Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not...
This people have embraced the philosophy of eternal lives, and in view of this we should cease to be children and become philosophers, understanding our own existence, its purpose and ultimate design...
I once had a contentious interview with Richard Dawkins who said there are no big “why” questions. There are only “how” questions such as “How did the universe begin or how did birds evolve wings to fly?” I pushed back, suggesting it’s worth asking existential questions like “Why are we here?” Even if they can’t be answered. How would you respond to Dawkins?
There’s a certain kind of thinking you can’t do by yourself because you have blind spots. You have a whole self-justifying, rationalizing edifice that supports all your mistakes. It’s often very easy for other people to see your mistakes but incredibly hard for you to see them.
Your kids give you a chance to learn about how the world looks from someone who hasn’t been fully shaped by it. That should be an exciting educational opportunity for parents. I see that as one reason to have kids.
You might say, “Let’s identify the fundamental point on which we disagree.” It’s very striking when you do that because you find it’s hard to identify.
The difficulty comes when people have a hard time believing their opponents can argue in good faith. It’s probably not going to help if there are a lot of people watching. People tend to be more performative when there are people watching.
“What’s the thing that could potentially perfect you in a way that would make sense?” And my answer is knowledge, to understand how things work.
There’s a reason why those conversations were so reliably venturing into philosophical territory. It’s because there’s something that your soul wants. Inquiry is a fundamentally dissatisfied activity.
But Socrates discovered we have an even deeper form of vulnerability—the fear about the core ideas that make us who we are. The person we are is a construct that could be shattered. In Socratic inquiry, you allow that to happen. It’s very intimate and lends itself to people feeling somewhat violated, upset, jealous. This is the moment when things, as I said, get interesting. But for the interlocutors who haven’t fully been trained in this practice, there are going to be a lot of casualties.
When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
But one requires the explorer to furnish proofs.
The recitals of explorers are put down first in pencil. One waits until the explorer has furnished proofs, before putting them down in ink.
...the little prince who never in his life had let go of a question, once he had asked it.
It is necessary that every thing which is harmonized, should be generated from that which is void of harmony...
Universal is known according to reason, but that which is particular, according to sense...
...from nothing, nothing can be generated...
Cause... is after one manner said to be that, from which, being inherent, something is produced...
For if fortune were any thing, it would truly appear to be absurd; and some one might doubt why no one of the ancient wise men, when assigning the causes of generation and corruption, has ever defined any thing concerning fortune.
An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.
Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival - so that for you, who are a human being, the question "to be or not to be" is the question "to think or not to think".
A definition is the condensation of a vast body of observations - and stands or falls with the truth or falsehood of these observations.
The truth or falsehood of all man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions.
It is crucially important to grasp the fact that a concept is an "open-end" classification which includes the yet-to-be-discovered characteristics of a given group of extents. All of man's knowledge rests on that fact.
The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them...
Not all philosophies are evil, though too many of them are, particularly in modern history. Now you may ask: If philosophy can be that evil, why should one study it? Particularly, why should one study the philosophical theories which are blatantly false, make no sense, and bear no relation to real life? My answer is: In self-protection - and in defense of truth, justice, freedom, and any other value you ever held or may ever hold.
The battle of philosophers is a battle for man's mind. If you do not understand their theories, you are vulnerable to the worst among them.
The best way to study philosophy is to approach it as one approaches a detective story: follow every trail, clue and implication, in order to discover who is a murderer and who is a hero.
Nothing is given to man automatically, neither knowledge, nor self-confidence, nor inner serenity, nor the right way to use his mind. Every value he needs or wants has to be discovered, learned and acquired...
In your own profession, in military science, you know the importance of keeping track of the enemy's weapons, strategy and tactics - and of being prepared to counter them. The same is true in philosophy: you have to understand the enemy's ideas and be prepared to refute them, you have to know his basic arguments and be able to blast them.
In physical warfare, you would not send you men into a booby trap: you would make every effort to discover its location. Well, Kant's system is the biggest and most intricate booby trap in the history of philosophy - but it's so full of holes that once you grasp its gimmick, you can diffuse it without any trouble and walk forward over it in perfect safety.
Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it - intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas.
The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such…What is my selfish interest in the matter? I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept. Formally, I call it Objectivism, but informally I call it a philosophy for living on earth.
Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the answers to which underlie man's every thought, feeling, and action, whether he is consciously aware of it or not: Where am I? How do I know it" What should I do? By the time they are old enough to understand these questions, men believe they know the answers. Where am I? Say, in New York City. How do I know it? It is self-evident. What should I do? Here they are not too sure - but the usual answer is: what everybody else does. The only trouble seems to be that they are not very active, not very confident, not very happy - and they experience, at times, a causeless fear and an unidentified guilt, which they cannot explain or get rid of.
You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions - or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.
But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence.
As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation - or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, unidentified contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.
Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it.
In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade the effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival.
