| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
 |
|
It seems to me that Baha'is jump all
| Quote: | over people as though their beliefs need to be approved,
|
No one jumped on anyone but you, Kent.
and that is not the
| Quote: | Baha'i Faith. Our Faith is inclusive, universal, community based, spiritual
and lastly intellectual.
|
Then act that way. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | As a sociologist, I would even go further.
|
I don't understand. Are you saying that personally you believe mostly like
Momen, but as a sociologist you believe something different? Something
further?
| Quote: | ... "truth,"
aside from God (al-haqq or the True One)
|
Why do you use these different names for God? Are you only referring to
certain aspects of God with this explanation? Only concerning His Truth?
| Quote: | ...is a relative divine or
human construction
|
This aspect of God that you refer to above with two names, this "Truth" is a
relative divine, which means the same thing to you as human construction.
Is that correct?
| Quote: | As our own social constructions of truth can
change (according to our wills), so can God's construction of revealed
truth change (according to His Will).
|
I don't understand how you can argue that since we can change our mind about
what constitutes religious Truth, that Truth itself changes. I don't deny
that God's Truth changes, just not for the same reasons as our religious
truths change.
| Quote: | As I said, Blavatsky did not teach progressive revelation.
|
You said: "What was revealed by each new "avatar" is identical to what was
revealed by the preceding ones." Is that a teaching of her's?
| Quote: | Because it is one of the major language games used in the Baha'i
texts.
|
I don't understand. Neo-Platonism is a "major language game used in the
Baha'i texts"? Can you support that assertion?
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:GPWdncgvC-DTdfrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 29, 6:26 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth is
not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that your
view?
No, and, like Susan, I substantially agree with Moojan Momen's view of
the subject. As a sociologist, I would even go further. IMO, "truth,"
aside from God (al-haqq or the True One), is a relative divine or
human construction. As our own social constructions of truth can
change (according to our wills), so can God's construction of revealed
truth change (according to His Will). From that standpoint, each
religion or other ideology can, **self-referentially**, be considered
a "truth system. I hope that makes sense.
Do you mean Blavatsky's _Key to Theosophy_? Where do I find her version
of
Progressive Revelation?
As I said, Blavatsky did not teach progressive revelation. To her,
divine truth was a constant.
Those are some of the reasons I keep saying use of Neo-Platonic language
in
reference to Baha'i ideas is wrong. These ideas, like the idea invoked
by
the word "Logos" are not Baha'i ideas. Ascribing the language of
Neo-Platonism to Baha'i ideas is misleading and forcing wrong ideas into
Baha'i Writings.
Because it is one of the major language games used in the Baha'i
texts.
So I ask again, why do you speak Greek here?
I already explained that.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that is the sole reason why but common
sense
is certainly one of the rasons. We would all do well to consult common
sense when deciding which beliefs' sets and philosophies we will call our
own.
Common sense is based on experience - often through trial and error.
It is a proto-scientific (but the scientific method absent controls).
As such, it is only as useful as our experiences may be.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Jun 29, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Douglas McAdam
douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Susan-
What does Moohan say about truth please?
Dear Doug,
I'm talking about Moojan, not Moohan. He would extend the concept of
relativity of religious truth to the unknowability of God when it
comes to relating the Baha'i Faith to things like Buddhism. A lot of
Baha'is have objected to his perspective, but I don't.
warmest, Susan
|
Sorry, a typographical error cause I know who Moojan is. I have been
doing that a lot lately. Can't be old age, must be this keyboard.(g)
I still don't quite understand what he/you mean here. I always thought
that religious truth was relative to the absolute truth of God or even
the revealed truth of the Manifestation because we human critters are
limited in our perceptions and understanding.
regards,
doug
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
I always thought that
| Quote: | religious truth was relative to the absolute truth of God or even the
revealed truth of the Manifestation because we human critters are limited in
our perceptions and understanding.
|
Dear Doug,
I'm not suggesting that isn't the case.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I always thought that
religious truth was relative to the absolute truth of God or even the
revealed truth of the Manifestation because we human critters are
limited in
our perceptions and understanding.
