Re: new to list

From: David G. McDivitt (
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 22:17:25 MDT

You have shown no explicit contradictions an anything I said. That a
person uses semantics to criticise semantics is in no way invalid. What
do you suggest I use?

I ask you again to justify your criticism.

>From: "Technotranscendence" <>
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:04:42 -0700
>On Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:54 PM David G. McDivitt
>> >But are you not making the claim here that this is objective truth? You
>> >making claims about knowledge that are either true or false. If they are
>> >true, how can you know it, since you are conditioned by the same things.
>> >(Knowledge is knowledge -- even knowledge about other knowledge.) Thus,
>> >they're would be refuted. If they are false, then ditto.
>> >This by no means solves all epistemological problems, but it clears the
>> >to better understanding.
>> I don't think your comments "clear the path to better understanding at
>> all". Your comments are nihilistic, only. They offer no new inspiration.
>> You are simply saying I cannot know anything from my metaphysical model
>> because you don't know anything from yours.
>Not at all. What I am saying is that your view contradicts itself. Ergo,
>it is wrong -- at least, when taken to its radical extreme. If it does so,
>then it must be rejected.
>I make no claims to ignorance. Nor do I see your claims as sound. You
>build on the foundations you seek to undermine. This is similar to what
>pancritical rationalism does. (See "Comments on Pancritical Rationalism" at
>> If my view is in error, give me something to replace it with.
>You must replace it yourself.
>> I do give
>> the realist something to replace realism with.
>You offer only a contradiction to replace a form of naive realism. Do you
>believe this refutes all realism?


_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free address at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT