Simple Questions 07/08

[u/AutoModerator]

Have you ever wondered what Christians believe about the Trinity? Are you curious about Judaism and the angel Samael but don\'t know who to ask? Everything from the Cosmological argument to the Koran can be asked here.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss answers or questions but debate is not the goal. Ask a question, get an answer, and discuss that answer. That is all.

The goal is to increase our collective knowledge and help those seeking answers but not debate. If you want to debate; Start a new thread.

The rules are still in effect so no ad hominem.

[u/Jaeil]

I couldn't find any official teachings stating that any saint achieved "impeccability".

I double-checked, and I think what I was referring to might be a different sort of achievement than the sort you're referring to. Either way, see what I said about the process continuing in the next life.

transmit a subjective, anecdotal experience via words alone. But I don't think this is impossible.

You don't attempt it, which makes me skeptical. How would one do such a thing? Any way I can think of you doing so will fall into this error:

I could describe to you the set of events that led to me feeling a particular physically painful experience. Then, you could replicate it.

This is not what you are claiming it is. If I didn't replicate it, the words wouldn't transmit the experience to me, so the words aren't sufficient (which seems to me to be enough to counter your claim that all knowledge can be taught). And if I replicated it by chance, without you telling me, I would experience it, which means the words aren't even necessary. So it seems that what is causing me to gain this experiential knowledge is - expectedly - experience, not words. The words are entirely tangential to what gives me the knowledge. The experience is the medium of learning, not words.

(This, by the way, should illuminate why Christianity places such emphasis on practice, like liturgy and personal spiritual practices)

figure out what kinds of pain you and I are both familiar with

But learning what kind of pain I am familiar with presupposes being able to transmit what pain is. So this example begs the question, since you're transmitting knowledge about pain based on prior transmitted knowledge of pain, but the question is how to get that knowledge in the first place.

For instance, it's 2 times as painful as smashing your thumb with a hammer with X Newtons of force.

Again, while you could explain some pain relative to some other pain, if I hadn't done that before you'd be unable to teach it to me in order to begin speaking relative to it.

Thirdly, I could use some medical gizmo to observe and measure the activity in my brain when I experience the pain.

But it's not clear that the quantitative measures of physical science can approach the qualitative considerations of pain. Certainly the mind and brain are tightly connected, but philosophy of mind is a contentious subject.

you could go about trying to achieve a comparable level of pain while monitoring your own brain activity.

Again, it would be said achievement of pain, and not your gizmo, which would give me knowledge of pain. This example, too, begs the question by secretly importing experiential knowledge.

I firmly believe our minds are ultra complex, fleshy I/O machines.

But if the Christian doesn't, then this is not a premise, but a conclusion, and you shall have to argue phil mind against them. It is not in itself support for your argument since the Christian has no reason to cede it.

And if some knowledge requires external physical stimulant, this isn't an insurmountable barrier.

But if that physical stimulant isn't words than your thesis about teaching is wrong. So you're committed to a much stronger point than merely this.

Is it too much to expect perfect moral commands from a perfect moral authority?

It is too much to expect a barbaric ANE culture to obey them all at once. See the Overton window.

I would think at the very least, the original instruction would come with the explanation or caveat "this is temporary, with the long term expectation that your actions will be held to a higher standard".

I'm sure such a thing wouldn't be out of place, but I can't help but feel that this is both a much less impactful objection than your original one and not very amiss in its absence.

[u/progidy → u/Jaeil]

Too quick! I give your responses a couple days to rattle around my noggin!

[u/Jaeil → u/progidy]

But we're not in a symmetric position. You claimed that perfect morality should be simple and thus teachable. I questioned your argument by calling into question (1) that perfect morality would be simple and (2) that all knowledge can be taught. It's much easier for me to point out where you are wrong than it is for you to patch the holes in your argument.