Dear Doug,
I'm not suggesting that isn't the case.
warmest, Susan
|
I must have misread your email then. Sorry,
doug
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Truth |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | As a sociologist of religion, I define "truth"
as however "truth" is constructed in a particular religion (at a
specific time). As a Baha'i, I would define "truth" as whatever is
constructed as such by a Prophet and/or His successors.
|
So let's leave off the sociologist stuff and talk about what you believe,
okay?
You see truth as the structures provided covenantally by Baha'u'llah, right?
I see truth as whatever exists, whether we can understand it or not. Can
you accept that, or do you need to use a different word?
| Quote: | Because we were discussing the subject of truth.
|
I don't know what your "because" refers to. The statement you responded to
was this:
"Why do you use these different names for God? Are you only referring to
certain aspects of God with this explanation? Only concerning His Truth?"
Do you mean you use different names for God because the subject ff truth
requires using different names of God? If that is what you mean, why would
it require that?
| Quote: | I am making a distinction between truth, as it is constructed by each
Prophet, and truth, as it is constructed by ordinary humans. The first
issue is theological. The second is sociological.
|
It appears here you are saying that religious truth is a construction, not
and ideal. That religious truth is given by the Prophet, but may or may not
bear out as correct, right, or empirically verifiable. Is that your usage
of the word? Perhaps we should make a distinction between religious truth
and truth.
| Quote: | Neoplatonism/
Aristotelianism is, for instance, the basic language game of _Some
Answered Questions_, including where `Abdu'l-Baha refers to the
rational soul and to involution or emanation.
|
It seems to me you are saying I am not Neo-Platonist, but that Prophet sure
uses Neo-Platonist concepts. My main complaint is that you equate Divine
Word with Logos, a Neo-Platonist concept that does not appear in Baha'i
Writings.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NYedne-9ltRZgvXVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 29, 3:22 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
I don't understand. Are you saying that personally you believe mostly
like
Momen, but as a sociologist you believe something different? Something
further?
I am saying that I agree with Momen. However, as a sociologist, I
would expand the concept of epistemic relativism to include issues
which he did not focus on, such as the relativity of truth in human,
social constructions. As a sociologist of religion, I define "truth"
as however "truth" is constructed in a particular religion (at a
specific time). As a Baha'i, I would define "truth" as whatever is
constructed as such by a Prophet and/or His successors.
Why do you use these different names for God? Are you only referring to
certain aspects of God with this explanation? Only concerning His Truth?
Because we were discussing the subject of truth.
This aspect of God that you refer to above with two names, this "Truth"
is a
relative divine, which means the same thing to you as human construction.
Is that correct?
The True One (al-haqq) is not what I would call a construction. It is,
as you said, one of the Names of God. Truth (haqiqat), in a general
sense, is, IMO, a relative construction.
I don't understand how you can argue that since we can change our mind
about
what constitutes religious Truth, that Truth itself changes. I don't
deny
that God's Truth changes, just not for the same reasons as our religious
truths change.
I am making a distinction between truth, as it is constructed by each
Prophet, and truth, as it is constructed by ordinary humans. The first
issue is theological. The second is sociological.
You said: "What was revealed by each new "avatar" is identical to what
was
revealed by the preceding ones." Is that a teaching of her's?
Yes, that is my understanding of her view. She was a proponent of her
own version of the perennial philosophy (objective idealism), which
has been incorporated into many new-agey groups (though often changed
to subjective idealism).
I don't understand. Neo-Platonism is a "major language game used in the
Baha'i texts"? Can you support that assertion?
I don't know how I can do that in an email message. Neoplatonism/
Aristotelianism is, for instance, the basic language game of _Some
Answered Questions_, including where `Abdu'l-Baha refers to the
rational soul and to involution or emanation.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
On Jun 30, 6:28 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | You see truth as the structures provided covenantally by Baha'u'llah, right?
|
I see divine truth as a name for the "constructions of reality" by a
particular Prophet. IMO, truth is not a thing. It is linguistic, i.e.,
a language game. All prophetic constructions of truth are, to my
understanding, relative - not just historically and culturally
relative but linguistically relative, too.
Consequently, we should not expect that the divine constructions of
truth or reality should necessarily be the same, or even similar, from
Dispensation to Dispensation. That is one of the reasons I have
problems with approaches to comparative religion which attempt to find
similarities between religions. The expectation of similarity strikes
me as Platonic, namely, that whatever is revealed expresses "ideal
forms," a proposition I do not accept.
I begin by assuming that religious categories (like Christianity and
Buddhism) and religious organizations within those supposed categories
(like Greek Orthodoxy and the Jehovah's Witnesses in Christianity and
Nichiren Shoshu and Soto Zen in Buddhism) will be *different*. If
similarities are found, I think they can be noted. However, I do not
begin with the presupposition that I will discover commonalities
between religious systems.
In terms of the Covenant, yes. Broadly speaking, the Covenant, in my
view, is the Will of God. That Will is expressed in each of God's
Prophets. However, God's Will ("mind") can, if He so chooses, change.
He is not bound by our human expectations, rules, or requirements.
| Quote: | I see truth as whatever exists, whether we can understand it or not. Can
you accept that, or do you need to use a different word?
|
I just see truth as a word - a construction.
| Quote: | Do you mean you use different names for God because the subject ff truth
requires using different names of God? If that is what you mean, why would
it require that?
|
I mentioned al-Haqq (the True One) because we were discussing the
subject of truth.
| Quote: | It appears here you are saying that religious truth is a construction, not
and ideal. That religious truth is given by the Prophet, but may or may not
bear out as correct, right, or empirically verifiable. Is that your usage
of the word? Perhaps we should make a distinction between religious truth
and truth.
|
"Correctness," as far as truth is concerned, would, in my view, simply
refer to God's Will. Since prophetic statements conform to God's Will,
they are "true."
| Quote: | It seems to me you are saying I am not Neo-Platonist, but that Prophet sure
uses Neo-Platonist concepts. My main complaint is that you equate Divine
Word with Logos, a Neo-Platonist concept that does not appear in Baha'i
Writings.
|
The term "Logos" did not originate in Neoplatonism. It was even used
by some of the pre-Socratics.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
On Jul 1, 8:49 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | How about order? Does any real and true order exist absolutely? Is there
any relationship, aspect or attribute of a thing that is absolutely true?
Is existence itself a truth?
|
I don't think that order "exists," no. Order is a name for a specified
arrangement of particulars by one or more beings. What may be order to
one person may be disorder to another.
That is one of my problems for cosmological arguments for the
existence of God, as in intelligent design "theory" (originated by the
Discovery Institute). They presume to be able to recognize order, as
if order were an objective entity which could be observed.
| Quote: | I believe truth exists, but that we are only able to comprehend aspects of
truth.
|
IMO, divine truth is whatever is stated to be divine truth by a
particular Prophet. It is a language game utilized according to God's
Will. Within that context, some people might understand aspects which
other people do not understand.
| Quote: | Certainly religious truth is a different thing from absolute truth.
|
As I see it, Absolute Truth is God (al-Haqq, the True One). Anything
else is a divine construction.
| Quote: | The expectation of similarity strikes me as an expectation of universals,
not "ideal forms" which is rather Neo-Platonic, comes from Aristotle, not
Plato. Religiously that expectation would take the form of universal
behaviors that can be categorized as spiritual, but in the realm of absolute
truth they could be stretched, in a humanistic sociological sense, to
include virtuistic behavior. Of course I realize my opinion here is
controversial.
|
I see universals as constructed names or categories. I disagree with
the Platonic idealist notion of ideal forms and with the Aristotelian
realist concept of embedded forms.
| Quote: | I believe the science of sociology, using statistical tools,
can prove that virtues are good for humanity.
|
As a sociologist, I can evaluate the utility of certain values and
norms in a particular society. However, I have no way, as a
sociologist, to say whether those values and norms are "good."
| Quote: | Now there is a language game. God being bound.... Can water freeze at its
boiling temperature? If God wants it to? That sort of thinking doesn't lead
me anywhere. You?
|
That is metaphysics. I would simply say that God can do what God
wishes. Whether certain divine actions, such as freezing water at
100c, would require a remaking of physical laws, I don't know, but I
place no restrictions on God.
| Quote: | Pre-Socratic would be polytheistic. How would a polytheist refer to the
creative word of God?
|
The term Logos was used in a similar fashion to the Aristotelian
concept of the organon (a rule or method). It was not related to the
divine per se.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | ...truth is not a thing. It is linguistic, i.e.,
a language game.
|
How about order? Does any real and true order exist absolutely? Is there
any relationship, aspect or attribute of a thing that is absolutely true?
Is existence itself a truth?
I believe truth exists, but that we are only able to comprehend aspects of
truth.
| Quote: | I see divine truth as a name for the "constructions of reality" by a
particular Prophet
|
Certainly religious truth is a different thing from absolute truth.
| Quote: | The expectation of similarity strikes
me as Platonic, namely, that whatever is revealed expresses "ideal
forms," a proposition I do not accept.
|
The expectation of similarity strikes me as an expectation of universals,
not "ideal forms" which is rather Neo-Platonic, comes from Aristotle, not
Plato. Religiously that expectation would take the form of universal
behaviors that can be categorized as spiritual, but in the realm of absolute
truth they could be stretched, in a humanistic sociological sense, to
include virtuistic behavior. Of course I realize my opinion here is
controversial. I believe the science of sociology, using statistical tools,
can prove that virtues are good for humanity.
| Quote: | He is not bound by our human expectations, rules, or requirements.
|
Now there is a language game. God being bound.... Can water freeze at its
boiling temperature? If God wants it to? That sort of thinking doesn't lead
me anywhere. You?
| Quote: | The term "Logos" did not originate in Neoplatonism. It was even used
by some of the pre-Socratics.
|
Pre-Socratic would be polytheistic. How would a polytheist refer to the
creative word of God?
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t-adnSYabvQBsfTVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 30, 6:28 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
You see truth as the structures provided covenantally by Baha'u'llah,
right?
I see divine truth as a name for the "constructions of reality" by a
particular Prophet. IMO, truth is not a thing. It is linguistic, i.e.,
a language game. All prophetic constructions of truth are, to my
understanding, relative - not just historically and culturally
relative but linguistically relative, too.
Consequently, we should not expect that the divine constructions of
truth or reality should necessarily be the same, or even similar, from
Dispensation to Dispensation. That is one of the reasons I have
problems with approaches to comparative religion which attempt to find
similarities between religions. The expectation of similarity strikes
me as Platonic, namely, that whatever is revealed expresses "ideal
forms," a proposition I do not accept.
I begin by assuming that religious categories (like Christianity and
Buddhism) and religious organizations within those supposed categories
(like Greek Orthodoxy and the Jehovah's Witnesses in Christianity and
Nichiren Shoshu and Soto Zen in Buddhism) will be *different*. If
similarities are found, I think they can be noted. However, I do not
begin with the presupposition that I will discover commonalities
between religious systems.
In terms of the Covenant, yes. Broadly speaking, the Covenant, in my
view, is the Will of God. That Will is expressed in each of God's
Prophets. However, God's Will ("mind") can, if He so chooses, change.
He is not bound by our human expectations, rules, or requirements.
I see truth as whatever exists, whether we can understand it or not. Can
you accept that, or do you need to use a different word?
I just see truth as a word - a construction.
Do you mean you use different names for God because the subject ff truth
requires using different names of God? If that is what you mean, why
would
it require that?
I mentioned al-Haqq (the True One) because we were discussing the
subject of truth.
It appears here you are saying that religious truth is a construction,
not
and ideal. That religious truth is given by the Prophet, but may or may
not
bear out as correct, right, or empirically verifiable. Is that your
usage
of the word? Perhaps we should make a distinction between religious
truth
and truth.
