On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use
"tao", that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another
name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of
god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique
being or beyond being entity.
If I show it is empirically false that "Use any another name, people
will add more connotations than with the concept of god," will you
stop using "God" and switch to "goar"?
See my papers: I do not use the word "God". I use it in this list,
because I answered post using it. In the Plotinus paper I use "the
one". In my thesis I even use "psychology" instead of theology. It is
the idea which disturb some dogmatic people, not the word. In
publication, I have never hesitated to change the vocabulary, but that
hardly change anything. Scientists understand without much problem,
but dogmatic philosophers continue to lie on the works, and to be
listened by academician for authoritative reason.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
