> "Chair" is a concept in a particular
> cultural-linguistic framework. Until those things in
> your room are subsumed under the concept "chair," they
> are not "chairs." They are Dingen-an-sich. (I don't
> mean "until" temporally, obviously.) I am pretty sure
> that, if people were floating Jovian gasbags, they
> would not have the concept of "chair."
How is this relevant to this discussion? I'm really not interested in these "philosophical" discussions that start like "If we were floating Jovian gasbags..." I only mentioned the two-chairs thing, which by now seems to have ballooned into an immense ontological subject, in order to give an example of a simple matter of fact. You can substitute any matter of fact you like. I was simply objecting to the idea that "religious discourse" can be given its own "logic" and "truth." I maintain that there is only one kind of logic and one kind of truth. Do you have a problem with that?
> I think Wittgenstein is not on your side in this, BTW.
> (He certainly took religion very seriously.)
He did, and so do I, in a fashion. But do you known any of his writings in which he took the proofs for the existence of God seriously, or stated that the monotheistic God exists? If you do, I'd certainly like to be pointed to them.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax