- 31 Mar 2024 17:10
#15309910
Dude, this position you posted from marxism.org:
Is:
I don't like vanilla I only like chocolate. There is no argument posted, no rebuttal, no addressing, no explaining why. Just I hate vanilla. Perhaps you believe that this is the pinnacle that disproves Aristotle's god proof, but in reality it does not disprove anything, just like a child not liking vanilla, does not mean that vanilla is a bad flavour, or that nobody likes it.
You claimed that "people proved Aristotle's God proof wrong". You have yet to post a single argument to that effect.
"Pragmatists think that the history of attempts to isolate the True or the Good, or to define the word “true” or “good,” supports their suspicion that there is no interesting work to be done in this area. It might, of course, have turned out otherwise. People have, oddly enough, found something interesting to say about the essence of Force and the definition of “number.” They might have found something interesting to say about the essence of Truth. But in fact they haven’t. The history of attempts to do so, and of criticisms of such attempts, is roughly coextensive with the history of that literary genre we call “philosophy” – a genre founded by Plato. So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere. Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
Is:
I don't like vanilla I only like chocolate. There is no argument posted, no rebuttal, no addressing, no explaining why. Just I hate vanilla. Perhaps you believe that this is the pinnacle that disproves Aristotle's god proof, but in reality it does not disprove anything, just like a child not liking vanilla, does not mean that vanilla is a bad flavour, or that nobody likes it.
You claimed that "people proved Aristotle's God proof wrong". You have yet to post a single argument to that effect.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...