You're not reading carefully, Daniel. I didn't deny it was a rational
endeavor. Your analogy to half driven nails misses the point as well --
you appeal to faith, but then complain about a lack of absolute rational
certainty. You need to think through your own assertions.
Remember...when you make reference to faith, you've let go of reason.
The point, to me, is that we always reach that point eventually.
Admitting it is the important thing.
Jim
Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>Perfectly :). I wasn't arguing against the category of "perfect
>rational certainty" absolutely, but only in relationship to our subject
>-- language and the interpretation of language.
>Jim
>
>
>Yes, but isn't this endeavor a rational endeavor, hence the question yet
>again, who sets the boundaries? Perhaps, oh I don't know, but maybe you are
>using a noodle as a hammer and end up with the faulty conclusion that it is
>in as far as it can go?
>Daniel
>
>Again, the denial of "perfect rational certainty" isn't the denial of
>all or any certainty.
>
>The hardest thing for people to see is a middle position.
>
>Jim
>
>
>Your just making work with your half driven nails.
>Daniel
>
>
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 12 17:17:20 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:58:25 EDT