Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:23 am
Leontiskos wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 6:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 9:44 am
VA: Aquinas do not accept that God created the Universe in time in 6-7 days but rather he argued from reason that the Universe has no beginning-in-Time nor end which contradict Genesis' creation of the Universe.
Why incorrect?
Because as my post showed, Aquinas did not argue from reason that the universe has no beginning in time. In fact he held that all such arguments fail.
What about the link I gave above re BBC, it is wrong?
I don't see the point in addressing primary sources with secondary literature. If Aquinas outright says that X is Y then the argument from authority where the BBC claims the opposite doesn't have any force. Better to read what Aquinas says then to read what the BBC says Aquinas says.

...But I will answer you since I am new here. As I look through the BBC article, the only time Thomas Aquinas is ever referenced is the final page of the article, page 6, where he is quoted as saying, "Whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good." Thomas' thought on creation is never appealed to in the article.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:23 amNote the full quote:
I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (I:32:1.
The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.
For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing.
Now everything according to its species is abstracted from "here" and "now"; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always.
Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will.
For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (I:19:3).
But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests.
Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science.
And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.
Note this;
For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (I:19:3).

Here Aquinas is merely referring to the Will of God in relation to why God cause the World to appear in the first place.
Nope. You are conflating two different arguments. The first argument is on the part of the effect, "...[demonstration] on the part of the world itself." Thomas' point there is that, given what we know about the world, we are not rationally justified in concluding that the world did not always exist. The second argument is on the part of the efficient cause which is responsible for the effect, namely God. Since God need not will that the world did not always exist, therefore it is not necessary, on the part of the world's cause, that it did not always exist. Thomas is saying, "The world gives us no reason to believe that it did not always exist; and the world's cause, God, also gives us no reason to believe that the world did not always exist. Therefore we have no natural reason to believe that the world did not always exist." The only reason is supernatural (i.e. faith via revelation).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:23 amAquinas is not referring to the processes of how the world emerge since God' will it in 6 days and rest on the seven as literally stated in Genesis.

Can you confirm, Aquinas agreed with the literal interpretation of Genesis of how the World first emerged, i.e. God created the World in 6 days and rest on the 7th?
I have not said anything about the process of creation in this thread.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12381
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:23 amAquinas is not referring to the processes of how the world emerge since God' will it in 6 days and rest on the seven as literally stated in Genesis.

Can you confirm, Aquinas agreed with the literal interpretation of Genesis of how the World first emerged, i.e. God created the World in 6 days and rest on the 7th?
I have not said anything about the process of creation in this thread.
So all the while, you were attacking a strawman?
Note this is the theme of my OP?
OP wrote:I read while Aquinas obviously believed in the existence and necessity of the Revelation, he nevertheless emphasized the criticalness of Reason [Intellect] in understanding the existence of God.
For example, Aquinas do not accept that God created the Universe in time in 6-7 days but rather he argued from reason that the Universe has no beginning-in-Time nor end which contradict Genesis' creation of the Universe.
I am not an expert on Aquinas but after reading from Edward Fesser and others, I gather the idea as stated in the OP as with the BBC article [google quickie].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12381
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is the general view from ChatGPT; the AI ChatGPT approach is to knowledge is to scour all knowledge available to it via the Internet and provide the common knowledge.


ChatGPT:
"Yes, it is true that Thomas Aquinas, a medieval philosopher and theologian, did not interpret the creation account in Genesis literally, specifically with regard to the idea that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Aquinas held the view that the creation account in Genesis should be understood allegorically or metaphorically rather than as a literal historical account.

Aquinas believed that the biblical text contains symbolic language and uses figurative expressions to convey deeper theological and philosophical truths. He argued that the six days of creation should be understood as a way of presenting the order and structure of the world in a logical and systematic manner, rather than as literal 24-hour periods. According to Aquinas, God, being eternal and outside of time, does not experience temporal succession, so the concept of God "resting" on the seventh day should not be understood as a literal rest but rather as a metaphorical expression of divine completion and perfection.

Aquinas sought to reconcile the teachings of Scripture with the philosophical ideas of his time, particularly Aristotelian philosophy. He believed that reason and faith should work together, and he incorporated elements of Aristotelian thought into his theological framework. For Aquinas, the primary purpose of the creation account was to convey important theological truths about God as the ultimate cause and sustainer of the universe, rather than to provide a literal scientific explanation of how the world came into being.

