ElderX this is directed at your statement that "we make our own truth".


From time to time someone will ask about the rightness of an observation, thinking how could what I feel or what I observe be wrong? Others correctly point out that their feelings and observations are subjective, this in an effort to not invalidate the feelings or observations but to classify them. I don't think however that this addresses the issue of their rightness. The sky is blue and 100 degrees is hot, right?

I thought it would be nice to explore what subjective means. I am fond of playing the pun and saying that subjective means that it is subject to ideas and experiences. However the true etymology refers not to the observations but to the subject making the observations. It may be a small distinction but it makes every observation subjective because it must be observed by someone or something. True objectivity is impossible because there is a subject (individual or thing) involved. Another way of saying this is that subjective and objective observations are mutually exclusive, meaning that if it is subjective it cannot be, by definition objective.

Which brings me to the subject line. Often we hear the phrase subjective and we automatically jump to the idea that it cannot be objectively right. I believe this is wrong, while an observation might be subjective that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the same if it were an objective observation. Just because something cannot be both subjective and objective doesn't mean that the observation cannot be correct from both angles. Again this may be a small distinction but I think, at least in my journey, it is a valuable insight. I have at times teetered on the edge of nihilism and I have found myself uncomfortable with the direction. Granted that would be a subjective feeling, but individually I have reasoned my way to a point where my subjective observations might be right. Incidentally, I think there are some who reject all of their subjective observations and would prefer to rely instead on outside directions, I call these people TBMs.

One more thing I promise, because I know I ramble. I have also decided that the state of being right and the state of being truth are not the same. Right to me means conformity with one's subjective observations, while truth means conformity with fact. This means that while I might be right about something, me being right doesn't make it true. It would only be true if the thing that I was right about also conformed with fact. I know that this seems like a very conflicted way of living a life but it works for me.

Or so it seems to me.

Nate

"Or so it seems to me."

Is that not making your own truth? It seems that way to you, so therefore for you it is true. And nobody can argue against your truth because it is yours.

For me, everyone makes there own truth.

Or so it seems to me.

I am making myself right, not making my own truth. Truth must always conform with fact.

Everyone can argue against my truth, especially when my truth isn't true.

That's why we have peer review. That's why we state it as "98% of the time X is observed". We may even be able to figure out why 2% of people observe something else, there might be a phenomenon that can account for it.

People can be emotional and irrational, but we should strive to be rational and discover joy.

I think Mormonism ruins judgement. We are indoctrinated into ways of thinking that allows us to be manipulated. People are filled with nonsense like this:

"... obedience is not restrictive, but that it brings blessings. Obedience does not restrict us or bind us down. Obedience expands our horizons and increases our capacity."

From "Believe, Obey, Endure".

We are not taught to think through even the simplest morality problems. The moral code instilled into us is: if it serves the church (God in our indoctrinated minds) it is right, and if it exposes the church to criticism it is wrong. (Think temple covenants) This warped morality leads us to blindly defend the faith even when it is horribly wrong, because "The Church is perfect", any criticism comes from "enemies".

I may not be able to continue a friendship with a Mormon I know, simply because I can't have an intelligent conversation with her. She likes to say that everything she sees is proof of God and Mormonism. If I suggest a more mundane natural phenomenon, the passive aggressive response comes out, because I have threatened her beliefs.

"It's God" is the only explanation for everything with her. She doesn't want to entertain another possibility. You might be in a cult, if there isn't a single part of your life, including your own thoughts, that isn't dictated by church doctrines of "believe, obey and endure".

What you're describing, ElderX, are opinions and attitudes. We do make those, although we may be influenced by others. We don't make truth.

Truth stands or falls on its own merits. It's objective, not subjective.

> The sky is blue and 100 degrees is hot, right?

Actually it's not blue: http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/sky-blue/

In Celsius 100 degrees is boiling (literally), in Fahrenheit it's slightly warmer than body temperature, and in Kelvin it's colder than has ever been measured on Earth outside a lab by almost a factor of three.

In other words, everything is relative. ;)

Edit: Fixed link.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 11:57AM by squeebee.

I prefer the word subject as opposed to relative, because everything is relative to the subject.

Glad to see you got my point, I'm much more lucid in my mind that I am in reality.

