Joseph Polanik wrote:
Cayuse wrote:The logic of this argument is faulty (peitio principii).how do you think that my statement (since nothing unreal can experience anything at all, it follows that there is something that experiences.) meets the criteria for classification as a peitio principii when it assumes only the statement of fact you previously affirmed as true --- there is experience?
"There is experience". No problem so far. "There is something that experiences". There is a problem here stemming from the linguistically grounded misconception that "I experience, therefore I am the experiencer". Once this invalid argument is relinquished, there is no longer any need to posit a "something" that experiences -- all we are left with is the unproblematic statement that "there is experience". ========================================== Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
