Wittgenstein and the Mormon language-game

[Limnor]

Oh, so you don’t really “know.”

Me? Of course I don’t really know. All I know is that I am a thing able to ask the question of whether I know.

With apologies, I meant the royal “you,” not you personally.

My point was that if “I know” in a Mormon testimony is better understood as an avowal of faith or commitment than as what is generally considered knowledge, the natural response is: “Oh, so you don’t really know. Rather, you believe.”

[The Before]

Me? Of course I don’t really know. All I know is that I am a thing able to ask the question of whether I know.

With apologies, I meant the royal “you,” not you personally.

My point was that if “I know” in a Mormon testimony is better understood as an avowal of faith or commitment than as what is generally considered knowledge, the natural response is: “Oh, so you don’t really know. Rather, you believe.”

Ah, sorry. Yes I think you’re correct here.

[Gadianton]

the afore: from what I recall I was just saying what everyone else was already. Kind of like everyone calls the yellow thing in the sky the sun because, well, it's the sun.

BKP was sincere: sure, but so was Hitler.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but “through a glass darkly” and Sorites are not interchangeable forms of epistemic humility. The glass metaphor presupposes a determinate truth imperfectly apprehended;

Yeah...

Sorites reveals that some of our concepts work perfectly well without determinate boundaries.

no, paradoxes lie Sorites undercut everything without a way out.

As for W, honestly, I never really got into his stuff for whatever reason, and on top of that, he was pretty cryptic, he kind of threw breadcrumbs out there so I wouldn't want to guess what he was thinking. Well, as I understand it, he's generally interpreted as throwing out these little nuggets without commentary for people to find their own meaning, kind of like Jesus I guess.

I think we can give W a free pass for his skepticism because after all, the most serious attempts at grounding truth through evidence are built on his own work, not many people can say they can burn the building down because they built it and so it was theirs to do what they want, but he he can.

[I Have Questions]

If “know” doesn’t necessarily mean know and “true” doesn’t necessarily mean true, what is being testified to?

In my experience it’s a performance meant to emulate the testimony of others. Young children are led to the stand and their parents whisper the words to say, word by word. “I know the church is twue. I know Joseph Smith is a pwophet.”

It is performative, it is a signal that the person complies with the group. Is a safe person. That they belong in the group. That they are equally special. Try asking any adult who stands up and says “I know the church is true” or “I know the Book of Mormon” or “I know Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God” to properly define what they mean by those statements and the criteria they are using to determine that. You’ll find knitting fog easier.

[The Before]

As for W, honestly, I never really got into his stuff for whatever reason, and on top of that, he was pretty cryptic, he kind of threw breadcrumbs out there so I wouldn't want to guess what he was thinking. Well, as I understand it, he's generally interpreted as throwing out these little nuggets without commentary for people to find their own meaning, kind of like Jesus I guess.

Or most of the postmodernists.

I think we can give W a free pass for his skepticism because after all, the most serious attempts at grounding truth through evidence are built on his own work, not many people can say they can burn the building down because they built it and so it was theirs to do what they want, but he he can.

I find him fascinating. I’m curious, who’s “your philosopher?” I mean, who earns your fascination, and who are you an expert in? I could guess Russell, is that accurate?

[Gadianton]

I think most postmodernists, unlike Jesus, drone on and on and on, and overexplain everything in as complicated of terms as they can manage.

I don't know that much about Bertrand Russell. There isn't any philosopher who I've studied extensively that I could say I have expert level knowledge about. I've probably read more from Jacques Derrida than anyone else, but that was a long time ago. I wouldn't waste my time with that now. I used to study topics more than read specific philosophers. But I haven't really spent that much time reading, in total. One of the bad things about getting stuck countering Mopologetics is that you can get away without knowing very much, because apologists are so unimaginative. So this choice of mine has stunted my pursuit of knowledge by a lot.

I have a book on my nightstand right now I bought a few months ago that I'm supposed to read but can't muster up the motivation. Can't remember what it's called.

If you're reading to understand the world, then this is good. If you're reading to gather ammo then it's a waste of time. Even though I don't believe in God and that's a general topic around here, I've never read a book on atheism or anything like that.

[Limnor]

If you're reading to understand the world, then this is good. If you're reading to gather ammo then it's a waste of time.

This is good insight and advice.

There is value in using Wittgenstein to understand what Mormon testimony language is doing, but if it is to be used as a weapon there might be better application.