The reader should understand that Joseph Smith himself made no attempt to create a ‘system’ of philosophy. His philosophical utterances were flung off without reference to any arrangement or orderly sequence…These utterances, were given out at various times, and were often separated by long intervals of time…It is our present task to put some of these and other independent utterances into something like orderly arrangement that will suggest a system of thought or philosophy in the teachings of the Prophet of the New Dispensation...and which, when they are finally arranged in proper order, will constitute a system of philosophy worthy of the enlightened age in which it was brought forth…
My love for the gospel grows out of the partial knowledge I have of the great truths it contains. In it I feel the presence of a marvelous system of truth, a philosophy that gives unity to all history and proper relationship to all existing things; that fills life with a real meaning, and makes existence desirable. And if I could only intelligently grasp these great truths…and reduce them to some orderly system which I am sure they are capable of, I would account myself most happy…
If you are industrious and faithful scholars in the school you have entered into, you shall get lessons one after another, and continue on until you can see and understand the spirit of prophecy and revelation, which can be understood according to a systematic principle…
If there were not a true coin in existence, how could there be a bogus produced?
I was led to reflect that there is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical...
I am a witness that ‘Mormonism’ is true upon philosophical principles. Every particle of sense I have, proves it to be sound natural reason...
That [which we] call eternal philosophy, God’s philosophy, the philosophy of angels—natural philosophy, reason-able philosophy … commends itself to the human mind, to the intelligence that man possesses...
There is no true philosophy in existence which is not embraced in the Gospel, it belongs to the Gospel, it is a part of the Gospel...
To throw oneself into strange teachings is quite dangerous.
Things have their root and their branches. Affairs have their end and their beginning. To know what is first and what is last will lead near to what is taught in the Great Learning.
If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. . . . Life has never been normal. . . . Humanity . . . wanted knowledge and beauty now, and would not wait for the suitable moment that never comes. . . . The insects have chosen a different line: they have sought first the material welfare and security of the hive, and presumably they have their reward. Men are different. They propound mathematical theorems in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of Quebec, and comb their hair at Thermophylae. This is not a panache; it is our nature.
We are not grounded in the wisdom of the world or the philosophies of men.
Obviously, we know that there must be something, because we're here. If there were nothing, we couldn't ask the question. But why? Why is there something? Why is the universe not a featureless void? Why does our universe have matter and not only energy? It might seem surprising, but given our current theories and measurements, science cannot answer those questions.
The nature and the fate of the civilization are determined by the content of its philosophy. That if reason and individualism and capitalism perish philosophically – that is to say at the hands of philosophers – in not too long of time they will perish culturally and existentially as well.
Did you never see little dogs caressing and playing with one another, so that you might say there is nothing more friendly? but, that you may know what friendship is, throw a bit of flesh among them, and you will learn.
It's an old epistemological debate, older, actually, than the koan about the tree in the forest. Plato weighed in on it, and philosophers for two millennia afterward: What is beauty? Is it a measurable fact (Gottfried Leibniz), or merely an opinion (David Hume), or is it a little of each, colored by the immediate state of mind of the observer (Immanuel Kant)?...Context matters.
If we can't take the time out of our lives to stay a moment and listen to one of the best musicians on Earth play some of the best music ever written; if the surge of modern life so overpowers us that we are deaf and blind to something like that - then what else are we missing?
From this it is plain that we are not called to preach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture or our own ideas or the mysteries of the kingdom, nor are we called to bring forth new doctrine. The president of the Church will do that. But we are to stick to the basic fundamental principles of the gospel.
The downside is that philosophers are often lonely. Reading in solitude while wrestling with your own thoughts is difficult.
When you make friends with a long-dead philosopher, you don’t think of them in a detached, objective manner. That is, we better understand where they are coming from, and why they hold certain views.
...his [Joshua Bell] playing does nothing less than tell human beings why they bother to live.
This volume is based on the conviction that there is no real difference between science and religion.
The great, fundamental laws of the Universe are foundation stones in religion as well as in science. The principle that matter is indestructible belongs as much to theology as to geology. The theology which rests upon the few basic laws of nature is unshakable; and the great theology of the future will be such a one.
"Mormonism" teaches and has taught from the beginning that all knowledge must be included in the true theology.
Because of its comprehensive philosophy, "Mormonism" will survive all religious disturbances and become the system of religious faith which all men may accept without yielding the least part of the knowledge of nature as discovered in the laboratories or in the fields.
The attempt has been made to sketch, briefly, the relation of "Mormonism" to some features of modern scientific philosophy, and to show that not only do "Mormonism" and science harmonize; but that "Mormonism" is abreast of the most modern of the established views of science, and that it has held them many years—in some cases before science adopted them.
"Mormonism" is deeply and rationally spiritual...
However, the Church teaches that all human knowledge and all the laws of nature are part of its religious system; but that some principles are of more importance than others in man's progress to eternal salvation.
Statements of scientific detail should not be looked for in Joseph Smith's writings, though these are not wholly wanting; but rather, we should expect to find general views of the relations of the forces of the universe.
Joseph Smith taught space is filled with a substance comparable to the ether of science.
This quotation gives undoubted evidence of the prophet's belief that space is filled with some substance which bears important relations to all natural phenomena. The word substance is used advisedly; for in various places in the writings of Joseph Smith, light, used as above in a general sense, means spirit,[A] and "all spirit is matter, but it is more fine and pure.
