new pope

[Belinda]

if you wrote the book, you have author ity...

-Imp

Good example. Similarly, if you were the composer you may not be a good performer but your performance has authority.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Instructing me as to what I don't believe is not doing philosophy.

All conversation here is not precisely “doing philosophy”. It is something else really.

I realized, reading your posts, that you cannot allow authority because you determine it is arbitrary.

You say that “Einstein is recognized as an authority”. But that is opinion. People, in groups, have granted him status as an authority.

But the ideas — the imperatives — that move in Maurin are of a different order. And that order (metaphysical, supernatural) you are inwardly incapable of believing in.

Authority has very different connotations from mere authorship.

[Belinda]

Instructing me as to what I don't believe is not doing philosophy.

All conversation here is not precisely “doing philosophy”. It is something else really.

I realized, reading your posts, that you cannot allow authority because you determine it is arbitrary.

You say that “Einstein is recognized as an authority”. But that is opinion. People, in groups, have granted him status as an authority.

But the ideas — the imperatives — that move in Maurin are of a different order. And that order (metaphysical, supernatural) you are inwardly incapable of believing in.

Authority has very different connotations from mere authorship.

Yes? Go on then--what "different connotations"? Until you post explicit claims you will continue to be misunderstood.

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status? You did not explain. Your description of Maurin is not an explanation of Maurin's ideas. Again you are not explicit. You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.
Not that I agree with you. Maurin , Dorothy Day, and mutualism are justified by the results of their economic policies ranging from the proto-mutualist Robert Owen to the department store John Lewis and Partners. There is no need to posit any supernatural way of being.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status? You did not explain. Your description of Maurin is not an explanation of Maurin's ideas. Again you are not explicit. You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

Not that I agree with you. Maurin , Dorothy Day, and mutualism are justified by the results of their economic policies ranging from the proto-mutualist Robert Owen to the department store John Lewis and Partners. There is no need to posit any supernatural way of being.

What you ask of me will amount to a waste of both our time. I personally accept the supernatural authority that motivates Maurin’s activism. And you already know this. You, OTOH, do not.

Your reference to ‘mutualism’ is essentially a reference to a democratic opinion that if held by enough people gets its validity from that. I don’t have reason to argue against that means of establishing validity, but there are certainly downsides.

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status?

There is a range: sentiment, mobile emotion, self-interest, a semi- or a well-reasoned opinion, group pressure, trickery by sophistic argument, advertising, PR, propaganda etc.

You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

It is not possible to understand Maurin’s imperatives unless one understands the Authority he responds to (i.e. Prophetic command essentially).

Justify it? To you? Why? You do not “believe in” the authority of the prophets. Nor do you believe in the primary tenets operative in Christian religious belief!

You are a Post-Christian of a notably odd variety. You believe in the shadow cast, but not in the structure that casts the shadow (so to speak).

[Belinda]

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status? You did not explain. Your description of Maurin is not an explanation of Maurin's ideas. Again you are not explicit. You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

Not that I agree with you. Maurin , Dorothy Day, and mutualism are justified by the results of their economic policies ranging from the proto-mutualist Robert Owen to the department store John Lewis and Partners. There is no need to posit any supernatural way of being.

What you ask of me will amount to a waste of both our time. I personally accept the supernatural authority that motivates Maurin’s activism. And you already know this. You, OTOH, do not.

Your reference to ‘mutualism’ is essentially a reference to a democratic opinion that if held by enough people gets its validity from that. I don’t have reason to argue against that means of establishing validity, but there are certainly downsides.

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status?

There is a range: sentiment, mobile emotion, self-interest, a semi- or a well-reasoned opinion, group pressure, trickery by sophistic argument, advertising, PR, propaganda etc.

You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

It is not possible to understand Maurin’s imperatives unless one understands the Authority he responds to (i.e. Prophetic command essentially).

Justify it? To you? Why? You do not “believe in” the authority of the prophets. Nor do you believe in the primary tenets operative in Christian religious belief!

You are a Post-Christian of a notably odd variety. You believe in the shadow cast, but not in the structure that casts the shadow (so to speak).

I do believe in the structure that casts the shadow. On a sundial It is the shadow of the sun not the shadow of the gnomon.

As for Maurin , did he claim that he was obeying the authority of a supernatural being?

[Alexis Jacobi]

As for Maurin, did he claim that he was obeying the authority of a supernatural being?

You tell me:

What we give to the poor for Christ's sake, is what we carry with us when we die.

Peter Maurin

Interview with the Houston Catholic Worker:

HCW: What’s wrong with industrial capitalism?

Peter Maurin: It is incompatible with the Christian Gospel because it renders the person subservient to the production of wealth. No economic system which places greater value on the accumulation of wealth than on the dignity of the human person deserves the support of those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and the Pope. It leads to alienation and a loss of a sense of personal participation in community life. With industrial capitalism it is not clear who is responsible for problems that arise.

HCW: Were you in touch with Bishops over the years?

Peter Maurin: Yes, many were friends of Dorothy and myself and visited the Worker. They were very open to our ideas.

HCW: Why do you feel sorry for Bishops?

Peter Maurin: The ministration is swamped by the administration (paper work).

HCW: The Easy Essays seem so simple. Why did you write that way?

Peter Maurin: They are deceptive. My writing is the fruit of much study and prayer. The essays were written to entice people into more profound study regarding the rich Christian tradition and radical ways of living the Gospel.

"God wants us to be our brother's keeper. To feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to instruct the ignorant, at a personal sacrifice, is what God wants us to do."

Etc etc etc …

[Belinda]

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status? You did not explain. Your description of Maurin is not an explanation of Maurin's ideas. Again you are not explicit. You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

Not that I agree with you. Maurin , Dorothy Day, and mutualism are justified by the results of their economic policies ranging from the proto-mutualist Robert Owen to the department store John Lewis and Partners. There is no need to posit any supernatural way of being.

What you ask of me will amount to a waste of both our time. I personally accept the supernatural authority that motivates Maurin’s activism. And you already know this. You, OTOH, do not.

Your reference to ‘mutualism’ is essentially a reference to a democratic opinion that if held by enough people gets its validity from that. I don’t have reason to argue against that means of establishing validity, but there are certainly downsides.

What are the criteria by which modern people grant authoritative status?

There is a range: sentiment, mobile emotion, self-interest, a semi- or a well-reasoned opinion, group pressure, trickery by sophistic argument, advertising, PR, propaganda etc.

You claim it's impossible to understand Maurin unless the world view includes belief in a supernatural way of being ; you need to justify this belief in a supernatural way of being.

It is not possible to understand Maurin’s imperatives unless one understands the Authority he responds to (i.e. Prophetic command essentially).

Justify it? To you? Why? You do not “believe in” the authority of the prophets. Nor do you believe in the primary tenets operative in Christian religious belief!

You are a Post-Christian of a notably odd variety. You believe in the shadow cast, but not in the structure that casts the shadow (so to speak).

I do believe in the structure that casts the shadow. On a sundial It is the shadow of the sun not the shadow of the gnomon.

As for Maurin , did he claim that he was obeying the authority of a supernatural being?
The Platonic Form of the good is not a divine being but is natural albeit on an abstract way of thought.

[Belinda]

As for Maurin, did he claim that he was obeying the authority of a supernatural being?

You tell me:

What we give to the poor for Christ's sake, is what we carry with us when we die.

Peter Maurin

Interview with the Houston Catholic Worker:

HCW: What’s wrong with industrial capitalism?

Peter Maurin: It is incompatible with the Christian Gospel because it renders the person subservient to the production of wealth. No economic system which places greater value on the accumulation of wealth than on the dignity of the human person deserves the support of those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and the Pope. It leads to alienation and a loss of a sense of personal participation in community life. With industrial capitalism it is not clear who is responsible for problems that arise.

HCW: Were you in touch with Bishops over the years?

Peter Maurin: Yes, many were friends of Dorothy and myself and visited the Worker. They were very open to our ideas.

HCW: Why do you feel sorry for Bishops?

Peter Maurin: The ministration is swamped by the administration (paper work).

HCW: The Easy Essays seem so simple. Why did you write that way?

Peter Maurin: They are deceptive. My writing is the fruit of much study and prayer. The essays were written to entice people into more profound study regarding the rich Christian tradition and radical ways of living the Gospel.

"God wants us to be our brother's keeper. To feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to instruct the ignorant, at a personal sacrifice, is what God wants us to do."

Etc etc etc …

These are good to know about. Thanks.Sorry if this wastes your time. I have enjoyed focusing on these matters.

The "rich Christian tradition" as explicated by Maurin above is reasonable and that is why I trust it. I don't trust it because of supernatural myth. Prayer, even ritual prayer, is a sound means to focus thoughts, joys, and fears.
I'm not surprised and I feel encouraged that bishops were open to Maurin's ideas. I hope Pope Leo will be open to those ideas.

The Christian myth which I grant you is supernatural is still doing its work of persuasion. However, even a little reading of these forums show the myth is no longer enough and many people seek a reasonable faith. A reasonable faith which is natural not supernatural is possible. The Bible has been poorly taught. Not everyone is suited to advanced theology but The Bible can be adapted without sentimentality for children via stories e.g. parables and how these connect with lives in the present day. Children's literature has become a sophisticated craft.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Maurin was a religious man: motivated by belief in (relationship with) the supernatural, and an attitude, a decided way of life: a practice of his belief.

