[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The law of contradiction (was neutral criteria)
- To: "The Van Til List" <vantil-list@XC.Org>
- Subject: The law of contradiction (was neutral criteria)
- From: Vern Crisler <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:55:37 -0700 (MST)
- Cc: "The Van Til List" <vantil-list@XC.Org>
- Reply-To: "The Van Til List" <vantil-list@XC.Org>
<snip: re Clark's argument for the law of contradiction>
At 05:57 PM 7/27/99 -0700, Paul Martin wrote:
>Hmmm. So after some investigation along the west shore of Lake Washington
>I deny that nobody is rich. You then produce a nicely-crafted argument
>produced by a collection of IBM staffers to the effect that if that were
>true there would be no class distinctions; and just look at those bums
>over at Be, Inc. -- they can hardly make ends meet even after their IPO!
>But the parking lot at the new Amazon.com HQ? Boxters as far as the eye
>After scratching my head, I say, look. You're right. Gassee's doing okay
>after that gig at Apple. But the rest of those Be guys are going straight
>to the poorhouse. But my denying that nobody is rich doesn't commit me to
>the claim that everyone is rich; I'm committed to nothing more than there
>being at least one rich folk -- and, golly, have a gander at that Gates
>fella over there. We learned this much on mother's knee as she read us
>stories from Aristotle.
Paul, as with Sean, I'll give you an opportunity to
retract the above line of -- uh -- reasoning. :-)
(Hint: the law of contradiction isn't just any old
proposition that you can stick into the square of
>> BTW, I could care less what a "dialetheist" is committed to; [...]
>>From which it follows that you could care less about relavently engaging
>the dialetheist in the present dialectical context. That's fine. You are
>hereby excused. But in case there a lot more to effective argument in
>context than knowing a little logic.
Well, given that I don't think anyone can even be a so-called
"dialetheist" (either formally or materially), I'm under no
obligations to regard a mere claimant to the title as being
worthy of serious or extended logical treatment.
>Anyway, I do think this context has some bearing on the presupper since
>the LOC typically plays a central role in the apologetical scheme. What to
>do when it can't be relied on?
Well, for one who rejects rationality, the only response is
preaching. Only God can resurrect a physically dead man, a
spiritually dead man, and an epistemically dead man.
You are currently subscribed to vantil-list as: firstname.lastname@example.org