PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:35 am
My disagreement is with your idea that he did not know that what he was saying is true.
And my disagreement is with your idea that you think you can speak on behalf of dead philosophers.
My disagreement is with your idea that you believe you can read dead philosophers' minds through the re-translations and re-interpretations of their written words.
Obviously he thought what he was saying was true. If he wasn't it wouldn't be
Logos.
PeteJ wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:35 am
I'm more and more beginning to dislike arguing about such things, however. so am happy not to do so.
Which is why I agreed with you. First and foremost. An empirical test which allowed me to determine whether you actually understand non-dualism. In practice, not in theory.
By choosing to defend the belief that Perenialism is distinct from Empiricism (a.k.a humanism, science etc.) you scored a non-dualistic own goal.
If two things are "the same" then they are one thing.
If two things are "different" then they can't be one thing.