Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends

dunsscot

Dear Thinker,
You ask:
:You seem fond of Kant. Have you read "What is Enlightenment?"(1784) ?:
I have read part of this Kantian work, and I am definitely familar with the quote that you posted. But let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with Alasdair McIntyre's classic _After Virtue_? In this peerless work, he demonstrates logically that the Enlightenment project HAS failed. This point is driven home even more so, I think, in the four volume work by Herman Dooyeweerd, "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought." Dooyeweerd also shows up the deficiencies in Kantian thought, as does McIntyre. For a scientific treatment of issues surrounding the Enlightment and Kant, read Paul Davies "The Mind of God."
Pace,
Dan
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

Dear Thinker,
:Duns,
Please reexamine the WT quotes I provided. I did not make any claim concerning the truthfulness of the statements.
What these quotes DO show is that the WT CHANGED the words from the monthly magizines when they made the bound volumes and CDs.
WHY? These were direct quotes from someone outside the organization:
The post that you sent contained a part written in bold letters that asked whether the statements in the journals were truthful or not. That's why I provided certain answers to you. Yes, the WT did change the words in some of the magazines, and I think the reason why has evidently been revealed on this board. I don't consider such changes an admission of falsehood, however. Why did the WT change certain parts of the magazines? See AlanF for details. He's the resident Bethel and Old WT expert. ;-)
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

:Do you, deep inside, feel that you have anything to say? Now, please, don't grind this sentence into tiny little bits and give me your free-flowing stream of associations with whatever Leibniz or Hegel or whoever said. It's a very simple question, I want a simple answer.:
I'll try to resist waxing Hegel, Leibniz or Fichte for you. And I'll also try and keep this post REAL simple.
You wonder whether I FEEL that I have anything to say? Now do you really mean "feel," in this case or would it have been better for you to have asked whether I THINK I have something to articulate? While the word "feel," may be okay in everyday usage to denote 'dinking," it ain't alright on a pristine and elegant board like this one. <BG> So do you wish to rephrase your question for the good doctor, who is not a vir doctissimus? :-)
Christian love,
Dan
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

My dear friend AlanF,
I will address your your response tomorrow. After we get these little philosophical niceties out of the way, I'll reply to your "book."
Have a nice day,
Dan
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

Dear Copernicus,
I must admit that free expression, for the most part, does obtain in this forum. But I find that some participants in this lovely discussion area do not want me to "freely" express myself in the way that I see fit. While JW opposers can use negative and even profane language to "express" themselves, poor old Duns cannot even employ philosophical "jargon" without being maligned. I can just imagine what poor Socrates went through when he tried to help people see that they were ignorant as he walked among the clouds. My, oh my!
But you write:
<<You referenced “Jannes and Jambres. . . men completely corrupted in mind” as comparable to those of us who post here in opposition to the “truth” as you see it. But what corrupted them? Was in not possibly, in large part, their own worldly knowledge?
As I read your expressed thoughts, the following scriptures came (unbidden) to mind:
“In the same way also, unless YOU through the tongue utter speech easily understood, how will it be known what is being spoken? YOU will, in fact, be speaking into the air.”
“For Christ dispatched me. . . not with wisdom of speech, that the torture stake of the Christ should not be made useless.”
“For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.”>>
Let me answer your concerns about worldly wisdom or knowledge briefly. I think that a Christian should beware of philosophy. The systematic implementation of worldly wisdom by a God-talker can actually corrupt a good theological system. On the other hand, I believe that Stephen T. Davis makes a valid point when he suggests that the Bible does not condemn all forms of abstract thought vis-a'-vis the faith. He argues that the apostle Paul even waxed abstract in Acts 17, and I think I've found places in the NT where Paul actually leans on Plato and Aristotle a bit. Davis writes that "the wisdom of God is attained not by reasoning alone but by faith. But again I see no blanket condemnation of the enterprise of philsophy here [in 1 Cor 1:17ff and 2:1ff]."
I think the operative word in this case is CAVE, as in CAVE CANEM!
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
CPiolo

Duns:
Therefore, when I employ the term "theory," I am talking about a set of statements that elucidate and specify the modus operandi and/or basis for certain conceptual relations.
In other words, your explaining how you formed your opinion. Thanks.
They're still just opinions (opinions and assholes again), and without empirical data to back them up, as good as my theory about coconut oil and headstanding for good health and long life, or the old observational theory that the Sun revoleves around the Earth.
CPiolo
The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde
CPiolo

For those who enjoy Dunsscot's obfuscatory hyperverbosity, visit the following link for some fun:
http://www.d23.n-cook.k12.il.us/sullivan/mayer/obfuscatoryhyperverbosity.htm
CPiolo
The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde
Copernicus

