On 13 July 2014 15:53, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > If you can explain what "axiomatic" means, I think you'll find it on the > circle. For example, it might mean whatever seems necessarily true to > human beings, which could be explained in terms of physics, biology, and > evolution (c.f. William S. Coopers "The Origin of Reason"). >
Well you appear to have defined it as necessarily true, which seems OK to me. But you can't find it on the circle, because each part of the circle relies on the previous one. So by your own definition there is nothing there that can seem necessarily true. > That is equivalent to postmodernist arguments that since everything is > part of a linguistic web, we can't actually know or even surmise > *anything* about reality. > > No it's not, because it's not just words. For example, the explanation of > biology in terms of physics depends on scientific propositions which are > hypothesized and test in laboratories. > I'm afraid it is, because it is free floating in exactly the same way that Pomo suggests all our explanations are. Each step relies on the previous one. There is no point at which you can claim the circle is anchored in reality. > then for me at least it threatens to undermine everything else you've > said, some of which I thought at the time was quite sensible. > > Apparently it can't undermine your confidence in judging what is sensible. > > No. Or my ability to spot snide remarks. -- 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/d/optout.
