I am honored. Two separate replies. I will
reply to this one as it appears less incomplete.
Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> Yes. You are so certain of yourself and of your own
> judgments and your ego is so powerful that the only way
> to get through was to attack the main point of defense.
LOL! on a number of levels: First, what makes you believe
you can "get through" with me? Second, why do you bother?
Third, why do believe I am actually so certain of my self
and that my ego is so powerful?
Personal accusations are almost always laughable. I might
well appear a certain way to you. What makes you think that
I see myself this way? Why would I trust your judgement?
I have a great deal more information about my internal mental
processes than anyone else. You are just guessing. I _know_.
You prove yourself an idiot to me, even if no one else. Even if
you were to guess right, the chances of being wrong are so high
that one must wonder what the payoff is to venture such a hazard.
> Your references to "logic" and "logical arguments" are
> revealing. It's the sort of nonsense I expect from people
> who have no understanding of the limitations of logic.
Hooboy: N thinks Y . R thinks Y. Therefore R is N.
Can you not even recognize your own logical fallacies?
> Both the axioms and the rules of inference are arbitrary,
> as your most recent post amply demonstrates.
Not quite. Logic most certainly has limitations, but
it helps one avoid many common errors in thinking.
Pitfalls you jump into with apparent glee.
> If one party claims owner****p of axioms or rules of inference,
> logic is no longer one of many possible tools for inquiry,
> but a tool in defense of the ego, which is how you use it.
I certainly claim no owner****p. I merely attempt to
follow the rules as best I can. A smear is bad thinking.
> Ralph Emerson: "For temperament is a power which no man
> willingly hears any one praise but himself. ...The grossest
> ignorance does not disgust like this impudent knowingness.
How apropos. This is what I perceive _FROM YOU_. You make
statements and do not defend them when criticised. I am well
aware of defenses and I'm a bit disappointed you will not engage.
I wonder what I or anyone else can learn from you.
Separately, I disagree with the disgust -- such is
a weakness and an unwillingness to evaluate data.
-- Robert
|
