[lit-ideas] Re: on thought
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:40:48 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
>Locke is of course very confused with all english philosophers up to and not
>including the two adams (Hume and Smith) who were scottish, not by
>coincidence....>
Yet, perhaps confusingly, Locke never confused himself with all English
philosophers up to and not including the two Adams. Even his friends and
family never confused him with these others, despite doubtless being
"cretins" and talking "quatsch". Indeed one of the startling points of broad
agreement in Locke scholarship, at least from the seventeeth century onwards,
is that Locke is not to be confused - and especially not very confused - with
any philosopher other than Locke. Some have even suggested this be taken as
axiomatic.
Now, if we refer to those, who actually did
or do confuse Locke with "all English philosophers etc.", as 'p', then might we
ask how we do you prove that p exists?
>moto, only cretins ask how do you prove that p
Okay, but what about asking how you prove that p exists? Is this any different?
And if only a cretin would ask, does this mean only a cretin would answer?
Donal
International League of Pan-Cretinists (Motto: Real Cretins Don't Eat Quatsch)
Other related posts:
