
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:43:46 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote (in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): Porky Pig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:53:33 -0500, Bob LeChevalier >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> You do not think philosophically about the range of your own comments, >>> >>> Philosophy is for losers like you. >> >> Yeah, don't let reason stand in the way of your emotions. > > Absolutely. My emotions render me superior to a machine. > > "Reason" as in "philosophy" is totally dependent on the quality of the > axioms. Those who argue it typically choose axioms based on whether > they support the results that the person wants. Reject those axioms, > and you may end up with the opposite conclusion. > > lojbab > Um,m,m - "premises" (because they're stronger than axioms. It's the old deal that "If you accept my premises, you have - ipso facto - to accept my conclusion(s)." [At least while operating under Aristotelian logic] Sweet Jenny pulled that one in a Philosophy of Religion class when she made reference to "Ground of Being" (it was safe - only the prof, his assistant (me) and Sweet Jenny had read Tillich). However, the point she was making was that the fundamental "ground of being" - one's personal metaphysic (so to speak) /is/ "The grounds of one's being". Gray Shockley -------------------------------------------------------- Except on Sunday, Never on Sunday
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |