« Political Jargon: Entryism | Main | Publishing Slang: Graf »

Wednesday, August 15, 2018


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


I think I agree.

My WMST says it's psychologically impossible for us to be objectively _certain_ (or, to know with _Evidenz_) that the Trinity doctrine (there are three divine persons but just one divine substance) is conceptually ('logically', I say in the diss.) possible.

Because the doctrine lacks for us in the objectively certain (evident) conceptual possibility, it lacks to some degree in meaning which we could understand or in meaning which would seem to us conceptually possible. Evidently possible propositions are better understood than others.

I argue for WMST inductively; like you do for the intractability of all (substantial) philosophical problems. I even cite you as I introduce the inductive strategy. But I do not come up with any theoretical explanation for the inductive fact; mainly because I don't know of any that would sound plausible (to me).

I also try to define the notion of psychological impossibility. If interested, you can take a look into the published version, which I emailed to you. (Still clumsy, but better than the diss.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29    
Blog powered by Typepad