Why I think Thomas Riskas Is A Joke

[_Uncle Dale]

...it could also be that he just isn't really familiar with how message
boards work.

All of the above (from your comments) perhaps. I haven't attempted to
fathom those aspects.

On three or four different occasions I've tried to envision what a well
thought out LDS response might look like. If Tom has prepared himself
for that eventuality, I see no evident signs.

One possible response strategy for him might run something like this:

"Yes, I understand that the philosophical underpinnings are controversial
and can be criticized. But they were not what led me through my own
mental process of abandoning Mormonism -- I discovered the philosophy
at a late date and have adopted it as seeming to fit my purposes and
personal point of view. All of that is a book within a book, mostly set
down in the critical apparatus. Say what you will about all of that, I
found the core methodology to be successful in my own de-conversion
and I recommend that others give it a try."

How would the anticipated LDS "Philosophical" response address that sort
of a disclosure? It would remove one avenue of attack, perhaps -- or
at least relegate it to a critique of the writer's judgment. The process
of de-conversion would remain largely untouched.

However, I anticipate that Tom's second edition will be almost exactly
a duplicate of the first one -- call it a second printing instead.

I foresee problems.

UD

[_Blixa]

I was literally floored, I mean, I couldn't believe it when he was like, "This is inappropriate and I will not stand for it. I will not be returning unless this person is formally silenced." And then to follow up with, "This is deeply disturbing, for all we know, this could happen again, and what then? What checks do have in place to ensure an opinionated person will not burst into the forum and demand a debate?"

Had you read the book you would not have been quite so surprised. Seriously, my reaction is hardly professionalist. It would be quite interesting to see someone outside academe make sound use of various intellectual concepts. I mean, that's what I hope happens in my undergrad classes every semester!

Instead, I found a self seriousness beyond what I've seen in academia. Let that sink in. Yes. That bad. In fact, the ONLY commensurate example I could think of was the high dudgeon and umbrage I associate with the posturing of mopologists. When Riskas issued a Gee-like "test," well I felt like Mother Shipton.

[_Fence Sitter]

I have put Riskas book to the test and prayed about it and received a burning in my bosom of its truthfulness. All you naysayers have an agenda to defend the Mormon Church and clearly cannot be considered objective. Truly only someone like me is qualified to speak to that truth, having asked with a sincere heart and real intent, with faith that by the God of reason I can know these things through the power of logical positivism.
I say these things in the name of The Wide Reflective Equilibrium and his son Justification.

Amen

I still like the book

[_sock puppet]

I have put Riskas book to the test and prayed about it and received a burning in my bosom of its truthfulness. All you naysayers have an agenda to defend the Mormon Church and clearly cannot be considered objective. Truly only someone like me is qualified to speak to that truth, having asked with a sincere heart and real intent, with faith that by the God of reason I can know these things through the power of logical positivism.
I say these things in the name of Wide Reflective Equilibrium and his son Justification

Amen

I still like the book

Can I lean and rely on your testimony while I am in the MTC and until I develop one of my own?

[_Uncle Dale]

...the ONLY commensurate example I could think of was the
high dudgeon and umbrage I associate with the posturing of
mopologists...

Affected "high dudgeon and umbrage" served Joe Smith well throughout
most of his career. I'd guess that he and his brothers, Hyrum and William
used to occasionally get together, share a bottle, and laugh at what
a useful effect that show of seeming righteousness had upon the rubes.

It has been passed down, generation to generation, among the Peculiar
People -- but I guess that they have mostly thought of it all as real --
as the way they SHOULD react to Gentile/apostate blasphemy and untruth.

It is at that point -- when folks can no longer separate theatrics from
real, uncontrolled shock and anger -- that things begin to get crazy.

Unfortunately there is a lot of craziness in Mormonism, and it does not
all fall away like a shed cocoon when the butterfly emerges.

Oh well...

Dale

[_Blixa]

I have put Riskas book to the test and prayed about it and received a burning in my bosom of its truthfulness. All you naysayers have an agenda to defend the Mormon Church and clearly cannot be considered objective. Truly only someone like me is qualified to speak to that truth, having asked with a sincere heart and real intent, with faith that by the God of reason I can know these things through the power of logical positivism.
I say these things in the name of The Wide Reflective Equilibrium and his son Justification.

Amen

I still like the book

u r a cougar athletic supporter

[Guest]

I was literally floored, I mean, I couldn't believe it when he was like, "This is inappropriate and I will not stand for it. I will not be returning unless this person is formally silenced." And then to follow up with, "This is deeply disturbing, for all we know, this could happen again, and what then? What checks do have in place to ensure an opinionated person will not burst into the forum and demand a debate?"

Had you read the book you would not have been quite so surprised. Seriously, my reaction is hardly professionalist. It would be quite interesting to see someone outside academe make sound use of various intellectual concepts. I mean, that's what I hope happens in my undergrad classes every semester!

Instead, I found a self seriousness beyond what I've seen in academia. Let that sink in. Yes. That bad. In fact, the ONLY commensurate example I could think of was the high dudgeon and umbrage I associate with the posturing of mopologists. When Riskas issued a Gee-like "test," well I felt like Mother Shipton.

RFM attracts people who serious and prone to secular humanism. I can't relate to that board at all. Threads devoted to the protocols of serious, rational discussion etc.

I admit I am interested in how he deals with things like testimonies because I'd wondered if we have similar thoughts about this. I've refered to myself in the past as a spiritual eliminativist, which is basically the position that testimonies are outright fabrications where everyone is bluffing, yet unaware that everyone but themself is bluffing, and so the game continues on (vs. the idea that people misinterpret pleasant neural impulses, which I think is marginal for the Mormon testimony). I take the word "eliminativism" directly from philosophers of mind who are considered "eliminativists" but I just use the word to sound dismissive and it's not a philosophical position but more one of armchair psychology and disdain and I don't quote anyone. If someone has thought through these kinds of ideas more that I have I'd be interested in what they come up with, and it kind of seemed like Riskas headed down a similar path. So for me, there might be value here, it might be that the phil. stuff can be taken with a grain of salt and some of his insights valuable. I just don't buy books very often and I'd probably only read select pages to get the specific information I'm interested in.

If it were winter and I had more time, I think it would be prudent to create a sockpuppet who has read the book and head over to MDDB to pronounce their posts as incoherent, and cite the book of course. I think Stak should do this if he has time.

[_moksha]

Stak is a wise tactician in undressing Kerry's new emperor. Now Professor Shirt's, please come back to the Internet School of the Prophets and make a new video of the upcoming FAIR Conference to be held in Holy Valley, Utah.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Philosophy 201 For Victims Of Riskas

Previous:
Frege, Sense, and Reference (Part 1)

So to understand how predicates have a sense and reference like singular terms do, it might help if I can quickly summarize Frege’s idea of what a sentence is supposed to accomplish.

Frege thought a word only has referent in the context of a complete sentence, that is when the referent is assigned. Sentences themselves also have a sense too, but this sense can only be understood when all the words that make up a complete sentence contribute their sense and referents. That is to say, words are the building blocks for sentences and it is only when all contributions of the words are systematically given, can we get the sense and ultimately the reference of a complete sentence.

What is the reference for a completed sentence? Its truth value. If the sentence is successful in representing the world as it is, it gives us an accurate picture of reality. A reality that exist independently of our minds and a reality that is fundamentally available to us. A sentence relates to its truth value ( being true or false) in the same way a name relates to the object it picks out.

So what does a predicate contribute to a sentence? What could a referent be for a predicate like things like being red, wicked, bald, or a widow? The first answer is usually say that the referent is some kind of concept or idea. Frege might have been okay with that at first, but he’d want more precision so he borrowed the mathematical idea of a function. In the way the square root function takes a number and gives us its square root, the predicate function is similar, it takes the object and relates it someway to the world that contributes to getting the result if a complete sentence is true or false.

Important Concepts From Frege

Sense and Reference: These are two aspects of meaning for words. Sense helps us understand a word by providing a path to the reference. The reference is the object out in the world that the word is picking out.

Sentences: A complete sentence is made up of words that all contribute to the sentences own sense and reference. When we grasp/understand a sentence, we understand the conditions that will make a sentence either true or false, the referent determines the truth value of that sentence.

Context Principle: The only unit with meaning is that of a complete sentence, which was systematically built up by all the terms that compose it. When you understand all the rules governing individual terms, derivation of truth conditions becomes possible and then the reference is understood and a truth value is assigned.

So Wut?

This is a very useful understanding of language, because it gives us a possible way of explaining something Linguists like Noam Chomsky have argued for at length; we understand sentences we’ve never heard before, and there is no limit to the number of sentences we could create. How is this possible given our brains are finite and limited?

Possible maybe because an infinite number of sentences can be built from a finite vocabulary by way of repeated application of rules (sort of like the successor rule in Set Theory, for you math/engineering/comp sci geeks out there) of structure (syntax) and by individual terms contributing various senses, references, and meaning by a separate set of rules (semantics).

The bare bones laid out help support the basic notion that one of language’s primary functions (if not its most important one) is helping us express and communicate what is true about the world.

Relating It To Riskas

So this account of Frege probably strikes most people as intuitive. While I’m sure most people probably remain unconvinced about the details of singular terms and predicates working in particular ways, but I’m willing that most people agree with the idea truth is the most important goal of language establishing a relation between our words and our world.

Of course the word truth is just stuffed with all sorts of metaphysical baggage we’ll need to unpack, but I want to point out that where Riskas ends up is a radical rejection of Frege. To Riskas, he is just another metaphysical realist who suffers from ‘cackling’ incoherence just like the theists he scorns.

I think Riskas’ use of the term ‘incoherence’ is a classic bait n switch. Popularizations of Nietzsche do the same thing with the slogan “God is Dead!” but when you track down the parable where this phrase comes from and understand its context, the sentiments are not all that radical. So when reading Fence Sitter and Kerry Shirts’ reactions to Riskas’ book and then looking into it myself, I feel I saw the bait and switch taking place.

For example, when Darth J gives his hilarious descriptions of basic Mormon beliefs about a primate God with a celestial harem out there in a distance place in the universe around a star named Kolob, what is he doing?

On a Frege analysis, we could say that he is exposing the truth conditions of Mormon sentences, showing everyone just what it would take for these beliefs to be true. Casting it as such, it immediately becomes clear that the possibility of such sentences being true is abysmally low. Or look at Fence Sitter trying to untangle the idea of eternal families, by pointing out contradictions between beliefs, impossibilities, and a lack of cohesion in Mormon beliefs, he is doing something similar, pointing out the truth conditions of Mormon sentences.

For Frege, incoherent would be someone communicating in a language that was alien to you. You didn’t understand the rules governing syntax and semantics, so you are completely unable to determine the truth conditions of sentences. So pointing out how little the probability of Mormon beliefs being true is, or outright claiming they are false would commit one to saying Mormon beliefs are coherent in the sense just described.

But for Frege this was all about language and logic with assumptions about what truth was, it is mostly metaphysical. Riskas rejects this metaphysical approach and adopts by way of Rorty and Kai Nielsen a epistemological approach to truth, but before we can really explore that, we have much more to cover.

Next philosopher is Bertrand Russell.

[_malkie]

I have put Riskas book to the test and prayed about it and received a burning in my bosom of its truthfulness. All you naysayers have an agenda to defend the Mormon Church and clearly cannot be considered objective. Truly only someone like me is qualified to speak to that truth, having asked with a sincere heart and real intent, with faith that by the God of reason I can know these things through the power of logical positivism.
I say these things in the name of Wide Reflective Equilibrium and his son Justification

Amen

I still like the book

Can I lean and rely on your testimony while I am in the MTC and until I develop one of my own?

Don't you understand - have you not been taught?
If you want a testimony of the truthfulness of the book, you must do as brother FS must have done before you - bear a sure and strong testimony of the book until you come to know that it is true:

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two.

Be like the philosophers (I'm not sure which ones do this or recommend it, but BKP says that this is what they call it) and take the leap of faith! Step into the darkness!