "in essence," for they can really have the effect of misconstruing your interlocutor's contentions if you're not careful. I never argued, "in essence," that its okay for the GB to disfellowship "good people." Moreover (autem in Latin), I never said that the GB's teaching on blood transfusions is "false." I'm careful how I use that particular lingual sign. I prefer to say the GB's ideas are not fully formed at times. They are in the embryonic stage, but the GB may sometimes think that an embryo is a fetus or a full grown child.
An interesting, but essentially contentless answer. Instead of showing what you did say, and what you did mean, you merely state what you did not argue or say. In other words, you're claiming that you took no actual position and you're not taking one now.
Rather than get into what would become a pointless exercise in 'who said what and what everyone really meant', let me pose two simple questions based on TD's point:
Is it right, in God's eyes or those of reasonable people, for JW leaders to enforce conformity to beliefs that are false? By "false" I don't mean "known false to JW leaders" since that would attribute black motives to them -- and we all know that the motives of JW leaders are pure. Well, don't we? I mean "false in a practically demonstrable sense", such as in forcing conformity to a belief that the sun orbits the earth, a belief that has been demonstrated false in a practical sense. By "enforce" I mean that disagreeable punishments such as disfellowshipping or forced dissassociation are applied to those who indicate that they don't want to conform.
Similarly, is it right for JW leaders to enforce belief in doctrines that are not known with certainty to be scriptural? For example, it's very clear from the New Testament that murder is wrong. It can be argued either way that smoking is wrong or that it's something that must be left to the conscience of each Christian. And of course, there is the well known and eminently arguable teaching of JWs about blood transfusions.
Obviously, the Bible contains a number of unambiguous statements that are not open to intepretation. It contains many that have been argued over by scholars and laymen for thousands of years. If God wanted to make certain things clear, he would have. If they are unclear enough that intelligent, sincere people can argue over them endlessly, then it follows that God doesn't care enough to make them clear, and neither should anyone who claims to follow him.
Need I point out that certain things the Society claimed about blood in the early 1960s have since been relegated to "matters of conscience"? Back then they claimed that taking all fractions are wrong and that it was a sin to donate blood. Today a JW can take virtually pure hemoglobin from cow's blood and can freely donate blood. Would it have been righteous in God's eyes to disfellowship someone two years ago for taking cows blood?
I must say that I'm glad that you have enough sense to understand that the Society's stance on blood is on shaky ground. I have little doubt that within a few years the entire nonsensical blood doctrine will add a little to that giant scrapheap of discarded JW doctrine, and so the evolution of the blood doctrine will be as complete as that of the vaccination and organ transplant doctrines. The big obstacle is the cadre of stubborn old men who are too proud to admit that they were wrong, but they'll be dead soon enough.
:: But in so doing, you've proved one of my basic contentions: Jehovah's Witnesses do not first worship God, but give their first loyalty to the Watchtower Society. You've also ignored the most important teaching of the Bible: Jehovah is the God of truth. You've also ignored specific biblical condemnations of the behavior of these leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses: "Anyone pronouncing the wicked one righteous and anyone pronouncing the righteous one wicked -- even both of them are something detestable to Jehovah." (Proverbs 17:15) "You are to keep far from a false word. And do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I shall not declare the wicked one righteous." (Exodus 23:7) In its history, how many times has the Watchtower Society declared "the wicked one righteous"?:
: Are you a biblical literalist, AlanF?
You know that I'm not.
: Have you forgotten that YHWH is a reasonable God,
Are you deliberately trying to be funny?
: who forgives the ones fearing Him. Furthermore, you are using your own subjective criteria to determine who is wicked and who is righteous.
Not at all. The Society itself acknowledges that there are people who at least as "righteous" as the best of Jehovah's Witnesses, with the exception that they reject certain Watchtower teachings (cf. W86 4/1 pp. 30-31). I have not defined "righteous" or "wicked", but the exact definitions are not necessary for this discussion. Use your own judgment. The point is that the Society itself uses subjective criteria to judge wickedness and righteousness, especially when it determines that someone has sinned against God so severely as to require disfellowshipping. The Society declares wicked those whose only 'sin' is to publicly disagree with it. The Society demonstrably changes its standards. If these are hard concepts for you, concentrate on the above example where two years ago a JW could be DF'd for taking a transfusion of hemoglobin and now it's a "conscience matter".
: What is more, before I could answer your contention about falsehoods, you would have to delineate the quiddity of a falsehood, and then distinguish between different types of "falsehoods" or lies. Then you would need to outline the gravity that attends a particular kind of mendacious statement (that is a lie, for the hOI POLLOI). I suggest Thomas Aquinas' S.T. for starters.