The following from Philosophy and Religion: The Logic of Religious Belief, by John Wilson 1961:

We are left, then, with two necessary conditions for religion: beliefs or assertions about the supernatural, and certain feelings or a way of life. We may add a third: that the two should be connected. Epicureanism, as we saw, satisfies both conditions separately, but fails to be a religion because it does not satisfy them both together: for Epicurus's morality derives from quite other sources than his belief in the gods [he thought gods existed but had no relationship with man].

When conjoined in this way, these two conditions also become sufficient; and we may say, therefore, that if a man commits himself to beliefs and assertions about God or the supernatural, and also to a morality, a way of life, or a set of principles which is somehow connected with these beliefs and assertions, then he has a religion. It does not seem to matter very much whether we add that he must also practice to some extent this way of life, or whether we are prepared to say that he has a religion merely by virtue of professing it. It is, I think, logically possible to believe in a religion without ever practicing it: but in fact it is sufficiently rare for us to neglect it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't trust it because of supernatural myth.

The Christian myth which I grant you is supernatural is still doing its work of persuasion.

As I observed: you deny the supernatural, turning it into ‘myth’ … but oddly “grant” to mythology something “supernatural”.

For this reason: you really are a post-Christian but enveloped in the shadow of a structure that never had “real” existence.

Not so much a criticism, rather an observation.

Once a real belief in supernatural mandates is disbelieved, the substance that created the shadow dissolves; once the structure is dissolved, the moral and ethical principles mandated will obviously no longer be existentially imperative, but elective. And subject to discussion and debate.

There may be authoritative opinion that comes from that, but no longer the Authority of a mandate.

[Belinda]

I don't trust it because of supernatural myth.

The Christian myth which I grant you is supernatural is still doing its work of persuasion.

As I observed: you deny the supernatural, turning it into ‘myth’ … but oddly “grant” to mythology something “supernatural”.

For this reason: you really are a post-Christian but enveloped in the shadow of a structure that never had “real” existence.

Not so much a criticism, rather an observation.

Once a real belief in supernatural mandates is disbelieved, the substance that created the shadow dissolves; once the structure is dissolved, the moral and ethical principles mandated will obviously no longer be existentially imperative, but elective. And subject to discussion and debate.

There may be authoritative opinion that comes from that, but no longer the Authority of a mandate.

No, I don't claim myths are supernatural. Myths are various significant and iconic stories that specific cultures hold in reverence. Myth making and adherence to myths is natural. The theme of many myths includes belief in supernatural ways of being.

Do you or do you not believe that truth, beauty, and goodness are justified by reason alone?

Regarding the metaphor of the sundial, the sun stands for eternal truth , and the gnomon that casts a shadow stands for ephemeral shadow. Eternal truth is naturally eternal. There is no need for supernatural authority except to control the lesser men who cannot be relied on to reason.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you or do you not believe that truth, beauty, and goodness are justified by reason alone?

Frankly, I would say that reason alone is insufficient for making ultimate decisions in life. There is more to us than just a developed reasoning ability.

So it seems likely to me that there is something else — call it quintessential if you wish — that enables a given person to perceive in such terms.

But it does seem to me that reason will do a good and necessary job of explaining what is truthful, and why we respond to beauty, and what “goodness” is or should be. So yes, reason can justify values.

It requires a cultivated man to “see” in such terms. It is likely that you believe it is “developed reasoning ability” alone that brings one to that. I think it is a result of the cultivation of a range of qualities, not the least being of a spiritual sort, that opens the way to understanding and appreciation of what is true, beautiful and good.

[Belinda]

Do you or do you not believe that truth, beauty, and goodness are justified by reason alone?

Frankly, I would say that reason alone is insufficient for making ultimate decisions in life. There is more to us than just a developed reasoning ability.

So it seems likely to me that there is something else — call it quintessential if you wish — that enables a given person to perceive in such terms.

But it does seem to me that reason will do a good and necessary job of explaining what is truthful, and why we respond to beauty, and what “goodness” is or should be. So yes, reason can justify values.

It requires a cultivated man to “see” in such terms. It is likely that you believe it is “developed reasoning ability” alone that brings one to that. I think it is a result of the cultivation of a range of qualities, not the least being of a spiritual sort, that opens the way to understanding and appreciation of what is true, beautiful and good.

Reason is something we do, and as such it invariably includes subjective loves and fears, In fact, nobody could reason without subjective feelings. True, AI can seem to have subjective feelings, and it is the problem of our time to catch it out and tame it. Traditional religious doctrines are unlikely to be much help.

Not to feel values is pathological.
It does require a cultivated man to outwit advanced artificial intelligence.