A discussion of skepticism, logic, math, intelligent design creationism, board games, the Utah Jazz, marriage, having three children on the autism spectrum and two that not on the spectrum, being a DBA, teaching, the St. Louis metro area, my health since being diagnosed with ALS, and anything else that comes to mind.
With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality.
With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty.
With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability.
After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views of what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue "On the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves."
Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk.
Posts
2 comments:
Well, Eric, ya know, like, who would wanna vote for sumbuddy they wouldn't even have a beer with? Purty simple, actually, aint it?
btw, what's CLIF? Clit in little finger? I could go for that, too!
Nice to see you again, aintnuthin.
Personal charisma is good for a President to have, but I would still vote for someone I did not like. For example, I would probably rather have a drink with Dole and/or George H. W. Bush, than Clinton, but Clinton was still my preference for President.
CILF -- Candidate I'd Like (to) Fornicate (with).
Post a Comment