Hi Elephant and all,
ELEPHANT
> in a nutshell:
> Things only exist where statements of their nature can be true and
> consistent, either as a variety of the good or (perhaps) in some higher
> (logically necessary) fashion. If that counts as a non-ontology of truth,
> then I'm a vogon's grandmother.
Hi Grandma! I assume your point is that for something to exist, we must be
able to make demonstrably true statements about it. However for everything I
perceive to exist, I can make an infinity of "true" statements and an even
larger (:-) infinity of "untrue" statements. I do not consider these
statements to be the REASON an object exists (i.e. ontology). They are a
CONSQUENCE of existence.
> ELEPHANT:
> This is piffle.
>
> Sorry to point that out in such terms, but the shorter I am with you, the
> shorter will be the momenatary lapse in your reason.
I assume "piffle" refers to the "square-circle" - a distraction I'm happy to
drop.
Do you still fail to see my reasoning about truth as an ontology?
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:06 BST