It's important to note that Aquinas's interpretation of Genesis was just one among many within the Christian tradition, and different theologians and scholars may have different perspectives on the issue."
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 3:15 amSo all the while, you were attacking a strawman?
Note this is the theme of my OP?
I interpreted the OP the same way many others did. But perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by this sentence (and also rewrite it so that it is grammatically correct):
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:59 am For example, Aquinas do not accept that God created the Universe in time in 6-7 days but rather he argued from reason that the Universe has no beginning-in-Time nor end which contradict Genesis' creation of the Universe.
I read you as saying:
  1. Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
  2. Aquinas argued from reason that the universe has no beginning in time nor end in time.
  3. This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.
My point is that since (2) is false your argument is unsound. Once we we see that your argument is probably unsound we arrive at a philosophical juncture. You can either defend the soundness of your argument by defending (2), or you can try to come up with a different argument that is sound. What you don't get to do is point to your conclusion, (3), and say, "Hey, but what about this? What about this!?" Not if you're doing philosophy, anyway.

If that reading of your sentence is incorrect, then please correct it. If it is correct then you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3). If you continue to do neither I will not continue to respond.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12381
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 3:15 amSo all the while, you were attacking a strawman?
Note this is the theme of my OP?
I interpreted the OP the same way many others did. But perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by this sentence (and also rewrite it so that it is grammatically correct):
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:59 am For example, Aquinas do not accept that God created the Universe in time in 6-7 days but rather he argued from reason that the Universe has no beginning-in-Time nor end which contradict Genesis' creation of the Universe.
I read you as saying:
  1. Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
  2. Aquinas argued from reason that the universe has no beginning in time nor end in time.
  3. This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.
My point is that since (2) is false your argument is unsound. Once we we see that your argument is probably unsound we arrive at a philosophical juncture. You can either defend the soundness of your argument by defending (2), or you can try to come up with a different argument that is sound. What you don't get to do is point to your conclusion, (3), and say, "Hey, but what about this? What about this!?" Not if you're doing philosophy, anyway.

If that reading of your sentence is incorrect, then please correct it. If it is correct then you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3). If you continue to do neither I will not continue to respond.
OK, 2 is not critical to my point.

My main point is;
Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

Btw, I understand Aquinas in general rely on reason and faith in understanding God.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:27 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 3:15 amSo all the while, you were attacking a strawman?
Note this is the theme of my OP?
I interpreted the OP the same way many others did. But perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by this sentence (and also rewrite it so that it is grammatically correct):
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:59 am For example, Aquinas do not accept that God created the Universe in time in 6-7 days but rather he argued from reason that the Universe has no beginning-in-Time nor end which contradict Genesis' creation of the Universe.
I read you as saying:
  1. Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
  2. Aquinas argued from reason that the universe has no beginning in time nor end in time.
  3. This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.
My point is that since (2) is false your argument is unsound. Once we we see that your argument is probably unsound we arrive at a philosophical juncture. You can either defend the soundness of your argument by defending (2), or you can try to come up with a different argument that is sound. What you don't get to do is point to your conclusion, (3), and say, "Hey, but what about this? What about this!?" Not if you're doing philosophy, anyway.

If that reading of your sentence is incorrect, then please correct it. If it is correct then you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3). If you continue to do neither I will not continue to respond.
OK, 2 is not critical to my point.

My main point is;
Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

Btw, I understand Aquinas in general rely on reason and faith in understanding God.
"...you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3)."

See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight. "Aquinas did not accept X. I have no argument in favor of this claim. Sheer will is my only recourse." ...in fact this is a textbook case of the sort of irrationality where someone constructs an argument in favor of a conclusion, notes that their argument has failed, and then decides to believe the conclusion anyway, even without arguments. For such people it turns out that the argument was only ever post hoc rationalization.

As I said, you've veered from the path of philosophy, and I am here to talk to philosophers. Good luck.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12381
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:27 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:08 am

I interpreted the OP the same way many others did. But perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by this sentence (and also rewrite it so that it is grammatically correct):



I read you as saying:
  1. Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
  2. Aquinas argued from reason that the universe has no beginning in time nor end in time.
  3. This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.
My point is that since (2) is false your argument is unsound. Once we we see that your argument is probably unsound we arrive at a philosophical juncture. You can either defend the soundness of your argument by defending (2), or you can try to come up with a different argument that is sound. What you don't get to do is point to your conclusion, (3), and say, "Hey, but what about this? What about this!?" Not if you're doing philosophy, anyway.

If that reading of your sentence is incorrect, then please correct it. If it is correct then you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3). If you continue to do neither I will not continue to respond.
OK, 2 is not critical to my point.