Hi Dan:
Thanks for the personal response, as I can see that you’re pretty inundated here.
I must admit that free expression, for the most part, does obtain in this forum. But I find that some participants in this lovely discussion area do not want me to "freely" express myself in the way that I see fit.
Yes, it does obtain, and it was good of you to acknowledge this fact as certainly freedom of expression is both a goal worthy of aspiration, and something long denied to many of us by the org that you defend. As far as your ability to do so in a way that you see fit, no one can stop you, but if you want to elicit an open, bilateral discourse (if that is your intention) I think you’ll have to be less erudite, and more revealing as to what you agenda is, exactly.
Your original question:
Are those who have left God's organization and Jehovah God Himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
Your statement itself is littered with bias (and indicative of a closed mind) in your base assumption that “God” does in fact have an organization, and you are part of it. Things like this present a challenge to those here who’ve come to conclusions other then your own, often through very painful personal experience. Are they now more open-minded as a result? I would again say yes. I, for instance, was never more closed-minded then when I was a Witness and we’ve enjoyed a number of threads that explore the psychological basis for this fact.
If those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against Jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some Olympian perspective, I beg to differ.
You are free to differ, while bearing in mind that freedom is a sword that cuts both ways. Jehovah’s “people” have inspired a number of “vile utterances” – some with good cause, others as vituperation; as is the case with any group as polarized, vis-à-vis society, as the Witnesses are.
While JW opposers can use negative and even profane language to "express" themselves, poor old Duns cannot even employ philosophical "jargon" without being maligned. I can just imagine what poor Socrates went through when he tried to help people see that they were ignorant as he walked among the clouds. My, oh my!
I think Socrates would agree, dear Duns, that your use of jargon must be selected to enlighten, not obfuscate (intentionally or otherwise) if you want to avoid being grossly challenged (I don’t think maligned is a fair operative). Wasn’t his interest in helping others to see, as he could see? Do you share his sense of altruism? Or are you on display?
Let me answer your concerns about worldly wisdom or knowledge briefly. I think that a Christian should beware of philosophy.
Agreed, in principle.
The systematic implementation of worldly wisdom by a God-talker can actually corrupt a good theological system.
Again, I agree in principle.
On the other hand, I believe that Stephen T. Davis makes a valid point when he suggests that the Bible does not condemn all forms of abstract thought vis-a-vis the faith. He argues that the apostle Paul even waxed abstract in Acts 17, and I think I've found places in the NT where Paul actually leans on Plato and Aristotle a bit. Davis writes "the wisdom of God is attained not by reasoning alone but by faith. But again I see no blanket condemnation of the enterprise of philosophy here [in 1 Cor 1:17ff and 2:1ff]."
I was not inferring a blanket condemnation, but rather an appropriate approximation of its value (as I believe was Paul’s intent). In other words, don’t let knowledge get in the way of what you know. As in the end, I tend to lean towards Alan’s feeling that most philosophy is the product of an overactive mind, and without intrinsic (or practical) value (if I read him right). My personal interests tend more towards the thoughts of historical men of action, such as Napoleon, etc.
I think the operative word in this case is CAVE, as in CAVE CANEM!
Beware of the dog? Yes very good – as in the sense that over indulgence in, or attributing excess value to certain schools of thought (including atheistic) can be the dog that bites?
So, tell me. . . where do you go from here?
Copernicus
Farkel

Dunnscot,
It hasn't been since the days Greg Stafford attempted to give us all lessons in koine' Greek that anyone has shown us such self-aggrandizing puffery and obfuscating pedantry. Then you come along. Well, perhaps you ARE Greggie boy in a new disguise attempting to shine again. I don't know and I'm not making accusations about that. The puffery? Yes. Stafford? No.
Here is your reply. You failed to include my original and specific questions, so I'll have to help you out here. Apparently with all your "knowledge" you haven't mastered that as-difficult technique of learning to shade words, pressing Ctrl-C and then Ctrl-V. I know it's difficult, but practice. In a few months you may even learn how to actually do it.
You "answered" me thusly:
: 1) God evidently has a universal organization and an earthly one. When I speak of "God's Organization," I am referring to God's earthly organization composed of the remaining ones of the heavenly woman's seed and those who loyally associate with this remnant.
Your original statement and my original reply was this:
:: Are those who have left God's organization and Jehovah God Himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
: What, exactly is "God's Organization?" Please be specific. There will be a quiz. And by implication you have stated that leaving "God's Organization(tm)" is the same a leaving "Jehovah God Himself." Please show evidence for that assertion.
I specifically asked one simple question, and your "evidence" was that "evidently" God has two organizations. Yet your original question about those who "left" that organization and "God Himself" implied that they were facts. Even though you haven't directly admitted it, your use of the word "evidently" shows they are not facts and betrays that your first question was loaded. So I will follow up with this: what proof can you show that God even "evidently" has a "heavenly" and and "earthly" organization?
Next, you said:
: 2) In His holy Word, God Himself tells us that when we bless His worshipers, we are in effect blessing Him. Conversely, cursing God's servants is akin to "cursing" Him.
I'm appalled that you claim you have studied both Rene Decartes and Emmanuel Kant and yet you cannot even see circular argument. Both those men were masters of logic, with Kant building upon and adding to the ideas of Decartes.
I have a book entitled "Kant Selections" edited by Theodore M. Green. It is 526 pages long and contains extensive quotations from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," "Transcendental Analytic," "Transcendental Dialectic", "Theory of Ethics," and "Critique of Judgement." While I find Kant quite stuffy, he is very logical, and like all philosophers before him and after him who tried to logically prove the existence of God, failed miserably. Have you read Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro from Plato's Dialogues? If not, I suggest you do so. If you read it and understand it, you will learn that everything you might think you know about what is "good" and what is "evil" requires a whole new way of thinking. I posted an essay on it recently and it should be some in the archives here.
Your statement above amounts to this: 1) God's word is Holy. 2) That word says what we fo to his worshipers is the same as doing it to God himself.
So? If you are claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses are "His" worshipers, then I demand proof, and since you offer the Bible as proof, I will accept proof from the Bible.
By the way, the only way we "know" the Bible is "Holy" is because the Bible says it is Holy, and the only way we "know" the Bible is true is because the Bible SAYS it is true. That's circular reasoning. The only way we know the fox is guarding the hen house is because the fox has promised it will guard the hen house, and fox's are well-known for being trustworthy when it comes to guarding hen houses. Sure, they are.
Next you said:
: So leaving God's organization is comparable to apostatizing from Him. The NT never promotes the notion of "Lone Ranger" Christians.
You're acting just like a stupid Watchtower magazine writer. Your "argument" starts off with: this is "evidently" God's organization (no proof, just assertion) and you immediately jump into the notion that leaving this "organization" is the same as apostatizing from him. Nothing you assert that is dependent upon your original assertion being true is worth squat unless you can show your original assertion to be true.
You said:
:3) An Olympian perspective is an outlook that is comparable to the mythical gods who inhabited Mt. Olympus.
Ok, I understand: you want me to have a mythical outlook just like the mythical outlooks had by the mythical Gods. In otherwords, you want me to think like a dub.
: It is a perspective that is not historically conditioned or filtered through any finite preunderstandings.
Right, 'cause it is after all, mythical.
: One who articulates his or her Weltanschauung from an Olympian perspective is putatively able to transcend the existential fray of existence and speak as if his or her words are infallible in nature, ex cathedra.
Simply put you want me to believe mythical shit as if it was infallible. At least you're starting to make some better sense now.
Your whole thesis boils down to: "Just start thinking like a dub and then you'll understand everything."
: 4) You also asked me to prove that "so-called 'vile utterances'" even "bother a God "so far removed from us all that is pathetic." Well, what kind of "proof" would satisfy your mind.
Valid, provable assertions, followed by logical conclusions. This is the rudiments of logic. You could not have possibly studied philosophy without being forced to understand the calculus of logic as part of your studies, so you should know perfectly well what kind of proof I demand. By the way do the Humanities Departments in Universities offer degrees in "Windbagging" these days? Just curious.
: What type of argument would seem "cogent" to you?
One with a lot more substance and a lot less bullshit, that's what.
: In many (if not all) cases, "proof" is person-relative.
Right. You like the mythical kind. I like the genuine thing.
You said to AlanF:
:Why should I be afraid to deal with Farkel or you? Neither one of you gentlemen have said anything that I haven't heard before in all of my years online.
No doubt. And in all those years you still haven't learned how to give straight answers to simple questions and straight proof when you offer assertions.
: Farkel and AlanF are simply limited, finite, impotent, ignorant existents like every other man or woman living in the realm of GH.
Maybe so, but at least we can think and express ourselves a lot more clearly than you can. We make a lot better sense than you do, too.
Farkel
dunsscot

CPiolo on Duns' explanation of the signifier "theory" as it is employed in philosophical discourse:
:In other words, your explaining how you formed your opinion. Thanks.:
I would not equate philosophical theories with unfounded opinions (BTW, Plato also talks about true opinions that differ in nature from false ones). Plato formulated a very influential and intriguing ontology (the doctrine of Forms), this theory of being, however, was not simply an opinion. It may have been an inadequate theory, though certain physicists like Roger Penrose are avowed Platonists; but Plato's theory of what actually is was not an opinion. Cf. his discussion in the "Republic" on the divided line. Note where what is often translated as "opinion" in English is located on the line.
:They're still just opinions (opinions and assholes again), and without empirical data to back them up, as good as my theory about coconut oil and headstanding for good health and long life, or the old observational theory that the Sun revoleves around the Earth.:
Philosophical theories are not just opinions because they must account for certain existential and phenomenological data. Furthermore, the said theories must also correspond to what is known about the phenomenal realm, they must be coherent, pragmatic, and must additionally form a web of beliefs that explain "reality." Lastly, an adequate theory must successfully relate certain beliefs to others within the web. A mere opinion cannot do any of the foregoing.
You also clamor for empirical evidence, but I like what John Barrows observed:
"John Barrow has remarked wryly that, if a religion [in this case, philosophical theory], is defined to be a system of thought which requires belief in unprovable truths, then mathematics is the only religion that can prove it is a religion."
Duns the Scot

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

Share this