You can only prove an objective statement. Good and bad can't be proved. Morality as we current understand it is subjective, there are generally accepted principals (cultural norms), but they are not absolutes and should be re-evaluated regularly. We also have to acknowledge that humans are egocentric by nature and have a hard time letting go of prior notions when evidence is presented the conflicts with our initial position. Certain actions do cause more harm (death, unhappiness) then others. We can measure those things, you can prove those things. A rock is a rock (in a simplified terms). There is only one truth, to a objective statement either it's true it's not. My name is David, this is true, it's on my birth certificate, it's what I respond to, it's on my drivers license. I would only say my name was not David if I was lying or ignorant for some reason.

Objective statements can be examined and found true or not true.

Not to quibble with words but you can prove a subjective statement and just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't true. Subjectivity is a lens not a measuring stick, and who's to say that the lens isn't clear?

Could you give me an example?

There are many examples of subjects bound by sensory bias arriving at the same place as an object would. Two apples plus two apples makes four apples.

My point is that subjective observations or statements are not by nature untrue, they are only subjective.

This reminds me of the story of the blind men feeling an elephant. Each one feels a different part--ear, trunk, tusk, leg, tail, body, etc.--and reports his "truth" about the elephant. It is from each of their own points-of-view, which are subjective. Unless they are open to seeing the elephant from a different point-of-view, they will claim their own subjective experience is truth.

Some unlucky bastid was supposed to feel the tip of the tail but the elephant pooped into his hands as he reached for the tail and his explanation of the tail is really about elephant excrement. He felt it. He knows it's true. He even felt a burning in his nostrils that testified of the truth of his experience.

Many Mormons cling to their point-of-view with all their might, mind, and strength and claim others' points-of-view are anti-Mormon.

squeebee: In answer to my endless questions, a missionary told me once that in Mormonism everything is relative. He actually wrote E = mc2 on the board. It made me laugh but it took me quite a while to realize what he meant. Or what I think he meant. That maybe even though he was on a mission he didn't really believe. And that in Mormonism things get shuffled around, depending on the question or the desired or required answer. With hindsight, I see that now.

And it answers all of my questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 12:30PM by Nightingale.

Absolute zero, whether measured in °R or °K (rankine or kelvin) units, is just that, absolute zero.

There is nothing subjective or relative about absolute zero. It is a state at which no thermal energy (read vibration or internal movement) exists in the subatomic particles that make up atoms, which make up molecules, which make up a substance.

Absolute zero is an objective thermodynamic state of matter.

0 °K = -273.15 °C

0 °R = -459.67 °F

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/



And, I'm with several other posters on the subject: Truth is objective, observation of truth can be subjective.



And, incidentally, here's a subjective observation. ElderX is an arrogant young man who's pre-frontal cortex is still developing.

Id est: "Here is some precision: i am not on the fence about mormonism. And i am not sympathizing mormonism. Now read that with precision."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1068689,1068875#msg-1068875

What I was trying to say is that it's based on perspective, and that 100 varies based on the scale used.

Absolute zero is certainly absolute, 100c being the boiling point of water (at sea level) is absolute.

I was just pointing out that even the OP's statements are subjective.

Sure but is absolute zero cold?

That is the real issue here. Zero degrees may be cold to one subject and not to another and if both were to declare their rightness in this matter they would both be right. However the truth of the matter is that zero degrees is zero degrees regardless of the subject making the observation.

And cold and heat is relative. It only tells you how fast particles are moving and how much energy there is. Heat and lack thereof really doesn't exist, it's just energy.

Think I wrote once, "Only tscc could produce self-righteous atheists."

496 years ago today, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the church of Wittenburg Cathedral, where he was a professor of theology. The significance of October 31 is the day before All Saints Day, All Hallows Eve. And on All Hallows, the faithful would arrive at the church to do "sacred" works like the veneration of relics and kissing the steps of the cathedral, designed to carve time off their stay in purgatory. If they had the bucks though, indulgences could be purchased: "When the coin in the coffer springs, the sould from purgatory springs." If you're unfamiliar with purgatory, according to the church at the time, it was the place those who die in a state of grace go after death to be punished for their sins until they were purified enough to be admitted into heaven. Lacking a basis in scriptures, purgatory and indulgences were Luther's targets.

