I think Mormonism is clear too. When did I imply otherwise? It’s clear but I also happen to think it’s dead wrong.
If you don’t struggle wit hthe concept of person, you aren’t thinking very deeply about the topic. This isn’t about making things hard-- I mean look at the philosophical literature out there about this. It’s an odd question!
Think about this-- if every seven years you have a different cells in your body, different molecules, what is it that makes you you?
If you get brain damaged and your personality completely and utterly changes, are you still you? What makes you you in that case?
mf I’m beginning to think you’r ea bit of a flake
.
Well, I do have some dandruff, but my personhood is more than that. You have not comprehended the fullness of my being. Flakiness is simply a contingent quality I posess, but it is not my metaphysical essence
If you get brain damage, you are a person with brain damage. My mother who is 85 has serious dementia. Her personality has changed somewhat, but in many ways, she is very much the same. She is still a person, and the same person she always was, just different. I really would not debate if she is the same person. She is my mother.
I might say “she is not the same person she used to be” but no one would say “What? check her name tag- She is not your mother?? Where did we put your mother? Who is this woman?”
We don’t really have issues of that kind unless we are talking about multiple personality disorder. And even then, it is the same person with multiple “
personalities”
So every seven years YOU are a different person? Maybe I should come back in seven years (ba-da- bum)
I left academic philosophy because I felt it would be “inauthentic” in an existential sense to continue. Don’t know if you know Richard Rorty, but look him up if you want to see where I am coming from. I am convinced that deconstruction is where it’s at, but to do that for a living is ridiculous. It is a tool. Today saying that you “do philosophy” is like saying “I hammer”. To use that tool against people who are attacking my religion is a different thing. They had better get it perfectly clear or fergetaboudit.
Once it is clear, we can discuss the merits of the argument. But if I can’t even understand the argument, I will not be able to be convinced, and in my opinion, no one else should be.
The existence of much philosophical literature on any subject, to me, often a counter-indication of how important that subject is in real life.
People don’t argue about food clothing or shelter or if family is important.
Only atheists argue about if God is important, and they believe in a negative proposition “God does not exist”
Everyone knows you can’t prove a negative proposition, so how much faith does that take?
Atheists have to have more faith than I could ever muster! In a position that logically cannot be proven!
As far as thinking “deeply” the only deep I worry about is when hip boots are required, which is often around here.
My advice is to stop brooding and being “deep” and trying to fathom the unfathomable because it is contradictory at its core. Life is a lot more interesting worry about real problems instead of those that cannot be solved
er, most definitely. LoL. Oh, yes, most definitely. I have a huge library of LDS materials. My two books on the subject total 1,100 pages, including nearly 300 pages of just endnotes. I would venture to say that I know both LDS doctrine and history extremely well.