
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gray Shockley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<
<On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:43:46 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote
<(in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
<
{...}
<>
<> "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".
<
Folgers?
-- cary
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |