Re: q***** [that is, "qualia"]

Dan Fabulich (
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:55:44 -0500 (EST)

'What is your name?' 'Kate Riley.' 'Do you deny having written the following?':

> On a point of information, this is Anselm, which means that you'd be talking
> with 11th century thinkers. By the 17th century you would be talking to
> Locke, who believed (and I'm sure most on this list would agree, including
> myself) that one is not justified in holding a belief, any belief, without
> rational justification. Difficulties and disputes rise here as to what
> constitutes "rational justification," but that's a discussion for another
> time.

I'd had Spinoza in mind when I'd written that.

> First, I don't think you are denying the necessary existence of first
> principles. If you are, however, let me know and I'll gladly prove you
> wrong.

Nope. First principles are very important. But we REALLY ought to keep them to a minimum, I'd say. A=A is good, for example.

> Second, could you please tell me why 1+1=2?

By invention. :p


-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-

e.e. cummings