My main point is;
Aquinas did not accept that God created the universe in 6-7 days.
This belief of Aquinas contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

Btw, I understand Aquinas in general rely on reason and faith in understanding God.
"...you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3)."

See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight. "Aquinas did not accept X. I have no argument in favor of this claim. Sheer will is my only recourse." ...in fact this is a textbook case of the sort of irrationality where someone constructs an argument in favor of a conclusion, notes that their argument has failed, and then decides to believe the conclusion anyway, even without arguments. For such people it turns out that the argument was only ever post hoc rationalization.

As I said, you've veered from the path of philosophy, and I am here to talk to philosophers. Good luck.
As I had stated I am not an expert in Aquinas and I do not intend to be.
Before I dug more into Aquinas I thought he was just the typical theologian like St. Anselm, Descartes and others, but I was surprised to note Aquinas was distinctly different in that he respected reason.

My main point of the OP is to notify to theists who are blinded by faith, that there are theologians do also take into account reason in their belief in God, i.e. Aquinas in this case; to the extent that Aquinas do not take Genesis literally.
Therefore those who favor reason as one basis [besides faith] to understand should refer to Aquinas.
... and I am here to talk to philosophers.
it would be more effective for your well being if you were to seek psychologists rather than philosophers.
As I had argued elsewhere, theism is a evolutionary default that is driven by cognitive dissonances emerging from an existential crisis.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am
"...you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3)."

See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight.
Even if he did defend 2, that's not a syllogism. The 1, 2 and 3 you laid out aren't syllogistic.

And that's okay, not all arguments need to be constructed explicitly syllogistically.
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 6:35 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am
"...you can either defend (2) or try a different argument in favor of (3)."

See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight.
Even if he did defend 2, that's not a syllogism. The 1, 2 and 3 you laid out aren't syllogistic.
I was just mapping his sentence with 1-3. Here is his implicit syllogism:
  1. Anyone who believes that the universe has no beginning or end contradicts Genesis.
  2. Aquinas believed that the universe has no beginning or end.
  3. Therefore, Aquinas contradicts Genesis.
So a syllogism was implicitly present in the OP, it was refuted, and no alternative argument was offered.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 6:35 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 amInstead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight.
And that's okay, not all arguments need to be constructed explicitly syllogistically.
Yes, "...no argument or syllogism in sight."
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am As I said, you've veered from the path of philosophy, and I am here to talk to philosophers. Good luck.
Heyyy! There's somebody who appears to be claiming they know how to sort the philosophers from the non-philosophers!

Could you finally help us settle this and make your classification rule explicit?

Some people have certainly made the argument that if you can't delineate what is; and isn't philosophy then anything goes either way and so excluding people on any arbitrary gounds amounts to a No true Scottsman fallacy.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight.
Errr? So what? A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism.

P ⊢ (P ∨ ⊥)

P
∴ (P ∨ ⊥)
∴ P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 7:29 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am See how you did neither? Instead you just asserted a proposition with no argument or syllogism in sight.
Errr? So what? A standalone proposition is a valid syllogism.

P ⊢ (P ∨ ⊥)

P
∴ (P ∨ ⊥)
∴ P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction_introduction
Even a vacuous consequence such as (P -> (P v ⊥)) is different from a standalone proposition. These are the arguments you are proposing:
  1. P ⊢ (P ∨ ⊥)
  2. P
  3. ∴ (P ∨ ⊥)
  4. (P ∨ ⊥) ⊢ P
  5. ∴ P
Neither 1-2-3 nor 3-4-5 are standalone propositions. Rather, they are arguments. There is a minor question from the Stoics about whether a conclusion/inference requires two premises, but in either case a standalone proposition is not in itself a syllogism, nor is it an argument.
Skepdick wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 6:57 pm
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:41 am As I said, you've veered from the path of philosophy, and I am here to talk to philosophers. Good luck.
Heyyy! There's somebody who appears to be claiming they know how to sort the philosophers from the non-philosophers!

Could you finally help us settle this and make your classification rule explicit?

