File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9709, message 67


Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:36:14 -0600
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: Sign Time [was, skull, bones and lions]


>Saicho-AT-aol.com wrote:
>>
>> I keep waiting for Dennis Polis to have an epiphany, slap his forehead (like
>> Wittgenstein in the company of his Italian friend, when he suddenly saw the
>> flaws in Tractatus .[Who was that Italian guy anyway, and wern't they
>> discussing semiotics and language, Etc?]) and exclaim:  =93Oh, geez! I see now
>> that I have been trapped by my love of the Greeks.  Now I see!=94   But I
>>don=92t
>> think he will do this. I find his remark that theism "is the only position
>> that is consistent with the background assumptions of science" quite
>>telling.
>> Had he told us this at the beginning it might have saved a great many words.
>
>I don't think that I have made any secrets of my metaphysical commitments.
>Being a theist is a consequence of being an Aristotelian.  As with my other
>positions, it is rationally defensible.  The prejudice that it evokes,
>however,
>is not.
>
>DP

If you weren't so earnest you might could (as is said, double modally in
the Golden Triangle) see how silly this statement is. One must assume you
knew not what you said. it follows, as night does day, that if one is an
"Aristotelian," one is a theist. Then you compound this atrocity by
presenting theism  as "rationally definsible." There are many excuses for
being a theist. Reason is not one of them.

Pshaw, Sir.
g



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005