On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except
for missing the crux:
You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering
philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary
On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I am fundamentally opposed to 'ontology', because I consider it explaining
the partial knowledge we have about 'the world' as if it were the total.
How much we don't know is somehting we don't know.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and
extensive literature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Dawkins
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:21:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 3 Sep, 17:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting
Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and
extensive literature.
On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
existence. The counterargument is that existence in mathematical
statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
It seems foolish to beat Basil's car because (1) we know the beating
will not improve it's function and (2) we know that is must be possible
to fix it (since we built it in the first place). However neither of
these
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way
- and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange).
A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork Orange has a
similar
Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Furthermore we have no idea how to fix the person in a mechanistic way
- and if we did would it be ethical (c.f. Clockwork Orange).
A further thought: the solution to crime in A Clockwork
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Rex Allenrexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously nobody is pro-poverty, but I think framing the issue in
terms of personal responsibility and free-will incorrectly pushes
the debate away from systemic solutions towards an excessive focus on
individuals.
Or,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But again, Dennett is mainly interested in pushing his Bright
agenda...showing that Atheists are just like everybody else.
Seems like you're mainly interested in picking a fight with Dennett. I
don't recall him
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Of course the easiest, and 100% effective way to reduce crime is to
repeal laws. About 1/3 of our prison population is there because of
non-violent drug use crimes.
Indeed, I'm on board with that. But, I don't see
12 matches
Mail list logo
