Materialistic monism is still a pluralism insofar as one matter is metaphysically separate (even if substantially identical) from another matter. Phenomenology supervenes on ontology, and so a dualism in the former undercuts a monism in the latter. Parmenides et al. were screwballs.
The Kantian position leaves open the truth of the Aristotelian-Thomistic. apperception made a point about this (though not in this exact language) in real_philosophy some time ago. Do you disagree with it?
An acceptance of certain archeological facts is uncritical if it does not use critical standards or methods, and many of our reasonable assumptions are not critical because to be critical about everything in our noetic structure would be a waste of time and would kill intellectual productivity. There is an analogy here to issues of faith, to which I was alluding with my comment (and use of the irresistible Plantinga icon) above.
Your interpretations of massively destructive weapons are apparently too enclosed within themselves to permit eccentricity's parenthetical lyricality from having free reign. Freedom!
Necessary and sufficient conditions are by no means unspecifiable for all words, and I do not recall our having a discussion of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" article. In any case, if you are going to claim that such conditions are universally unspecifiable, I think you'll need an argument to support it, because the prima facie warrant points in the other direction.
Kierkegaard was aware of Jacobi and Fichte, though I've not studied all the matrices of influence interconnecting Hegel, Kierkegaard and the German romantics. I enjoy Kierkegaard predominantly for other reasons, so I'm not too ashamed at not knowing all there is to know about said matrices.
Knowledge base-broadening is always relative to a particular body of knowledge. Are you saying I should take time away from my academic responsibilities in the land of Thomism to look into German romanticism?
The Kantian position leaves open the truth of the Aristotelian-Thomistic. apperception made a point about this (though not in this exact language) in real_philosophy some time ago. Do you disagree with it?
An acceptance of certain archeological facts is uncritical if it does not use critical standards or methods, and many of our reasonable assumptions are not critical because to be critical about everything in our noetic structure would be a waste of time and would kill intellectual productivity. There is an analogy here to issues of faith, to which I was alluding with my comment (and use of the irresistible Plantinga icon) above.
Your interpretations of massively destructive weapons are apparently too enclosed within themselves to permit eccentricity's parenthetical lyricality from having free reign. Freedom!
Necessary and sufficient conditions are by no means unspecifiable for all words, and I do not recall our having a discussion of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" article. In any case, if you are going to claim that such conditions are universally unspecifiable, I think you'll need an argument to support it, because the prima facie warrant points in the other direction.
Kierkegaard was aware of Jacobi and Fichte, though I've not studied all the matrices of influence interconnecting Hegel, Kierkegaard and the German romantics. I enjoy Kierkegaard predominantly for other reasons, so I'm not too ashamed at not knowing all there is to know about said matrices.
Knowledge base-broadening is always relative to a particular body of knowledge. Are you saying I should take time away from my academic responsibilities in the land of Thomism to look into German romanticism?
Reply
Leave a comment