Alexander Nekvasil wrote:
>
> Carrol:
>
> > >1. The human mind can achieve perfect knowledge of
> > >all that is.
> > >
> > >2. Humans will always discover new things.
> > >
> > >Only the first is false. To deny the second is in
> > >fact to affirm the first. Engels's ironic treatment
> > >of Duhring's claims to absolute knowledge is good on
> > >this.
>
> James Culbertson:
>
> > Of course to absolutely Know that the first is false
> > (or the 2nd is true) you'd have to have perfect
> > knowledge of all that is.
>
> It might be sufficient to prove that "perfectly knowing
> all that is" for humans involves a contradiction.
Outside of a technical journal in philosophy, I think my original assertions (without offering any "proof" should do the trick. :-)
Or one could add the observation that anyone who tries to incorporate the first into his/her writing will soon have no readers, as will be the case if anyone tries to deny the second. Some arguments you don't refute -- you just ignore.
Carrol
>
> I say "might" because it's an indirect proof, and the
> validity of such has been contested from time to time,
> especially in regard to terms like "everything".
>
> cheers
> AN
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk