Just a note I’m blogging at Times and Seasons for the next while. I’ll still post here things that are too short or too technical to post there. My first post was a continuation of my demographics posts with an analysis of converts per missionary from the public data.
Apologies for falling behind in posts. Things just got busy again. So back to a few of the epistemological questions over the next few weeks. I think rather than make it an introduction I’m just going to dive into the deep end and see if I can’t get to what the fundamental issues of Mormon epistemology actually are.
Part of this is to just cut to the chase and try and get at some of the Peircean approaches to LDS thinking. As such this will definitely be thinking through ideas rather than having finished relatively defensible thoughts.
Massimo Pigliucci, of Scientia Salon fame, has a new blog up: How to Be a Stoic. He’s been talking stoicism for a while including a recent NYT editorial and then a Bloggingheads on the topic last fall. I’ve always been a sucker for the Stoics. While I probably couldn’t call myself a Stoic they have influenced me a great deal.
I’ve discussed Stoicism a fair bit way back when I was analyzing Orson Pratt’s odd philosophical take on Mormon theology in the 19th century. I had quite a few posts on the subject at the old blog. A key difference there of course was Pratt had adopted an atomism of Priestly by way of Leibniz. Other than his belief in atoms though his views were very much Stoic in nature though. They were rather extreme and a little kooky at times but exerted a rather pronounced influence on Mormon thought that persists to this day.