Some people have certainly made the argument that if you can't delineate what is; and isn't philosophy then anything goes either way and so excluding people on any arbitrary gounds amounts to a No true Scottsman fallacy.
What I am claiming in this context is that post hoc rationalization is not philosophy. A refusal to give an argument in favor of one's unsupported claim is not philosophy either.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm Even a vacuous consequence such as (P -> (P v ⊥)) is different from a standalone proposition.
It's only syntactically different. It's semantically equivalent to P.
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm These are the arguments you are proposing:
  1. P ⊢ (P ∨ ⊥)
  2. P
  3. ∴ (P ∨ ⊥)
  4. (P ∨ ⊥) ⊢ P
  5. ∴ P
Exactly. It's in the syntactic form sufficient to satisfy your demands, but despite all that mechanistic sophistry it's still semantically equivalent to simply saying P.

So why the unnecessary admin?
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm Neither 1-2-3 nor 3-4-5 are standalone propositions. Rather, they are arguments.
Well, if it makes you happy.

But all of them considered together mean nothing other than just P.
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm There is a minor question from the Stoics about whether a conclusion/inference requires two premises, but in either case a standalone proposition is not in itself a syllogism, nor is it an argument.
So if I say P it's not an argument/syllogism, but if I then add 2000000 pages of frivolous mechanistic nonsense and then conclude P. Then it's an argument/syllogism?

Could you think of a more pointless activity?
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm What I am claiming in this context is that post hoc rationalization is not philosophy.
Very good! We can work with that. So if you are not post-hoc rationalizing please produce the classification rule you are using to distinguish philosophy from non-philosophy so that we can hold you accountable to the correctness of your distinctions; or call you out on your category errors.

Failing to do so, we would be justified in concluding that you are post-hoc rationalizing your pohilosopher/non-philosopher distinction, which (by your very own premise) would make you a non-philosopher.
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm A refusal to give an argument in favor of one's unsupported claim is not philosophy either.
Yes! Brilliant! I am happy with that criterion.

So if you fail to support your claim that something is; or isn't philosophy then you are not a philosopher either!

Of course, I agree with you - that's exactly why I am asking you to produce the classification rule. So that when you fail to do so maybe you'll convince yourself that you aren't a philosopher (by your very own criterion)
Leontiskos
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Leontiskos »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:05 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm Even a vacuous consequence such as (P -> (P v ⊥)) is different from a standalone proposition.
It's only syntactically different. It's semantically equivalent to P.
No, not at all.
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:05 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm There is a minor question from the Stoics about whether a conclusion/inference requires two premises, but in either case a standalone proposition is not in itself a syllogism, nor is it an argument.
So if I say P it's not an argument/syllogism, but if I then add 2000000 pages of frivolous mechanistic nonsense and then conclude P. Then it's an argument/syllogism?
Yes, the proposition P is different from an argument which draws the conclusion, P.
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:05 amOf course, I agree with you - that's exactly why I am asking you to produce the classification rule. So that when you fail to do so maybe you'll convince yourself that you aren't a philosopher (by your very own criterion)
You may have noticed that I do not discourse with everyone. This is because not everyone--and especially not everyone on the internet--is worth discoursing with. You have not at all convinced me that you are worth discoursing with. Nor have my peeks into your other threads helped your case.

Now, if I determine that someone is not interested in genuine philosophical dialogue, I am not thereby indebted to offer them some sort of "proof" that they are uninterested. Indeed, supposing my judgment to be correct, no such proof would be possible.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Aquinas: Reason Favored over Faith from Revelation

Post by Skepdick »

Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:05 am
Leontiskos wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 11:04 pm Even a vacuous consequence such as (P -> (P v ⊥)) is different from a standalone proposition.
It's only syntactically different. It's semantically equivalent to P.
No, not at all.
Yes, absolutely.

(P → (P v ⊥)) ↔ P
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm Yes, the proposition P is different from an argument which draws the conclusion, P.
So P is different to P? e.g you are negating the identity axiom?
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm You may have noticed that I do not discourse with everyone. This is because not everyone--and especially not everyone on the internet--is worth discoursing with. You have not at all convinced me that you are worth discoursing with.
And what I've noticed is that you are failing to meet your very own criterion for calling yourself a philosopher; or qualifying any of your dialogue as "philosophical"
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm Now, if I determine that someone is not interested in genuine philosophical dialogue
I am interested in dialogue hence I am participating in it, but I am still waiting for you to tell us how to distinguish philosophical from non-philosophical dialogue.
Leontiskos wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:28 pm I am not thereby indebted to offer them some sort of "proof" that they are uninterested. Indeed, supposing my judgment to be correct, no such proof would be possible.
So my expertise in logic doesn't qualify as "philosophical" in your books? It almost seems like you might be re-adjusting the goalposts, but I am absolutely certain that your judgment is incorrect.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat May 27, 2023 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply