[lit-ideas] Re: Sounds right to me

  • From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:58:41 +0900

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM, <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:

>  The philosophical question I raised was
> whether some assertions W made are T claims. Thus far, nobody has
> convincingly
> shown that the claims I provided in my past posts from W's texts are not T
> claims.

And here is precisely the problem. When Walter decides that proposition P is
a T claim and someone else says P is a working assumption, where is the
difference? Asserting that P is a T claim is heard as a conversational
gambit that resembles a religious assertion that P is the Word of God. The
assertion is that if P is a valid T claim, it must be always and everywhere
true. The unbeliever who follows the transcendental argument to the point
where it says, "Something like P must be assumed" but notes that P has a
history and is only one of a family of Ps (P1, P2.....Pn) then finds himself
in the same predicament as the skeptic confronted with the preacher who says
not only "There must be a God" but also "This is the True and Only God."
What's the poor skeptic to say?


John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324

Other related posts: