Arlo --
[Ham]
You see, Arlo, you are stuck in the time warp of causality and are
continually trying to "rephrase" my ontogeny in temporal terms.
[Arlo]
Not at all. I am trying to understand how your ontology accounts for the
appearance of "man's cognitive faculties" in the cosmos. You seem to be
okay with the statement "Well, it is here, that's all that's important".
To me, understanding better how/why it got here is much more interesting,
and telling. And that you seem to absolve "philosophy" of any
responsibility to account for the man's observations, is strange.
As a logical progression, creation must get from point A through point B in
order to reach point C. From a temporal, species-oriented standpoint
"evolution moved" organic life forms from single-celled organisms and plants
to insects, reptiles, birds, and mammals, from which the primates evolved to
Homo-sapiens. One could say that the entire process had the creation of man
as its "goal". But that would be an intellectual construct which doesn't
explain conscious awareness, sensibility, or intellection.
Also, since you consider man's cognitive faculties an "essent", would you
also consider the cognitive faculties of apes also "essents"?
Whatever cognitive capability apes possess is a non-objective derivative of
Essence, hence falls into the "essent" category.
Believe me, I do understand why you refuse to enter this arena,
and I don't think its to serve "philosophy".
It must be my self-serving strategy to expose Arlo as an objectivist.
You're welcome,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