"Correctness," as far as truth is concerned, would, in my view, simply
refer to God's Will. Since prophetic statements conform to God's Will,
they are "true."
It seems to me you are saying I am not Neo-Platonist, but that Prophet
sure
uses Neo-Platonist concepts. My main complaint is that you equate Divine
Word with Logos, a Neo-Platonist concept that does not appear in Baha'i
Writings.
The term "Logos" did not originate in Neoplatonism. It was even used
by some of the pre-Socratics.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
Hi Mark.
Just to be clear, you believe that all relationships, all order, including
for example a spatial relationship like *near* or *far* are linguistic, a
"language game". Is that correct?
| Quote: | I see universals as constructed names or categories. I disagree with
the Platonic idealist notion of ideal forms and with the Aristotelian
realist concept of embedded forms.
|
That is the second time you have said that ideal forms is a Platonist
notion. The notion of ideal forms is from Aristotle, which would make it
Neo-Platonist. Socrates (and therefore Plato) never posited idealize
forms, but rather Aristotle attributed the idea to Plato to try to interpret
the cosmology Plato presented. That cosmology as Aristotle presented it is
called Neo-Platonism.
| Quote: | The term Logos was used in a similar fashion to the Aristotelian
concept of the organon (a rule or method). It was not related to the
divine per se.
|
Which would make it Neo-Platonist. Even now you compare the concept to how
Aristotle used it, whether it was pre-Moses or post-Baha'u'llah it seems to
make no difference to you. The concept in your mind appears universalist,
that everyone should know and accept the concept. I contend that they
should not, it is an erroneous concept and should not be read into original
scripture pre or post Aristotle. It only exists where the writers intended
it, and should not be read into Baha'i Writings or pre-Socratic writings,
the Bible or the Hindu and Buddhist writings.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O9idnaLNZf77ZffVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jul 1, 8:49 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
How about order? Does any real and true order exist absolutely? Is
there
any relationship, aspect or attribute of a thing that is absolutely true?
Is existence itself a truth?
I don't think that order "exists," no. Order is a name for a specified
arrangement of particulars by one or more beings. What may be order to
one person may be disorder to another.
That is one of my problems for cosmological arguments for the
existence of God, as in intelligent design "theory" (originated by the
Discovery Institute). They presume to be able to recognize order, as
if order were an objective entity which could be observed.
I believe truth exists, but that we are only able to comprehend aspects
of
truth.
IMO, divine truth is whatever is stated to be divine truth by a
particular Prophet. It is a language game utilized according to God's
Will. Within that context, some people might understand aspects which
other people do not understand.
Certainly religious truth is a different thing from absolute truth.
As I see it, Absolute Truth is God (al-Haqq, the True One). Anything
else is a divine construction.
The expectation of similarity strikes me as an expectation of universals,
not "ideal forms" which is rather Neo-Platonic, comes from Aristotle, not
Plato. Religiously that expectation would take the form of universal
behaviors that can be categorized as spiritual, but in the realm of
absolute
truth they could be stretched, in a humanistic sociological sense, to
include virtuistic behavior. Of course I realize my opinion here is
controversial.
I see universals as constructed names or categories. I disagree with
the Platonic idealist notion of ideal forms and with the Aristotelian
realist concept of embedded forms.
I believe the science of sociology, using statistical tools,
can prove that virtues are good for humanity.
As a sociologist, I can evaluate the utility of certain values and
norms in a particular society. However, I have no way, as a
sociologist, to say whether those values and norms are "good."
Now there is a language game. God being bound.... Can water freeze at
its
boiling temperature? If God wants it to? That sort of thinking doesn't
lead
me anywhere. You?
That is metaphysics. I would simply say that God can do what God
wishes. Whether certain divine actions, such as freezing water at
100c, would require a remaking of physical laws, I don't know, but I
place no restrictions on God.
Pre-Socratic would be polytheistic. How would a polytheist refer to the
creative word of God?
