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.
:Not to me it ain't - I ain't never bin no Roman Catholic.:
I ain't bin no RC either. But Duns is Catholic. When the Pope speaks, he listens. As you can probably tell--Duns wants to be the Pope!
Veni, vidi, vici! An asyndetic formula, if Duns ever saw one.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
since 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.
Larc:
:Duns,
"Whom has God used as his prophet? By the historical facts of the case Christendom is beaten back in defeat. Jehovah's Witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that
God has been pleased to use them." (WT, Jan. 15, 1959, p.40):
I admit that the article did not make it clear in what sense JWs are "prophets." I think such clarification is provided elsewhere. I also found these quotes that temper yours:
*** w59 1/15 39 Down with the Old-Up with the New! ***
Today fear is more and more being expressed for the organized religion of Christendom. What is to come of it? For an answer, people should listen to the plain preaching by the remnant prefigured by Jeremiah, for these preach to men the present-day fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies.
*** w59 1/15 42 Down with the Old-Up with the New! ***
Let the nations of today not despise the Word of Jehovah God, come though it may through the internationally hated body of Christians known as Jehovah’s witnesses. What they are saying and preaching to the nations is not their own word; it is taken from God’s written Word. “So, then,” says Paul, “the man that shows disregard is disregarding, not man, but God, who put his holy spirit in you.”—1 Thess. 4:8. Ap
:First of all, there is one error here. Many religions do not prophesy, so the WT assertion is presenting a straw man. Second, the WT history of prophecy is a tad flawed, to understate the case.:
All religions pretty much "prophesy" in the broad sense of the term that the WT is employing. The WT has never claimed to be a prophet, who could foretell the future infallibly.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
:in oculo porci = in a pig's eye
in alto stercore = in deep shit
He takes Stephanus's comments cum grano salis, with a grain of salt.:
Very good, Ginny. But I euphemistically translate in alto stercore as "in deep doo-doo."
Bonus question: magna cum laude and the other phrases that I submitted are all examples of what rhetorical device?
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
since 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.
:Duns,
Would you agree with the WT statement made in 1959, that God has used the JWs as his prophet?:
I have read similar statements in the WT. But before I ventured any comment, I would have to see the exact quote.
Could you post it for us?
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
since 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.
:Duns,
So you won't take proof from the WT Society's publications that state he said he was, in private conversation?:
There are two conflicting statements in the WT. The 1916 WT says one thing, while the 1927 WT says another. Rather than conclude that the WT ignorantly revised history in 11 years, I think that the writers of the 1927 WT realized they did not have proof that Rusell ever said he was the FDS. We cannot simply go on hearsay. I find it incredible that Russell supposedly called himself the FDS, while writing about "one [FDS] class" in the literature (See his 1881 and 1889 comments).
:So does that mean you don't trust the WT Society literature?:
No, it does not mean THAT. It just means that I try to read any journal critically and adjudicate its veracity in the light of reason and the preponderance of available evidence.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Here is one of my favorite lines from Catullus:
Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus, rumoresque senum severiorum omnes unius aestimemus assis!
Valete,
Dan
P.S. Note the use of the jussive subjunctive in the first line.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
since 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.
:Duns,
I have not taken the time to read the very lengthy threads that have been devoted to the Russell subject. Nontheless, I am providing two quotes that were made in 1917 regarding Russell. I would be interested in your interpretation of these. "The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell." (The Finished Mystery, 1917, p.53), and "The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and last - St. Paul and Pastor Russell." (WT Nov. 1, 1917, p. 323). With this kind of veneration, it is surprising that they did not refer to these two mesengers as "St. Paul and St. Charles." Whatever Russell claimed from his own lips, it is pretty clear what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society thought of him.:
I do not think there is any question what the WT thought of Russell at that time. Even Marley Cole made some very exalted comments about Russell in his work on JWS. But my point is that Russell himself never claimed to be the FDS of Mt 24:45-47. Admittedly, he may have wondered how Jehovah was using him, and what role he would play in the fulfillment of the said passage. But I have never seen any written evidence from Russell himself that proves he claimed to be the FDS.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
:Duns,
Dag nab it anyway! Get back to them there books a yourn. I have been waiting with baited breath for your determinism comments. Also, I just added some Watchtower quotes to the Russell thread (Charles, not Bertrand) for your edification and delight.:
I'll comment on the WT quotes today. But it will be tomorrow before I get the books I need. I do not have time to run by the library today. I'm just posting a little before work.
Sincerely,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
hi dan!.
i came across this logical positivism term and was wondering what your view on it is.
the great philosophers did it as a proffessional career.
Dear Country Joe:
I am still wipin' the tears from my eyes after reading your post. Its nice you took the time to look up information on logical positivism and Kripke.
:I don't get the impression here that old Kurt [Godel] would say, "WELLLL! Not necessarily cuz we ain't all that sure that the plus sign is really a plus sign even though it looks to be a plus sign, and who is to say what plus really means anyway in the grand scheme of things. A plus sign is nothing more than 2 minus signs at right angles to one another, so really, a plus could actually be a double minus sign which would indicate that 2 minus minus 2 is not a 4 at all but a -2."Yeah! That works for me. How about you?:
I have also been heavily influenced by Paul Davies' _The Mind of God_. If you will recall, he notes that Godel demonstrated the veracity of his incompleteness theorem in 1931. This theorem tells us that there are certain mathematical statements "for which no systematic procedure could determine whether they are either true or false" (Davies 101). In other words, it now seems that undecidable propositions obtain in mathematics. This problem, says Davies, occurs when a mathematician engages in self-referentiality. There are thus paradoxes in math akin to the medieval conundrum:
Socrates: "What Plato is about to say is false."
Plato: "Socrates has just spoken truly."
"Tom cannot prove this statement to be true."
It is no wonder that Davies relates this experience:
"John Barrow has remarked wryly that, if a religion 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."
To sum things up, I am not saying that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. My point is that one cannot PROVE 2 + 2 = 4 apodictically. Davies suggests that we KNOW such propositions as 2 + 2 = 4 on the basis of a prioricity. Here he takes a page from Immanuel Kant's epistemology (theory of knowledge), which makes a distinction between a priori and a posteriori ideas. Kant also differentiated between analytic, synthetic, and a priori synthetic propositions. Davies' thoughts are thus similar to phenomenological realism, which generally posits the notion of eideational intuition. That is, we KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4 since we eidetically grasp the solution of a certain proposition.
But I enjoyed your post.
Take care!
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
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.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roma locuta, causa finita.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Meaning? (At no time have I claimed to have any ability in Latin):
This is a common theological saying. We could translate it thusly: "Rome has spoken, case closed!"
Pope Scotus
In vino veritas
