I Find it Worrying When Questions are Formulated as "Is X Considered Y" ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: What Does a Question Like "is it considered real or just a myth" even mean? · New blog on the kid: I Find it Worrying When Questions are Formulated as "Is X Considered Y" ...

One could instead ask:

Is X Y?
Is water wet?

That's a question about truth.

One could also ask:

Does Z, W or T consider X Y?
Does Kant say water is wet?
Do Hindus say that water is wet?

That's a question about someone's personal or collective opinion.

I find it somewhat worrying when you conflate both questions into one, and expect an impersonal answer.

Obviously each man or collectivity will have opinions which according to them are absolutely identic with objective truth.

That's the point. Someone disagreeing with them would normally voice the disagreement as divorcing questions like:

Is the Pope actually infallible?

from questions like:

Do Catholics consider the Pope infallible?

And as obviously, a Catholic will not agree to divorce the questions.

Of course we consider the Pope infallible, becase as Catholics we know the Pope is infallible!

The question type

Is X considered Y?

is one that denies different collectivities and persons the right to elevate standpoints to the level of objective truth and at the same time, kind of, denies the accessibility of objective truth and denies the importance of some specific person's or group's opinion.

So, if one asked:

Are Popes considered infallible?

someone in a Protestant society would say "no" — bypassing that Catholics actually exist who actually do consider the Pope infallible.

In the same way, if modern Catholics in ecumenic frenzy caught this trend, they might end up saying "yes" forgetting to acknowledge that Protestants exist.

But the trend certainly doesn't start out as a Catholic one.

Considering, like knowing, is not a thing that floats around in impersonal space, it's sth done by specific persons. It's done because they consider knowledge can actually be had.

I think one can very definitely disprove the three levels of platforms in Yggdrasil, and therefore the Norse idea of where Asgard is placed. I think Heliocentrism and a universe 13.8 billion or 46 billion light years from centre to periphery can not be proven and can therefore not be used to disprove the traditional Christian idea of God's throne room above the stars, and by throne room, I mean where He receives creatures and their homage. I think that the proof of this idea from Christian revelation therefore still stands. I think the idea to either transform Christianity into a "more spiritualised understanding" or to ditch it is a very stupid idea. And I won't say "this is what I think, there is no way of knowing" I rather will say, "I think this, because basically I know this, and if you think you know the opposite, I defy you to a debate" (if I have time and you wouldn't abuse the debate to some ugly powerplay at my expense).

But somehow this is lost on people who ask "is Valhalla considered a real place or a myth" without asking "by whom" it is so considered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Sartrouville
St. Titus of Crete
6.II.2024