The term Logos was used in a similar fashion to the Aristotelian
concept of the organon (a rule or method). It was not related to the
divine per se.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | Just to be clear, you believe that all relationships, all order,
including for example a spatial relationship like *near* or
*far* are linguistic, a "language game". Is that correct?
|
Kent:
Yes, in sociology, that is called "strong constructionism." I am not
saying that the relationships are not legitimate or measurable. However,
in calling them "near," "far," or "ordered," we are imposing our own
humanly devised categories ("names") upon them.
| Quote: | That is the second time you have said that ideal forms is a
Platonist notion. The notion of ideal forms is from Aristotle,
which would make it Neo-Platonist. Socrates (and therefore
Plato) never posited idealize forms, but rather Aristotle
attributed the idea to Plato to try to interpret the cosmology
Plato presented. That cosmology as Aristotle presented it
is called Neo-Platonism.
|
Yes, it is Aristotle's interpretation of Plato. However, Neoplatonism
began much later than Aristotle. It is usually traced back to Plotinus
in the third century A.D. Even Middle Platonism did not develop until a
couple of hundred years after Aristotle's death.
| Quote: | Which would make it Neo-Platonist.
|
The idea of Logos had been well established long before Plotinus and
Neoplatonism.
| Quote: | Even now you compare the concept to how Aristotle used it,
whether it was pre-Moses or post-Baha'u'llah it seems to
make no difference to you.
|
Why do you think it makes no difference to me?
| Quote: | The concept in your mind appears universalist, that everyone
should know and accept the concept.
|
I don't see it as universal. I see it as context.
| Quote: | It only exists where the writers intended it, and should not be read
into Baha'i Writings or pre-Socratic writings, the Bible or the Hindu
and Buddhist writings.
|
Whether people read it into the Baha'i texts is beside the point.
Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, etc. are built into the literary
framework of many of the Baha'i Sacred Texts.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
Hi Mark,
Let me see if I can put this in terms you accept. There are relationships,
but any relationship that humanity sees is a "language game" because we are
imposing our own humanly devised categories. Is that correct?
My complaint about attributing to Plato the forms interpreted by Aristotle
is that Plato did not say anything about forms. Just as Baha'u'llah did not
say anything about the idea of Logos. To say anything else about the issue
is just not accurate.
Abdu'l-Baha addressed some of the issues involved in the Neo-Platonist idea
of the Logos, but He did so to point out its flaws.
On the other hand, there are no flaws in Plato's account of Socrates
dialogues. The flaws come into it with the interpretation forced into them.
Just as to force Neo-Platonism on Baha'u'llah, and the idea that His Word is
equivalent, or should be seen in terms of, or was intended to fall on the
backdrop of the linguistic game of, the Logos would be flawed thinking.
Baha'u'llah meant what He said and said what He meant. If He did not refer
to the concept of the Logos He did not intend it to be read into His
Writings, as Abdu'l-Baha makes it abundantly clear.
A short excerpt from our recent dialog:
---------------------
The idea of Logos had been well established long before Plotinus and
Neo-Platonism.
| Quote: | Even now you compare the concept to how Aristotle used it, whether it was
pre-Moses or post-Baha'u'llah it seems to make no difference to you.
|
Why do you think it makes no difference to me?
---------------------
Because you think, if I understand what you have been saying now for several
messages, that it is a language game of word/Logos related ideas that was
here before Socrates and is here now. Baha'u'llah had to subscribe to the
idea of Logos as He had to subscribe to the idea of geography or spatial
relationships. I believe that is your view, so please correct me if I am
wrong.
The wiki says the Heraclitus first used the term Logos and quotes from his
work. Can we use that definition of Logos through to today? Or has it
changed?