More bloated, red herring shit. I said nothing that requires such determinations. I simply complained that JW leaders "disfellowship good people merely for disagreeing with their teachings, even if those teachings are false." I left it up to the reader to decide which teachings have proved to be or still are "false". I certainly did not use the word "falsehood". In your usual fashion you're doing everything you can to obscure issues.
:: How about J. F. Rutherford, a drunkard and an adulterer?:
: Do you have "proof" that Rutherford was a drunkard and an adulterer?
Not apodictically, but enough to convince me and plenty of others. No doubt you'll try to make much of this (and you're welcome to) but the nature of Rutherford's vices and the personalities of his toadies were such that proof is naturally hard to come by. I've investigated enough and gotten enough tidbits to be convinced. The magazine Technology Review (February/March 1992) made some comments that I think can be applied here:
Don't preach to the converted. Readers want to know your opinions, even those with strong political implications. But it's important to assume that readers are intelligent skeptics who don't already agree with you - otherwise, why bother to write? - yet who are willing to be convinced. The key is to present enough material, including a fair rendering of opposing viewpoints, so that readers can decide for themselves. "The best way I know of persuading you of anything," says MIT physicist Philip Morrison, "is not to plead with you to trust me, not to invoke authority in general, not even to call upon some expert, but to show you just what it is that persuaded me."
: Can I track down such "proof" and verify it for myself?
In principle, yes. In practice that would be more difficult. For starters you can look at the threads:
"JW Organization On Autopilot"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=7991&site=3
"Map where Beth Sarim is"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=8080&site=3
"Joseph Rutherford and Burlesque"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=8064&site=3
"Rutherfords Burial site"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=8073&site=3
You can also check Penton's Apocalypse Delayed. More information will be published in the next couple of years. Our own poster larc has extremely good evidence that his aunt (Berta Peale) was one of Rutherford's mistresses. Ask him about this.
:: How many times has the Society declared the "righteous one wicked?":
: Didn't you already ask this question ?
Repetition for emphasis.
: Talk about pleonastic language!
Tell that to the KMS Overseer next time you're working on that point of speech counsel.
: But I don't have an exact count on such figures, and I am in no position to say that this person condemned by the society was righteous, and that person judged by the Society was wicked.
You have heard of "rhetorical questions", haven't you?
:: How about the "silentlambs" whom the Society has relegated to obscurity but are now beginning to speak out?:
: I don't know who "silentlambs" truly is.
While you claim to use precise language, you seem to have difficulty understanding it. My use of "the" and "are" (bolded above) clearly indicates that "silentlambs" is a special noun used in the plural. Obviously I'm not talking about a single person, but about all the people who have been categorized as "silent lambs" in various online discussions (which you've obviously read) and on the "silentlambs" website. So it's obvious that you're just using language to obscure meaning again.
: Yes, I see an entity of some kind running a website and posting here under the name, "silentlambs," but I have no way of verifying silentlamb's story. How can anyone on this board prove that silentlambs is telling the truth?
Have you read the stories posted to the website? How about similar ones posted to the website freeminds.org? Short of their presenting their stories in courts of law, that's about the best "proof" one can expect.
Let's put you to the test: Would you be willing to talk to one or more of these "silent lambs" in person or on the phone if it could be arranged? If not, then your insincerity will show.
Frankly I'll be surprised if you even answer this question.
: That's what cracks me up about this forum. People are willing to readily believe anything negative about the Society and quick to dismiss anything positive said about the Witnesses. Why don't you hold silentlambs to the same standard of proof that you hold Witnesses to?
What makes you think I haven't?
:: You (sic) answer, dunsscot, or lack of answer, to these questions, will determine in the minds of readers whether you're a sincere Christian or a mere troll.As for your claim that you have difficulty reading books, such as the "book" I wrote in response to your first bit of silliness, I will guarantee this: unless you can respond to and deal substantively with every issue I raised, you will have no credibility whatsoever, on this forum or in terms of objective truth. Only one of your fellow JWs will fail to understand this.:
: How do you know you're speaking "objectively"?
What did I say that allows you to ask that? My writings are as objective as necessary for the intended purpose, and are naturally influenced by my own subjectivity.
: You and every other autonomous agent reasons from his or her own personal preunderstandings to certain conclusions.
Duh.
: You forget that the "facts" you present are not necessarily brute. They are filtered through certain presuppositions and thus may not represent "objective truth." No, you don't have to thank me for the sage reminder. :-)
If you have any disagreement with the facts I have presented or the way in which I present them, then just pick a specific issue and deal with it. And do drop the stupid bullshit hyperverbosity. You're capable of better, and I don't understand why you resort to such transparently silly tactics. Who are you trying to fool?
: Lastly, as we say in Latin, flocci non facio. I.e., I don't give a hoot what you or anyone else participating in this form thinks about me.
You lie. Othewise you wouldn't be here testing the waters.
: But I loves you all.
Right.
Now let's see you deal with my 1st post, without your bullshit jargon.
AlanF
