From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 22:34:53 GMT
Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
Erin:
> Thank you. I thought I had clearly distinguished the two but then your
> last statement threw me back into confusion, almost seems like it is
> saying that contextualism is MORE relative, if the context is more narrow
Then ignore my last statement. Wouldn't be the first time that my feeble
attempt to clarify only caused more confusion.
Incidentally, you answered my question to Ham about why everyone shrinks
from the concept of absolutes by referring to the statement, "We're truly
certain there is no true certainty." The statement is illogical because it
contradicts itself. Philosophy ought to be logically consistent based on
non-selfcontradictory assumptions. Otherwise, it's flaky.
Platt
Platt,
I can't ignore your last statement, because I can see why you would describe it as narrower context (taking into account what is unique about that situation) but at the same time a narrower context seems like it is more relative.
And that "flaky" statement about certainty was YOUR response to my question of is there anything that MOQers would constitute as being certain. So if you are taking back that too then can you give me a couple of things you do know for certain.
I got the math 2+ 2 thingy is certain, and some things are better than others thingy, but that is a little bit of a cop-out answer to me--- so far as more specifics --anything you want to list as you know for certain, anybody? we don't want to be all "flaky" here
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 22:37:11 GMT