:I don't know, what do you think?. Do you think, or do you just let the 'experts' think for you?:
Sum ergo cogito.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
dunsscot
JoinedPosts by dunsscot
-
31
Infinitism
by dunsscot inskeptics of the world, unite!.
as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.
-
-
-
31
Infinitism
by dunsscot inskeptics of the world, unite!.
as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.
-
-
dunsscot
:It's going the same place as the mythical bird which flies in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own arse! Like all Dunsscot's posts.:
"Pseudo-Dionysius says that the wisdom of the contemplative moves in a motus orbicularis--a circling and hovering motion like that of the eagle above some invisible quarry, or the turning of a planet around an invible sun" (Thomas Mrrton, Zen and the Birds of Appetite).
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
31
Infinitism
by dunsscot inskeptics of the world, unite!.
as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.
-
-
dunsscot
:Dunsscot, can't (informal) you answer a simple question when asked? What was your great insight on the use of "pros" with the accusative which you shared with your intelectual [sic] stimulation [what?] starved elder?:
You mean to tell me that you do not know the answer to this question, Steph? I thought you "knew" Greek. You should be the one teaching me. PROS + the accusative over against SUN + the dative serves a pretty simple semantic function in Attic and Koine Greek. I think you are trying to sandbag, my friend. The major lexica and Greek grammars all contain the information. Why hound me? I hate throwing priceless pearls to swine. :-)
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
31
Infinitism
by dunsscot inskeptics of the world, unite!.
as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Naeblis,
:Interesting. But if you can never pinpoint your reason for belief..does that make you openminded..or closeminded...or can a person take it to each extreme? What I mean is. If your reasons are ever changing or infinite, so are your arguments to your opponents rebuttals.:
Infinitism does not say that one cannot "pinpoint" his or her "reason for belief." What it does contend is that one "can believe that P without JUDGING that P" (Dr. Peter Klein). In other words, "it could be that one believes that the reasons one has so far discovered for P are not conclusive" (Klein). An infinitist thus thinks that inquiry never ends. All beliefs are provisional, whether they are ethical, scientific or theological. I personally think that an infinitist can be quite open-minded. Obviously, however, an infinitist could become dogmatic if he or she were not careful. But I like Klein's attitude. He writes: "So is infinitism correct? Of course, I do not take the matter to be settled. I do not expect to have convinced you that infinitism is preferable to foundationalism or coherentism. Or even that there are no fatal objections to infinitism." Klein goes on to point out that he hopes the argument contained in his essay forces us to take his view seriously. I think his demeanor exemplifies the thoughts of most infinitists, though some philosophers have claimed Klein almost stands alone in this respect.
Lastly, infinitism does imply that one is willing to change his or her views if the evidentiary chain of reasons suggest one should do so. That is why Klein talks about the suspension of judgment.
Sincerely,
DanDuns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
31
Infinitism
by dunsscot inskeptics of the world, unite!.
as i slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of coca-cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment.
-
-
dunsscot
Skeptics of the world, unite!
As I slowly and deliberately nursed a nonalcoholic cup of Coca-Cola tonight, something motivated me to pull out my notes on infinitism and share them with you good folks here.
Infinitism is a philosophical school of thought that advocates the epistemological "suspension of judgment." It differs from both foundationalism and coherentism in the following ways:
Foundationalism posits that one's reason (R) for a belief (P) is "ultimately based upon a reason for which there is no further reason."
Coherentism says that one's R for P is ultimately based "in part" upon P.
Infinitism, on the other hand, contends that one's R for P is based on R1, which is based on R2, ad infinitum. The resultant effect is that any judgment regarding P is provisional and should be held in suspension. In this way, we avoid dogmatism or circularity.
Peter D. Klein of Rutgers University says that infinitism is the view that "the structure of justificatory reasons is infinite and non-repeating . . ."
What do you think?
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
82
Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot
by AlanF insince dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.
the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.
in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear ian,
:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916 (p. 5998 Reprints):
It is here interesting to note that Jesus said, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing! Verily, I say unto you that he shall make him ruler over all his goods." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I suppose this is a vicious appostate lie as well.
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance (sp!) it would seem Duns. Duns should really stop asking others to provide proof if his intention is to ignore it. It's a big waste of time.
I also wish I were there with you by the keyboard just now, as I'm sure Duns could use a firm handshake and a "pat on the back".:
I am not ignoring proof, my friend. AF was supposedly trying to prove that Russell considered himself the FDS. But nothing that he cited upholds his claims. In all the research I have conducted, I have zero evidence that Russell ever said he was the FDS. True, the 1916 WT said he did so in private conversations. But the 1927 WT says that he did not. I simply do not think hearsay is the best approach when one is trying to put together any historical occurrences. I find it hard to believe that AF expects me to accept his claims about Russell thinking he was the FDS on such slender evidence. Others may have mistakenly thought Russell was the slave. But I find no evidence that he ever said he was. I also find it odd that the quote about "God's mouthpiece" is almost never quoted in context.
As an aside, I personally knew someone who traveled with Russell as a young "pioneer." This person always told me Russell was humble and that he did not think he was the FDS. She talked as if this knowledge was common among the friends. Her words are not proof of what I am saying. But they are something to consider.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
82
Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot
by AlanF insince dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.
the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.
in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.
-
-
dunsscot
:Duns,
Keep writing I love it!I can see you use big word and philosphy to hide behined.
Maybe that's why you studied it so hard because you love to hide behined it, it's your protection.BUT IT WON'T WORK HERE.:
There is nothing for me to hide. Alan does not know what he is talking about when he said my use of Quod erat demonstrandum was wrong and he distorts what little he knows about Russell. What a shame!
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
82
Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot
by AlanF insince dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.
the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.
in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.
-
-
dunsscot
:Perhaps I am missing the point; I am but a simple lad whose own knowledge of Latin doesn't go much beyond my being able to read the menu in a Latin restaurant. Is it that you are simply contending that Russell never used the actual words "God's Mouthpiece" when speaking about himself? A "yes" or "no" answer to this question, with no quotations from philosophers living or dead, will help me greatly.:
I never said Russell did not use the words: "God's mouthpiece.". My point was that if he did employ such terminology, he was not haughty. Furthermore, when his writings are read in context, they show that he did not think he was the only mouthpiece of God. He evidently based his words on 1 Pet 4:10-11 and wished that all would be mouthpieces of God in a spirit akin to Moses. That is the point I am trying to make. Sorry if its not a yes or no answer. But AF's slander of Russell reminds me of the way Montanus was unfairly disparaged by his enemies.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
82
Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot
by AlanF insince dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.
the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.
in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.
-
-
dunsscot
AF is too proud to admit he was wrong about Latin grammar and Russell. What a shame!
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
82
Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot
by AlanF insince dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.
the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.
in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.
-
-
dunsscot
AF: So, Dummy, now that it has all been laid out before you in excruciating detail, can you argue that your statement:
quote:Not one thing you typed PROVES ... that Brother Russell called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF.
has anything to do with what I stated or what you specifically asked me to produce? Of course not -- you're a dummy.:
I think you're the obtuse idiot here, as my review of your quotes clearly shows. But let us move on, shall we? You were wrong about Quod erat demonstrandum and you are in error when it comes to Russell.
:: Nevertheless, I will visit the website that supposedly shows Russell's claims of infallibility.:
:Replying to a matter again before you've heard it, eh? Don't you pay attention to the Bible's words about that? Don't you ever learn? Had you read the material I referenced on the Web, you'd have found the reference to "the statement concerning Russell's books". Nevertheless, I reproduce it below.:
I said that I would "visit" the website you referred to in your post. I visited it and found that the site was just more of the same old slanderous dung.
:: But you still have to show where Brother Russell ever called himself God's mouthpiece or the faithful and discreet slave. Even if he did call himself "God's mouthpiece," it does not mean that he was haughty. But of course you have not proven that which was to be demonstrated in the first place.:
:The various statements in the quotes I have already provided prove that the Watchtower Society's leaders stated that Russell admitted in private to being "the faithful and wise servant". That Russell was "that slave" was officially stated Watchtower dogma from 1916 through 1927, and was clearly implied in Watchtower literature as far back as 1895, and according to the Society itself was implied as far back as 1883.:
Now you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion. Please stick to the two germane issues here. First, you said that Russell called himself "God's mouthpiece." Secondly, you suggested that Russell elevated his books above the Bible. But let us examine both of those claims in the light of the evidence.
:The asked-for statements from Russell, and a lot more besides, can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/end2.htm#basis which is in the article "The WTS and the End of the World" => "Part 2: The Orwellian Thinking of JWs" => "The Basis of Early False Predictions".
Here is the statement where Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece", right off this website:quote:In the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower, on page 229, Russell wrote:
quote:Many are the inquiries relative to the truths presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN and ZION'S WATCH TOWER, as to whence they came and how they developed to their present symmetrical and beautiful proportions - Were they the results of visions? Did God in any supernatural way grant the solution of these hitherto mysteries of his plan? Are the writers more than ordinary beings? Do they claim any supernatural wisdom or power? or how comes this revelation of God's truth?
No, dear friends, I claim nothing of superiority, nor supernatural power, dignity or authority; nor do I aspire to exalt myself in the estimation of my brethren of the household of faith....
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.:I think you need to acquaint yourself with the notion of sense and reference. Yes, Russell did call himself "God's mouthpiece." But you fail to explain this comment in context. Rusell thought that all Christians should serve as God's mouthpiece and he encouraged the body of Christ (as he understood it) to serve God as a collective mouthpiece. Your comments are nothing but lies and slander. Talk about arrogance. Russell's terminology is explained on this website:
http://network54.com/Realm/Present_Truth/godsmouthpiece.html
As far as the comment about Russell claiming to be the slave in private, that is pretty slender evidence. Its strange that he never ever wrote such a thing in his books. You say that he implied that he was the FDS in his writings. But implications simply will not do here.
:Here is Russell's claim that anyone who failed to read his books would "go off into darkness" within two years:
quote:It was apparently this belief - that he had a special appointment from God - that led to virtually equating his own writings with the Bible itself. In the following material from the September 15, 1910 Watch Tower article "Is the Reading of 'Scripture Studies' Bible Study?", pages 298-9 (4684-5 Reprints), note the difficulty Russell had in maintaining humility. The article discussed the "plan of reading twelve pages of the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES each day." It gave a rather mixed message about how the Bible ought to be viewed. Since Studies in the Scriptures pretty well covered everything the serious Bible student needed to know, it said that, while reading the Bible was important, and "the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible," nevertheless the volumes "are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those bible statements."
quote:If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes - the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.:More distortion of Russell's comments. Yawn! These comments were addressed in the WT years ago and they are also refuted on the website I referenced above:
"Certainly Brother Russell spoke from experience here, seeing some go into the darkness of atheism. The unjust critics of Russell, in their zeal to advertise their little slanders, don't realize that the VERY SAME ARTICLE also says the following:
"The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible."
"there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God."
"before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says."
"we would think it our duty to refer at once to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the standard, and in that reference to the Scripture it would be with a view to discerning whether or not we had been mistaken in our previous examinations."
"SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE - [the chapter heading title!]
"This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary, continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact, should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible --not merely in accord with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible."
Would that the unjust critics of Russell would learn to look before they leap! Sadly, many will only repeat the original slander even after being shown these quotes that contradict their attacks."
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."