Such quotations, from the men intimately associated or acquainted with the early history of the Church, prove that Joseph Smith taught in clearness the doctrine that a subtle form of matter, call it ether or Holy Spirit, pervades all space; that all phenomena of nature, including, specifically, heat, light and electricity, are definitely connected with this substance. He taught much else concerning this substance which science will soon discover, but which lies without the province of this paper to discuss.
By the doctrine of the ether, it is made evident all the happenings in the universe are indelibly inscribed upon the record of nature. A word is spoken. The air movements that it causes disturbs the ether. The ether waves radiate into space and can never die. Anywhere, with the proper instrument, one of the waves may be captured, and the spoken word read. That is the simple method of wireless telegraphy. It is thus that all our actions shall be known on the last great day. By the ether, or the Holy Spirit as named by the Prophet, God holds all things in His keeping. His intelligent will radiates into space, to touch whomsoever it desires. He who is tuned aright can read the message, flashed across the ether ocean, by the Almighty. Thus, also, God, who is a person, filling only a portion of space is, by His power carried by the ether, everywhere present.
The ether of science though material is essentially different from the matter composing the elements. So, also, in Mormon theology, is the Holy Spirit different from the grosser elements. In science there is a vast distinction between the world of the elements, and that of the ether; in theology, there is an equally great difference between the spiritual and material worlds. Though the theology of Joseph Smith insists that immaterialism is an absurdity, yet it permits no overlapping of the earthly and the spiritual.
It must not be overlooked that the broad statement of this doctrine was made by Joseph Smith, at least as early as 1832, at a time when the explanation of light phenomena on the hypothesis of a universal ether was just beginning to find currency among learned men; and many years before the same hypothesis was accepted in explaining the phenomena of heat and electricity.
Had Joseph Smith been the clever imposter that some claim he was, he probably would not have dealt in any way with the theories of the material world, at least would not have claimed revelations laying down physical laws; had he been the stupid fool, others tell us he was, his mind would not have worried itself with the fundamental problems of nature.
However that may be, it is certain that Joseph Smith, in the broad and rational statement of the existence of an omnipresent, material though subtle substance, anticipated the workers in science. In view of that fact, it is not improbable that at some future time, when science shall have gained a wider view, the historian of the physical sciences will say that Joseph Smith, the clear-sighted, first stated correctly the fundamental physical doctrine of the universal ether.
We know things only by their effects; the essential nature of matter, ether and energy is far from our understanding.
Thus arose the occult sciences, so called,—alchemy, astrology, magic, witchcraft, and all other similar abominations of the intellect. Such beliefs made the logical study of nature superfluous, for any apparent regularity or law in nature might at any time be overturned by a person in possession of a formula of the black art or a properly treated broomstick.
A miracle is a law not understood.
Moreover, the order which he taught was of an unchangeable nature, corresponding to the invariable relation between cause and effect. He wrote, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated; and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."[B] No text book in science has a clearer or more positive statement than this, of the fact that like causes have like effects, like actions like results.
There can be no doubt from these quotations, as from many others that might be made, that Joseph Smith based his teachings upon the recognition that law pervades the universe, and that none can transcend law. In the material world or in the domain of ether or spirit, like causes produced like effects—the reign of law is supreme.
Certainly the claim cannot be made that Joseph Smith anticipated the world of science in the recognition of this important principle; but it is a source of marvel that he should so clearly recognize and state it, at a time when many religious sects and philosophical creeds chose to assume that natural laws could be set aside easily by mystical methods that might be acquired by anyone. In some respects, the scientific test of the divine inspiration of Joseph Smith lies here. Ignorant and superstitious as his enemies say he was, the mystical would have attracted him greatly, and he would have played for his own interest upon the superstitious fears of his followers. Instead, he taught doctrines absolutely free from mysticism, and built a system of religion in which the invariable relation of cause and effect is the cornerstone. Instead of priding himself, to his disciples, upon his superiority to the laws of nature, he taught distinctly that "the law also maketh you free."[A] Herein he recognized another great principle—that freedom consists in the adaptation to law, not in the opposition to it.
Man, the highest type of living things, differs from the rock, moreover, in that he possesses the power to exercise his will in directing natural forces. Animals and even plants seem to possess a similar power to a smaller degree. The rock on the hillside is pulled downward by gravitation, but can move only if the ground is removed from beneath it by some external force. Man, on the other hand, can walk up or down the hill, with or against the pull of gravity.
As observed in chapters two and three, Joseph Smith taught that the energy of matter or of ether is a form of intelligence. If, according to this doctrine, matter and ether are intelligent; then life also must reside in all matter and ether. Hence everything in the universe is alive. Further, since all force is motion, universal motion is universal life. The difference between rock, plant, beast and man is in the amount and organization of its life or intelligence. For instance, in harmony with this doctrine, the earth must possess intelligence or life. In fact the Prophet says "the earth……shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened."[A] The statement that the earth shall die and shall be quickened again, certainly implies that the earth possess life, though, naturally, of an order wholly different from that of men or other higher living things.