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:KeadnTQ7I66DQ_bVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | Just to be clear, you believe that all relationships, all order, including
for example a spatial relationship like *near* or *far* are linguistic, a
"language game". Is that correct?
|
Kent:
Yes, in sociology, that is called "strong constructionism." I am not
saying that the relationships are not legitimate or measurable. However,
in calling them "near," "far," or "ordered," we are imposing our own
humanly devised categories ("names") upon them.
| Quote: | That is the second time you have said that ideal forms is a Platonist
notion. The notion of ideal forms is from Aristotle, which would make it
Neo-Platonist. Socrates (and therefore Plato) never posited idealize
forms, but rather Aristotle attributed the idea to Plato to try to
interpret the cosmology Plato presented. That cosmology as Aristotle
presented it is called Neo-Platonism.
|
Yes, it is Aristotle's interpretation of Plato. However, Neoplatonism
began much later than Aristotle. It is usually traced back to Plotinus
in the third century A.D. Even Middle Platonism did not develop until a
couple of hundred years after Aristotle's death.
| Quote: | Which would make it Neo-Platonist.
|
The idea of Logos had been well established long before Plotinus and
Neoplatonism.
| Quote: | Even now you compare the concept to how Aristotle used it, whether it was
pre-Moses or post-Baha'u'llah it seems to make no difference to you.
|
Why do you think it makes no difference to me?
| Quote: | The concept in your mind appears universalist, that everyone should know
and accept the concept.
|
I don't see it as universal. I see it as context.
| Quote: | It only exists where the writers intended it, and should not be read into
Baha'i Writings or pre-Socratic writings, the Bible or the Hindu and
Buddhist writings.
|
Whether people read it into the Baha'i texts is beside the point.
Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, etc. are built into the literary
framework of many of the Baha'i Sacred Texts.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Truth |
|
|
On Jul 3, 6:51 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Let me see if I can put this in terms you accept. There are relationships,
but any relationship that humanity sees is a "language game" because we are
imposing our own humanly devised categories. Is that correct?
|
IMO, all relationships between particulars are purely conventional or
customary. They reflect either divine or human language games. With
human language games, I think that we should use the ones which are
most productive, such as those which are supported by empirical
scientific research.
| Quote: | My complaint about attributing to Plato the forms interpreted by Aristotle
is that Plato did not say anything about forms. Just as Baha'u'llah did not
say anything about the idea of Logos. To say anything else about the issue
is just not accurate.
|
A referential statement can have a degree of accuracy without being a
direct quotation.
| Quote: | Abdu'l-Baha addressed some of the issues involved in the Neo-Platonist idea
of the Logos, but He did so to point out its flaws.
|
As I said before, I am not claiming that `Abdu'l-Baha advocated
Neoplatonism.
| Quote: | On the other hand, there are no flaws in Plato's account of Socrates
dialogues. The flaws come into it with the interpretation forced into them.
|
There is no way to know, since all the information we have on Socrates
is secondary - principally (but not exclusively) from Plato.
| Quote: | Just as to force Neo-Platonism on Baha'u'llah, and the idea that His Word is
equivalent, or should be seen in terms of, or was intended to fall on the
backdrop of the linguistic game of, the Logos would be flawed thinking.
|
I never said it was equivalent. I used the term "logos" to point out
that I was referring to the Person of the Prophet.
| Quote: | Baha'u'llah meant what He said and said what He meant. If He did not refer
to the concept of the Logos He did not intend it to be read into His
Writings, as Abdu'l-Baha makes it abundantly clear.
|
I guess I don't find that sort of textualism to be useful. I also see
no indication that it was favored by Baha'u'llah or `Abdu'l-Baha.
| Quote: | Because you think, if I understand what you have been saying now for several
messages, that it is a language game of word/Logos related ideas that was
here before Socrates and is here now. Baha'u'llah had to subscribe to the
idea of Logos as He had to subscribe to the idea of geography or spatial
relationships. I believe that is your view, so please correct me if I am
wrong.
|
I never said that Baha'u'llah subscribed to that view. I said I was
using it to refer to the Person of the Prophet.
| Quote: | The wiki says the Heraclitus first used the term Logos and quotes from his
work. Can we use that definition of Logos through to today? Or has it
changed?
|
The most common usage of Logos is among certain Christians, including
Christian theologians, to whom it usually refers to Christ.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
