tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post347075639205030597..comments2014-07-10T14:00:01.950-07:00Comments on Choosing Hats: Dawson Bethrick, The Man Who Builds His House Upon The SandBrian Knapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09343706473535031469noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-33352141769761877052009-09-09T10:01:19.221-07:002009-09-09T10:01:19.221-07:00Part II
So this means that, if one wants to enter...Part II<br /><br />So this means that, if one wants to entertain the notion that water could turn into merlot, he would have to identify a cause for such transformation which squares with the primacy of existence. We know that merlot wine is produced by a process which involves the fermentation of a specific kind of grape in large quantities. This process requires a sufficient amount of time for Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-17024996709565932132009-09-09T09:50:43.518-07:002009-09-09T09:50:43.518-07:00Chris,
You apparently do not accept the answer I ...Chris,<br /><br />You apparently do not accept the answer I gave to your question about knowing whether or not water will turn into merlot the next time I drink it. My short answer to this was: by a means of knowledge, specifically by <i>reason</i> (since reason is my <i>only</i> means of knowledge). <br /><br />I gather that my answer was insufficient for you, possibly because the concept of Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-47787906006887660472009-09-09T09:40:31.448-07:002009-09-09T09:40:31.448-07:00Dr. F.,
That is an excellent summary of some of ...Dr. F., <br /><br />That is an excellent summary of some of presuppositionalism’s fatal weaknesses. I, too, am stymied when individuals educated in philosophy can allow themselves to ignore the fallacious nature of a position and still embrace it. But then again, one can jump through all kinds of academic hoops and acquire degrees in any field, and still cling to irrational positions.<br /><br />Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-25769555380380924392009-09-09T07:28:48.508-07:002009-09-09T07:28:48.508-07:00Another Objectivist? Are you also unable to answer...Another Objectivist? Are you also unable to answer how you know water will not turn into merlot the next time you drink it in under 20 pages worth of material?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-63857198678535783792009-09-08T06:50:35.122-07:002009-09-08T06:50:35.122-07:00(part 2 due to character limits)
Obviously my min...(part 2 due to character limits)<br /><br /><i>Obviously my mind is not identical to the mind which is said to know and control everything...mind in order to receive information from it.</i><br /><br />It was probably just a poor choice of words on your part, but you did say in response to Dawson's statement<br /><br />DB "I openly admit that I am neither omniscient nor infallible. But Dr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-47989976550811522822009-09-08T06:46:01.658-07:002009-09-08T06:46:01.658-07:00Objectivists, as I understand it, have never quite...<i>Objectivists, as I understand it, have never quite been accepted ...encyclopedias do not even mention Objectivism or Rand).</i><br /><br /><br />It's a minority view, but there are still a number of (as far as I can tell) credible philosophers at credible universities who subscribe to it, as seen here:<br /><br />http://www.aynrandsociety.org/#Steering<br /><br />Either way, popularity (orDr Funkensteinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-35063135512206682832009-09-04T19:45:17.877-07:002009-09-04T19:45:17.877-07:00My indirect response is here:
http://urbanphiloso...My indirect response is here:<br /><a href="http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/" rel="nofollow"> http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/philosophy/inductive-reasoning-and-the-christian-god/ </a> <br /><br />(I hope my posting of the link worked)Mitchell LeBlanchttp://urbanphilosophy.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-23017297047628967652009-09-04T11:27:05.196-07:002009-09-04T11:27:05.196-07:00Hello Chris,
I wanted to make a few comments here...Hello Chris,<br /><br />I wanted to make a few comments here. <br /><br />First, regarding Rand and the acceptance of her philosophy in academic circles, you’re correct: Objectivism is for the most part shunned if not reviled by many in academia. There are reasons for this. <br /><br />For one thing, Rand was not an academic herself, but an outsider.<br />Academics can be extremely territorial (&Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-33549812109023467932009-09-04T09:45:08.297-07:002009-09-04T09:45:08.297-07:00I hope to respond, indirectly, with an essay discu...I hope to respond, indirectly, with an essay discussing induction. I will post the link when I have completed.Mitchell LeBlanchttp://urbanphilosophy.netnoreply@blogger.com