Aided by the recent development of the printing press, Luther's 95 questions/assertions spread rapidly through Germany, at a pace previously impossible in the 16th century world. It was the spark that ignited the simmering disontent with Rome, and the Protestant Reformation (Revolution if you're Catholic) moved from the discources, and sometimes burnings, of theologians to the conversations of secular Germans.

Luther was no simple monk, but he was up against both the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire, the most powerful organizations in the west at the time. When the pope learned about the 95 Theses he was reputed to say, 'He (Luther) is a drunken German and he'll retract when he's sober.' However, the 95 Theses made sense on the level of faith, plus both commoners and princes were tired of being fleeced by Rome. Luther was exed eventually. If not for a staged kidnapping and protection by Frederick of Saxony, he would have burned at the stake as a heretic.

What I hope you see reading "this day in history" are some of the parallels between then and now. While tscc is no international, or even national power, within its confines it exerts an extreme amount of control in business and politics as well as over its believers. But coupled with the extravagance of Leo X and falling revenue, within Luther's lifetime, the church in Rome was broke. Trust me, change in the 16th century didn't occur at the rate it did even in the last century, and especially now.

An ElderX on a board like this while on mission would have been unthinkable, and impossible, 15-20 years ago, and I don't think he's an isolated instance. For the COJCOLS change is coming. It's already begun.

Martin Luther before the Imperial Diet: "Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor sane to us.
On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

ElderX, "facts is facts" and truth defines reality, so I'm leaving another Luther quote for you: "Peace if possible, truth at all costs."

Hi,

Approximately, knowledge = justified true belief.

ElderX, we have beliefs. I wouldn't really go so far as to say that we choose them. (That gets into free will, the origin of thoughts, etc., and that's all very complicated and unprovable currently.)

Beliefs can be true or false. How can the truth value of a belief be assessed? What counts as a solid criterion to assess and demarcate what's true from what's false? Is there even such a criterion? These are the types of questions that the branch of philosophy called epistemology studies. Each question that I've posed has very nuanced attempts at answers. They're all complicated, and many very smart philosophers disagree with one another.

Outside of logic and mathematics, the concept of "truth" (which, itself, is problematic) gets murky.

Justification has to do with giving good reasons in support of a proposition. What counts as a good reason?

I don't want to get into epistemology other than to say that a reasonable way to approach these questions is to ask: Does what I claim to be "true" work for me to produce results of real, personal value in the world in which I live?

Let's suppose that the answer is yes. Does that yes clash with someone else's no? And what do you intend to do when there's conflict, and it's important? You believe the Church is false. Your parents insist that it's true. They have ALL the power, Elder, as we both know. Michel Foucault noted the connection between "truth" and power.

That's why I often say, "Play along to get along." It worked for Thomas Stuart Ferguson.

Satisfaction in human life largely comes from being able to get along with others. One question that I think you're going to need to answer for yourself is: What do I value more: truth or comfort?

Most people show, through their own behavior, that when push comes to shove, they'll capitulate.

What will you do?

Steve

+ 1,000

To Elder X. First rule of exmo club. Agree with every atheist or prepare to be torn down and ridiculed for at minimum 30 posts. There is no other belief. There is no other choice. You were 100% right when you said you noticed there were radical exmos and regular exmos here. The radicals are favored in case you haven't noticed. 30 posts confirming that atheists are 100% correct or nothing. Conform, or find another board. You have probably already figured this out though. *Embrace*

You can go anywhere and without conforming you will be ridiculed. The other option is to law low. I'm a deist and I just don't mention it

well you just admitted it right now. I learned the hard way that if you aren't an atheist, there is no place for you here. You can argue and argue, but your voice is silent. Good luck fitting in though.




an991 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can go anywhere and without conforming you
> will be ridiculed. The other option is to law low.
> I'm a deist and I just don't mention it

Yep, I did. I don't post enough for anyone to remember it though so I don't care. If people hate me for my beliefs, they are no better than from whence they came. There may as well be an exmo cult with how judgmental it gets

an991, even if they "hate" your beliefs, that doesn't mean they hate you. I see this mindset so much in Mormons, and it lingers with some people as they leave the church. Disagreeing with your beliefs does not mean they hate YOU. I think this mindset is why Mormons cling to their persecution complex. If you disagree with or criticize their beliefs, you hate THEM.

I was accused by someone on this board (whose name I didn't even recognize) of wording-to-the-effect that I clearly didn't like him. Because I had no idea who he was, I had to search for his name to read a few of his posts and try to figure out what the hell he was talking about. It was kind of sad to me that this person I was unaware of and, therefore, indifferent about equated my disagreeing with his point-of-view as *disliking* him.

That makes sense. I won't disagree with you there. I disagreed with people all throughout my life and had been friends with them (I actually have more friends who disagree with political beliefs and I find it fun to explore ideas, even if they despise mine)
I see a lot of hatred towards people though. Sometimes the line between person and belief is blurred by the person attacking the belief

And I don't think many "hate" the beliefs of others, they disagree with them.

todayishalloween Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good luck fitting in
> though.


Why would anyone want to fit in? Isn't it enough to be yourself?

todayishalloween Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well you just admitted it right now. I learned the
> hard way that if you aren't an atheist, there is
> no place for you here. You can argue and argue,
> but your voice is silent. Good luck fitting in
> though.

Well, there are certainly fewer of us theists here than atheists, and those differences clearly flare up when the topic leans toward the validity of either view. This is not a place for a theist who holds that view because it makes them feel good. We need to be prepared to offer a substantial footing for our belief.

But I've found myself shoulder-to-shoulder with pretty much everybody here when we lend our compassion to the newer members of our community whose wounds are still very fresh. And we have a common purpose in our outrage over the abuses and lies of Mormonism. In those discussion, we are clearly a tight community where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So stick around, and develop a good reason for what you believe if you haven't already. And enjoy the camaraderie of a community that shares a common past, but a wildly diverse present.

This is an example of one's point-of-view being subjective. It sounds like you've had a bad experience where you were out-argued by an atheist. It doesn't mean your point-of-view isn't welcome here. You can stay or leave--whatever works for you, but your post has the vibe of a sore loser.

Agreed. I find that almost every point of view gets challenged severely. Atheists str some of the biggest skeptics, so they challenge everything. This place isn't about blindly tolerating any nonsense everyone spews, it is more about challenging and discussing ideas in an environment where nothing is sacred and everything is called into question. People that don't like that tend to leave, and that's okay. RfM isn't for everyone, and I'm okay with that, I'm done with things that try and be geared towards everyone.

Elder X, you display a casual insouciance toward the the genuine struggles of people recovering from the morg without realizing the fix you yourself are in.

You have lied to be sent on your mission. You are pretending to most, if not all, of the people around you--except this board, I guess. You seem to be drifting through two precious years of your life in order to avoid a major conflict (conflagration?) with your family.

All the philosophizing about the nature of truth can't hide this fact: you're scared of your mother!

The part of your OP that showed any intensity was your dread of being sent home early, which would certainly lead to confrontation. But you will have to face your family's disapproval at some point or your obituary will read like a morgbot's.

Your mother will be very upset at whatever point you step off your programmed path to lead an authentic life, but I doubt she'd actually kill you or herself. That will be very painful and your hurt will lead to anger at the morg for all the pain in families, the waste of time and money you are spending now. And for a while, nobody is gonna be able to calm you down.

You're close. He's most afraid of his father, and the crushing consequences of coming home early, which would embarrass, shame, and socially harm his parents in the severest manner possible. The father would retaliate by throwing the boy out and refusing to pay for college.

In light of this, the boy is playing along roger along. He doesn't give a damn about what Mormons think truth is, He's looking out for himself, and clearly he will stay in the Church. Maybe he'll have second thoughts if he finds a non-Mormon girl, but if that doesn't happen, the boy--who is obviously heterosexual--will go down the default route and let Mormonism set him up for social and financial success. In the grand scheme of things, he reasons that 10% of income would be a reasonable cost.

Remember: he's playing a game. So is Boyd XXX. The Salt Lake City boys know exactly what's going on, and they're playing the same game.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Smart boy.

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 11:19PM by Administrator.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Somewhere in there is a Motto for the lds church (or the missionary squadrons).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2013 04:54PM by thingsithink.