« The Trouble with Continental Philosophy #2 | Main | Neoconservatives on the Role of the State »

Saturday, 28 May 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

johnt

As an exercise in logic I'll have to pass,but well worth reading. For myself the story of Johnson,re Hume,kicking a stone"I refute it thus,and Aristotle's skeptic falling into a hole on the road to Megara are a sufficent answer to idealist/empiricist meditations. I've wondered in my philosophical ignorance about the evolutionary aspects to these speculations . Did our senses evolve and develop soley to deceive us? Or do we deceive ourselves with our own cleverness.

Bill Vallicella

I guess we can't all be metaphysicians. You are confusing Hume with Berkeley, and in any case, Berkeley can't be refuted by kicking a stone.

Kevin Kim

What's the difference between "perfect" and "maximally perfect"? Is the latter term applicable only to God, or is it relevant to something that exists contingently, like apple pie? Does maximal perfection imply minimal and medial perfection? As for kicking a stone... I've seen arguments refuted by a "kicking in the stones." Not a logical refutation, perhaps, but the arguer was forced to pause for a while, and perhaps reconsider the wisdom of making that argument to that interlocutor. Kevin

johnt

Mr Vallicella, thanks for the correctrion to my post. I once knew it was Berkeley,having read him 20 yrs ago but then the fog of forgetfulness rolled in. And thanks to Kevin for saving a little face directly or indirectly on my behalf. We can't all be metaphyscians but then not all of us want to be.

Bill Vallicella

Kevin, A being is maximally perfect if it possesses all perfections (great-making properties) and the highest degree of those that admit of degrees. Yes, only God is maximally perfect. A piece of pie could not be maximally perfect since it lacks all sorts of perfections, e.g. consciousness. Nothing contingent could be maximally perfect since it lacks the perfection of necessary existence. I think you have been spending too much time contemplating those shiny balls on campus. The Inquisition had the 'argument from the stake' which was rather more persuasive than any 'kicking in the stones.' Is Go played in Korea? Here, the markers are called stones. Exploit this remark as you wish. Dr Hodges has certainly taken to blogging, hasn't he?

Kevin Kim

Yes, Dr. H has a fine blog. I don't know why it took me so long to blogroll it; I'd been visiting it for a while. Go is played in Korea, where it's called paduk. There are paduk halls for dedicated players, and one can occasionally see older guys playing it on the streets. Many Korean households have a paduk set stashed somewhere, but not all Koreans know how to play it. I don't, either, but I'd like to learn. I'm not sure if paduk has exactly the same rules as go. Will look into that. Kevin PS: We must live each moment to the fullest, for there is much "at stake." Oh, I kill myself. PPS: I have a superstition when it comes to bad jokes: eventually, all sons become their fathers, producing the same or similar cringe-inducing groaners as those who've gone before.

John Gallagher

Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger a noncontingent being? Because he can't act.

The comments to this entry are closed.