In the account of the Creation, given in the Book of Abraham, it is clearly stated that the Gods organized the earth and all upon it from available materials, and as the fitting climax to their labors they "went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of Gods to form him."[A] The creation of man was in part at least the organization of individuals from eternal materials and forces. The nature of that organization is made partly clear by the Prophet when he says "The spirit and the body are the soul of man."[B] The spirit here referred to may be compared to the ether of science, vibrating with the force of intelligence, which is the first and highest of the many forces of nature. The body, similarly, refers to the grosser elements, also fired with the universal energy—intelligence. The word Soul, in the above quotation, means man as he is on earth and is used as in Genesis. Man, according to this, is composed of matter; the spirit which may be likened to ether, and energy. The organization of man at the beginning of our earth history, was only the clothing of the eternal spiritual man with the matter which constitutes the perishable body. In confirmation of this view note another statement, "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receiveth a fullness of joy, and when separated, man can not receive a fullness of joy."[C] Here also it is taught that man is composed of matter, spirit and energy.
President Brigham Young has left an interesting paragraph that confirms the statement that according to "Mormon" doctrine, all matter is intelligent, and that man is superior only because of his higher organization. "Is this earth, the air and the water, composed of life…..?……If the earth, air and water, are composed of life is there any intelligence in this life?….Are those particles of matter life; if so, are they in possession of intelligence according to the grade of their organization?……We suggest the idea that there is an eternity of life, an eternity of organization, and an eternity of intelligence from the highest to the lowest grade, every creature in its order, from the Gods to the animalculae."[A]
The statement that man can receive a fullness of joy only when spirit and element are united, is of itself a scientific doctrine of high import. This is a world of matter; and a spiritual man, that is one made only of the universal ether, would not be able to receive fully the impressions that come from the contact of element with element. To enjoy and understand this world, it is necessary for the spirit to be clothed with matter. The ether or spirit world is not within our immediate view; and it is probable that the material world is far away from purely spiritual beings.
This whole doctrine means that God is the organizer of worlds, and all upon them. He is not the Creator of the materials and forces of the universe, for they are eternal; He is the master buidler who uses the simple elements of nature for his purposes. It is also plain that, according to "Mormon" doctrine, there is no special life force. The intelligence residing in a stone is in quality, as far as it goes, the same as the intelligence possessed by man. But, man is so organized that a greater amount of intelligence, a fullness of it, centers in him, and he is as a consequence essentially and eternally different from the stone. President Young also said, "The life that is within us is a part of an eternity of life, and is organized spirit, which is clothed upon by tabernacles, thereby constituting our present being, which is designed for the attainment of further intelligence. The matter comprising our bodies and spirits has been organized from the eternity of matter that fills immensity."[A]
This doctrine does not permit of the interpretation that a lower intelligence, such as that of an animal, may in time become the intelligence of a man. "It remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it."[A] The horse will ever remain a horse, though the intelligence of the animal may increase. To make any of the constituent parts or forces of an animal, part of the intelligence of a man, it would be necessary to disorganize the animal; to organize the elements into a man, and thus to begin over again.
Men, beasts and plants—those beings that possess the higher life, differ from inanimate nature, so called, by a higher degree of organization. That is the dogma of "Mormonism," and the doctrine of science. About 1831 Joseph Smith gave this knowledge to the world; a generation later, scientific men arrived independently at the same conclusion.
Perhaps the best and safest exposition of the philosophy of "Mormonism" is Parley P. Pratt's Key to Theology. In it he states definitely that the spirit of man is organized from the elementary Holy Spirit. "The holiest of all elements, the Holy Spirit, when organized in individual form, and clothed upon with flesh and bones, contains, etc."[A] That the earthly body was likewise organized is equally plain for he says "At the commencement—the elements—were found in a state of chaos."[B] Then man was "moulded from the earth as a brick."[C] Again, "The spirit of man consists of an organization of the elements of spiritual matter,"[D] which finds entrance into its tabernacle of flesh. In another place he defines creation by asking "What is creation? Merely organization…… The material of which this earth was made always did exist, and it was only an organization which took place during the time spoken of by Moses."[E]
Faith is the assurance of the existence of "things not seen."
For the government of the individual the first principle in Mormon theology is faith. Joseph Smith defined faith in the words of the Apostle Paul, "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." To this the Prophet added "From this we learn that faith is the assurance which men have of things which they have not seen."[A] On this principle, with this definition, many young persons who have ventured upon the sea of unbelief have wrecked the religion of their childhood; for, the human mind, in some stages of its development, is disinclined to accept as knowledge anything that can not be sensed directly.
It is true that in the beginning of science no faith seems to be required; for every statement is based on experiments and observations that may be repeated by every student; and nothing is "taken on trust." As the deeper parts of science are explored, however, it is soon discovered that in science as in theology, a faith in "things that can not be seen," is an essential requisite for progress. In fact, the fundamental laws of the great divisions of science deal with realities that are wholly and hopelessly beyond the reach of man's five senses.
Here, a faith is required in "things that can not be seen," and in the properties of these things. True, the scientist does not pretend to describe the atoms in detail, he does not need to do that to establish the certainty of their existence. He looks upon them as ultimate causes of effects that he may note with his physical senses. Does theology require more? Does any sane man in asking us to believe in God, for instance, attempt to describe him in detail?
Has any man asked us to believe that he can describe the structure of God's dwelling? No principle taught by Joseph Smith requires a larger faith than this.
Not only in chemistry are such transcendent truths required. The fundamental conception of physics requires, if possible, a larger faith. The explanations of modern physics rest largely upon the doctrine of the universal ether. This ether is everywhere present, between the molecules and atoms; in fact the things of the universe are, as it were, suspended in the ocean of ether. This ether is so attenuated that it fills the pores of the human body without impressing itself upon our consciousness, yet some of its properties indicate that its elasticity is equal to that of steel. As shown in chapter 5, the most eminent scientists of the day declare that the existence of this world-ether is one of the few things of which men may be absolutely sure. Yet the ether cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or felt. To our senses it has neither weight nor substance. To believe the existence of this ether requires a faith which is certainly as great as the greatest faith required by Mormon theology.
The scientist, likewise, begins with the things that are made and proceeds "from faith to faith," gaining "here a little, and there a little," until a faith is reached which, to him who has not followed its growth, may seem absurd in its loftiness.
Certainly, no man can progress in science unless he has faith in the great inductions of scientific men. Faith is as indispensable for scientific progress as for theological advancement. In both cases it is the great principle of action.
It must be sufficient to remark again that Mormonism is strictly scientific in stating as the first principle of the guidance of the individual, that of faith in unseen things; for that is the basic principle for the beginner in modern science.
No man will change a habit without a satisfactory reason. In fact, all the actions of men should be guided by reason. Repentance then is a kind of obedience or active faith; and is great in proportion to the degree of faith possessed by the individual. Certainly, the repentance of no man can transcend his faith, which includes his knowledge.
“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. … “It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.” And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: “It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.”
What about their ability to appreciate life?...British author John Lane writes about the loss of the appreciation for beauty in the modern world...not because people didn't have the capacity to understand beauty, but because it was irrelevant to them. This is about having the wrong priorities...
Long discourses, and philosophical readings, at best, amaze and confound, but do not instruct children.
Much less are children capable of reasonings from remote principles. They cannot conceive the force of long deductions. The reasons that move them must be obvious, and level to their thoughts, and such as may be felt and touched.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.
We understand in part the things of earth; when we see things as God sees them, we shall then understand the philosophy of the heavens: the mysteries of eternity will be unfolded and the operations of mind, matter, spirit, purposes and designs, causes and effects and all the stupendous operations of God will be developed and they will be found to accord with the strictest principles of philosophy, even the philosophy of the heavens...
Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. 3 First, The idea that he actually exists. 4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes. 5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.—For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is an honor to save yourselves---all are responsible to save themselves.
...that they were depending on the prophet hence were darkened in their minds from neglect of themselves...
If you blindly trust philosophers, they’ll let you down even more rapidly than other purveyors of wisdom. Particularly useless are philosophers who have lurked in universities their whole life.
Whenever you detect an inconsistency or error, you have found a tiny something of value. Not (of course) absolutely valuable, but another mutable piece of an infinite jigsaw. There are always new errors to hunt. You can never become bored!
Not all systems are of equal value. We’re currently so paralysed by the ‘relativist’ view that in some way “all cultures and ideas are similarly valuable” that we tolerate utter nonsense because we don’t want to be seen to be politically incorrect.
If you don’t have free will, well then all of your investigation of free will is pre-determined, so you’re done, and any ‘decision’ you make isn’t actually yours to make. Conversely, if you do have free will, but agonize about not having it, you’re wasting your time...
You do not suddenly start needing philosophy on your eighteenth birthday: you have always needed it.
The hardest part wasn’t seeing these differences — it was realizing I could never unsee them. Every conversation became an exercise in biting my tongue.
How could I explain that everything — from the massive portions before us to the casual acceptance of paying thousands to game the education system — suddenly felt alien? That I’d spent the past eight months in a place where success wasn’t measured by the size of your house or the prestige of your child’s college acceptance letters?
The Dutch principle of “niksen” ― the art of doing nothing ― replaced our American addiction to busyness. The biggest adjustment wasn’t learning to live with less ― it was realizing how much more we gained: time, connection, and a sense of safety I didn’t even know we were missing.
Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain…The reason is that man, by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function at all without some form of philosophy to serve as his guide.
Philosophy, in Ayn Rand's view, is the fundamental force shaping every man and culture. It is the science that guides men's conceptual faculty, and thus every field of endeavor that counts on this faculty.
To satisfy this need, one must recognize that philosophy is a system of ideas. By its nature as an integrating science, it cannot be a grab bag of ideas. All philosophic questions are interrelated.
If one tries the random approach, then questions (which one has no means of answering) simply proliferate in all directions.
For a philosophic idea to function properly as a guide, one must know the full system to which it belongs.
One must know the idea's relationship to all the other ideas that give it context, definition, application, proof. One must know all this not as a theoretical end in itself, but for practical purposes; one must know it to be able to rely on an idea, to make rational use of it, and ultimately, to live.
Being implicit from the beginning, existence, consciousness, and identity are outside the province of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms. Axioms are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs depend.
One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evidence that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; there is no evidence that it is something, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evidence that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. Axioms are perceptual self-evidences. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality. What is true of tomatoes applies equally to oranges, buildings, people, music, and stars.
Existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including the concept of disagreement.
No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self-evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further.
The thinker who accepts the absolutism of the metaphysically given recognizes that it is his responsibility to conform to the universe, not the other way around.
Whenever men expect reality to conform to their wish simply because it is their wish, they are doomed to metaphysical disappointment.
...knowledge is knowledge of reality, and existence has primacy over consciousness. If the mind wishes to know existence, therefore, it must conform to existence. If thought created reality, no science offering guidance to thought would be applicable; consciousness could assert whatever it wished, and reality would obey.
There can be no advice where man has no power to choose his course of behavior.
A man cannot do much with his faculty of vision until his eyes are in focus. Otherwise, his eyesight gives him only a blur or haze…A similar concept applies to the mind. In regard to thought, as to vision, the same alternative exists: clear awareness or a state of blur, haze, fog in which relatively little can be discriminated.
Intellectual clarity is not given to man automatically.
If an individual accepts a philosophy of reason, and if he characteristically chooses to be in focus, he will gradually gain knowledge, confidence, and a sense of intellectual control.
Evasion, by contrast, is an active process aimed at a specific content. The evader does expend effort; he purposely directs his attention away from a given fact. He works not to see it; if he cannot banish it fully, he works not to let it become completely real to him.
The drifter does not integrate his mental contents; the evader disintegrates them, by struggling to disconnect a given item from everything that would give clarity or significance in his own mind. In the one case, the individual is immersed in a fog by default; he chooses not to raise his level of awareness. In the other case, he expends energy to create a fog; he lowers his level of awareness.
To an evader, a feeling of some kind is more important than truth. A man finds a certain fact or policy to be unpleasant, frightening, or guilt-provoking. Reality to the contrary notwithstanding, he does not want the fact to be real or the policy to be necessary; so he decides to blank out the offending datum. Or a certain idea or policy gives a man pleasure, reassurance, or relief, and he wants to believe in or practice it, even though he knows reality is against him in the issue; in Ayn Rand's words, place an "I wish" above an "It is".
Unlike the basic choice to be in or out of focus, the choice to evade a specific content is motivated, the motive being the particular feeling that the evader elevates above reality.
No matter what his emotions, a sane man retains the power to face facts. If an emotion is overwhelming, he retains the power to recognize this and to defer cognition until he can establish a calmer mood.
The process of evasion, as we will see, is profoundly destructive. Epistemologically, it invalidates a mental process. Morally, it is the essence of evil. According to Objectivism, evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices. In the present era, it is leading to the collapse of the world.
So long as men remain ignorant of their basic mental process, they have no answer to the charge leveled by mysticism and skepticism alike, that their mental content is some form of revelation or invention detached from reality.
When a definition is contextually revised, the new definition does not contradict the old one. The facts identified in the old definition remain facts; the knowledge earlier gained remains knowledge. What changes is that, as one's field of knowledge expands, these facts no longer serve to differentiate the units. The new definition does not invalidate the content of the old; it merely refines a distinction in accordance with the demands of a growing cognitive context.
Our knowledge grows in stages, and we organize at each stage only the facts that are available.
Conceptual knowledge is not acquired in a state of total ignorance or from a vantage point of omniscience. At any stage of development, from child to sage and from savage to scientist, man can make conceptual differentiations and integrations only on the basis of prior knowledge, the specific limited knowledge available to him at that stage. Man's mind functions on the basis of a certain context. The context, states Miss Rand, "is the entire field of a mind's awareness or knowledge at any level of its cognitive development.
Although definitions are contextual, they are not arbitrary. The correct definition at any stage is determined by the facts of reality. Given any specific set of entities to be differentiated, it is the actual nature of the entities that determines the distinguishing characteristics.
Definitions are determined by the facts of reality - within the context of one's knowledge. Both aspects of this statement are crucial: reality and the context of knowledge; existence and consciousness.
The final step in concept formation is definition. This step is essential to every concept except axiomatic concepts and concepts denoting sensations.
A proposition can have no greater validity - no more of a relation to reality - than do the concepts that make it up. The precondition of the quest for truth, therefore, is the formulation of proper definitions.
Concepts do not pertain to consciousness alone or to existence alone; they are products of a specific kind of relationship between the two.
Concept formation and use is precisely the realm that is not automatic or infallible, but volitional. In order to conceptualize, a man must expend effort; he must engage in the kind of mental work that no stimulus can necessitate. He must struggle to relate, connect, process an ever-growing range of data - and he must learn to do it correctly.
Every type of question reduces to: "What is it?" For example, "Why did a certain event occur?" means: "What is the nature of the cause?" "How?" means "What is the process?" "Where" means "What is the place?"
Consciousness is a faculty of discovering identity. This is so because existence has primacy; it sets the terms and consciousness obeys.
Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Identification.
To Ayn Rand, philosophy is the fundamental factor in human life; it is the basic force that shapes the mind and character of men and the destiny of nations. It shapes them for good or for evil, depending on the kind of philosophy men accept.
Ayn Rand explains some of the steps necessary to achieve a conscious, rational philosophy. She teaches the reader how to identify, and then evaluate, the hidden premises at work in his own soul or nation. She makes clear the mechanism by which philosophy rules men and societies…
Now you may ask why make a metaphysical catastrophe out of the fact that we are going to die one day?...If you know Epicurus from the ancient world he took care of this whole problem of death very well with the following argument. He said Death should be nobody’s concern at all because no one will ever encounter it. Death is not a problem of the living because they are alive, and it is not a problem of the dead because they are not. Consequently no one will ever know any state other than life and there’s no point groveling before the fact of death.
Mathematics is the only true metaphysics.
Perhaps we have noticed that the course of history seems to be determined by the ideas which men choose to adopt;
Ayn Rand's egoism is untainted by any element of the mind/body dichotomy. On her view, man can achieve happiness by acting in his long-term, rational self-interest, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself. In the long run, a man can erase conflicts within his soul, not by repression, but by an active process of rethinking the subconscious premises on which certain emotions are based. If a man lives a life of integrity -- of non-contradiction between his thought and his action -- his subconscious will have no reason to complain.
Reason and emotion are not at war, because emotions are based on intellectual value judgments, held either implicitly or explicitly. If you sense a reason/emotion conflict, what you sense is actually a conflict between two different ideas in your mind: one conscious, the other subconscious.
Politics is the study of the nature of government. In government, Plato's non-Pagan mystical aspect reasserts itself, as any vestige of egoism is dispensed with. Plato adopts an altruistic politics, one in which the individual must sacrifice himself for the whole -- this is the doctrine of collectivism.
The consistent and logical application of Platonism to life is the sort of existence which mankind experienced in the Middle Ages. In that time, men cloistered themselves away from mundane concerns, and attempted to gain insight into a higher, spiritual reality. You know what consequences this trend had.
The Renaissance represented a rebirth of reason, thanks mostly to the Aristotelian thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aristotelianism has always represented the antithesis of Platonism. When Plato saw forms in another dimension, Aristotle looked at the real world. When Plato sought refuge in intuition, Aristotle looked to logic. When Plato urged men to merge themselves with the collective, Aristotle stood for individualism. When Plato advocated a communist state, Aristotle advocated a sane polity, where law, not men, would rule other men. These ideas were the foundation of the Renaissance, and the subsequent periods of Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, and Industrial Revolution.
It seems quite unlikely that that problem could have offered difficulties to any but a trained philosopher.
In case of emergency: please be advised that your philosophy can be used as a hammer. To break the dreams behind the glass. #gutenacht
The legitimacy of philosophy requires the conjunction of knowledge and action.
The honest ratepayer and his healthy family have no doubt often mocked at the dome-like forehead of the philosopher, and laughed over the strange perspective of the landscape that lies beneath him. If they really knew who he was, they would tremble.
Artists must be men of wit, consciously or unconsciously philosophers, read, study, think a great deal of life...
...self-interest and ethical behavior are consistent with sustainable prosperity. Flouting the law and screwing customers and partners have never been viable long-term growth strategies.
The branch might seem like the fruit's origin: In fact, the branch exist because of the fruit.
In any case, the things I don't yet understand do not negate what I do know: that Joseph Smith was a prophet, foreordained by the Lord to restore His gospel, and that we have a living prophet today; that the priesthood has been restored to the earth; and that priesthood keys literally unlock God's power in behalf of all of us.
Charity is not an emotion or an action. It is not something we feel or do. Charity is who the Savior is. It is His most defining and dominant attribute. It is what enabled Him to endure the Garden and the cross for you and me. It is one of the things that makes Him God. Thus, when we plead for the gift of charity, we aren't asking for kind feelings toward someone who has wounded us. We are pleading for our very natures to be changed, for our character to become more and more like the Savior's, so that we literally feel as He would feel and do what He would do. This is why Mormon said that when the Savior appears, those who have been gifted with charity will be like him, for they will "see him as he is."
Knowing more enable us to do more and to do better.
Anyone who holds a true opinion without understanding is like a blind man on the right road.
The same dream came to me sometimes in one form, and sometimes in another, but always saying the same or nearly the same words: Make and cultivate music, said the dream. And hitherto I imagined that this was only intended to exhort and encourage me in the study of philosophy, which has always been the pursuit of my life, and is the noblest and best of music.
The true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men.
He who is a philosopher or lover of learning, and is entirely pure at departing, is alone permitted to reach the gods.
They who have a care of their souls, and do not merely live in the fashions of the body, say farewell to all this; they will not walk in the ways of the blind: and when philosophy offers them purification and release from evil, they feel that they ought not resist her influence, and to her they incline, and whither she leads they follow her.
Jesus operated from a base of fixed principles or truths rather than making up the rules as he went along. Thus, his leadership style was not only correct, but also constant. So many secular leaders today are like chameleons; they change their hues and views to fit the situation—which only tends to confuse associates and followers who cannot be certain what course is being pursued. Those who cling to power at the expense of principle often end up doing almost anything to perpetuate their power.
Jesus said several times, “Come, follow me.” His was a program of “do what I do,” rather than “do what I say.” His innate brilliance would have permitted him to put on a dazzling display, but that would have left his followers far behind. He walked and worked with those he was to serve. His was not a long-distance leadership. He was not afraid of close friendships; he was not afraid that proximity to him would disappoint his followers. The leaven of true leadership cannot lift others unless we are with and serve those to be led.
Because Jesus loved his followers, he was able to level with them, to be candid and forthright with them. He reproved Peter at times because he loved him, and Peter, being a great man, was able to grow from this reproof. There is a wonderful verse in the book of Proverbs all of us need to remember: “The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise. “He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.” (Prov. 15:31–32.) It is a wise leader or a wise follower who can cope with the “reproof of life.” Peter could do this because he knew that Jesus loved him, and thus Jesus was able to groom Peter for a very high place or responsibility in the kingdom.
Jesus saw sin as wrong but also was able to see sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner. This permitted him to condemn the sin without condemning the individual. We can show forth our love for others even when we are called upon to correct them. We need to be able to look deeply enough into the lives of others to see the basic causes for their failures and shortcomings.
Jesus knew how to involve his disciples in the process of life. He gave them important and specific things to do for their development. Other leaders have sought to be so omnicompetent that they have tried to do everything themselves, which produces little growth in others. Jesus trusts his followers enough to share his work with them so that they can grow. That is one of the greatest lessons of his leadership. If we brush other people aside in order to see a task done more quickly and effectively, the task may get done all right, but without the growth and development in followers that is so important. Because Jesus knows that this life is purposeful and that we have been placed on this planet in order to perform and grow, growth then becomes one of the great ends of life as well as a means. We can give corrective feedback to others in a loving and helpful way when mistakes are made.
Jesus was not afraid to make demands of those he led. His leadership was not condescending or soft. He had the courage to call Peter and others to leave their fishing nets and to follow him, not after the fishing season or after the next catch, but now! today! Jesus let people know that he believed in them and in their possibilities, and thus he was free to help them stretch their souls in fresh achievement. So much secular leadership is condescending and, in many ways, contemptuous of mankind because it treats people as if they were to be coddled and cocooned forever. Jesus believed in his followers, not alone for what they were, but for what they had the possibilities to become. While others would have seen Peter as a fisherman, Jesus could see him as a powerful religious leader—courageous, strong—who would leave his mark upon much of mankind. In loving others, we can help them to grow by making reasonable but real demands of them.
Jesus gave people truths and tasks that were matched to their capacity. He did not overwhelm them with more than they could manage, but gave them enough to stretch their souls. Jesus was concerned with basics in human nature and in bringing about lasting changes, not simply cosmetic changes.
Jesus taught us that we are accountable not only for our actions but also for our very thoughts. This is so important for us to remember. We live in an age that stresses “no-fault insurance”—and “no fault” in other human behavior as well. Accountability is not possible, of course, without fixed principles. A good leader will remember he is accountable to God as well as to those he leads. By demanding accountability of himself, he is in a better position, therefore, to see that others are accountable for their behavior and their performance. People tend to perform at a standard set by their leaders.
We must remember that those mortals we meet in parking lots, offices, elevators, and elsewhere are that portion of mankind God has given us to love and to serve. It will do us little good to speak of the general brotherhood of mankind if we cannot regard those who are all around us as our brothers and sisters. If our sample of humanity seems unglamorous or so very small, we need to remember the parable Jesus gave us in which he reminded us that greatness is not always a matter of size or scale, but of the quality of one’s life. If we do well with our talents and with the opportunities around us, this will not go unnoticed by God. And to those who do well with the opportunities given them, even more will be given!
I make no apology for giving something of the accomplishments of Jesus Christ to those who seek success as leaders. If we would be eminently successful, here is our pattern. All the ennobling, perfect, and beautiful qualities of maturity, of strength, and of courage are found in this one person. As a large, surly mob, armed to the teeth, came to take him prisoner, he faced them resolutely and said, “Whom seek ye?” The mob, startled, mumbled his name, “Jesus of Nazareth.” “I am he,” answered Jesus of Nazareth with pride and courage—and with power: the soldiers “went backward, and fell to the ground.” A second time he said, “Whom seek ye?” and when they named him, he said, “I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these [his disciples] go their way.” (John 18:4–8).
Perhaps the most important thing I can say about Jesus Christ, more important than all else I have said, is that he lives. He really does embody all those virtues and attributes the scriptures tell us of. If we can come to know that, we then know the central reality about man and the universe. If we don’t accept that truth and that reality, then we will not have the fixed principles or the transcendent truths by which to live out our lives in happiness and in service. In other words, we will find it very difficult to be significant leaders unless we recognize the reality of the perfect leader, Jesus Christ, and let him be the light by which we see the way!
Socrates says the greatest favor that you can do for another human being is to refute them. And he thinks, “Yeah, be kind and loving,” which is to say, explain to people why their fundamental understanding of their lives is wrong.
Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
What is this life if, full of care, We have no time to stand and stare.
Many philosophers criticize physical explanations of how the universe arose from nothing, claiming that they merely beg the question.
The pleasantest of all diversions is to sit alone under the lamp, a book spread out before you, and to make friends with people of a distant past you have never known.
We hold that all great teachers are servants of God, inspired men appointed to instruct the children of God according to the condition in which they are found; therefore, it is not obnoxious to us to regard Confucius as a servant of God; nor Buddha as an inspired teacher of a measure of truth; nor the Arabian prophet as inspired who turned his people from worshiping idols to a truer conception of Deity. And so with the sages of Greece and Rome, and the Reformers of the early Protestant times.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see
There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves.
My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher.
Every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not...
Missing Reference