As Aristotle points out, the truth of some things depends on believing this or that, but that of other things doesn't.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:06:12 -0800 (PST)
>From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] How radical was Derrida? (was 'does anyone read poststructuralism anymore?')
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
>
>Which is exactly what Ted is doing. He believes that honor killing is wrong. The real reason he believes that honor killing is wrong is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmpolitan society, and not in a village in Pakistan. Just as, the real reason he doesn't believe in witches is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmopolitan society, and not in a village in medieval Europe (or modern Nigeria). However, that's not good enough. He needs his to have the truth of his belief guaranteed by God, I mean, reason. If you notice, his whole argument is in the form, "if there is no guarantor that x is wrong, then I couldn't say that x is universally wrong. I know that x is universally wrong, therefore there must be a guarantor that x is wrong, which is why I know that x is universally wrong." It's totally circular.
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>
>
>A proof of God ought really to be something by means of which you can convince yourself of God's existence. But I think that believers who offer such proofs want to analyze and make a case for their "belief" with their intellect, altho' they themselves would never have arrived at belief by way of such proofs. --CGE
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk