Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:25:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Contradiction in logic 
From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3125593521_2878435_MIME_Part

Johm Foster said quoting Jud:
Jud: 
There is no such thing as a "supposed attempt" - an attempt is an attempt
whether it is successful or not.

Interesting analysis. I thought for years -it seems- that there were only
things, and that those entities which were not things did not exist. But
here Jud has contradicted that believe by stating that 'a supposed attempt'
is 'an attempt...whether it is successful or not." I would also assume that
if the attempt was successful then it would also exist, that it was a
'thing'....but here he is saying that despite the fact that a 'supposed
attempt' is not a thing (he says assertively that 'there is no such thing as
a 'supposed attempt' but then in the same sentence equates all attempts
'whether...successful or not'.

Seems to be an inherent dictactorial element (dogmatic extremism) which I
cannot understand perhaps bordering on 'blind faith' in 'self-contradictory
axioms'....at least on Jud's part. May be he can explain or someone else
where the flaw is. It is too basic ...like how do you define the colour
white?

There is only one way.....

Really is it possible to actually 'reason' here in a discussion with this
analysis before yourselves?

Good point, but of course, what I meant was whether the attempt
(unsuccessful or not) was [enboldened] an attempt at the shattering of
philosophy by Jud; he seemed to suggest it, but, but surely he cannot have
been serious :-) I think your point revolves around what one might mean by
"thing" and whether a certain colloquial or conventional usage of the word
might be acceptable in a philosophical discourse (certainly Jud goes both
ways and reports on usage but not on the specific usage of philosophers like
Heidegger; wanting his cakelike thing and eating it :-)). Similarly, he
spends an inordinate amount of internet space rapping about the word "being"
whilst employing it over and over in ways that might throw some light that
he persists in being (!) blinded by... deliberately (I hope). Such
'thinking' (Jud's) is drowned before it dives.

regards

mP
--MS_Mac_OE_3125593521_2878435_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION: