Originally posted by FreakyKBH Far be it from me to drag you into a battle wherein you're sure to tuck tail, run and claim victory all in one swift-ish move...
Unfortunately, our "battles" in the past have tended to go like this. You posture cryptically a bit, then start in with some loaded questions and rhetoric that seriously misrepresent the argumentative points at issue in the form of Socratic method gone horribly wrong; then I waste time and energy addressing your misrepresentations, in which you obstinately persist until the point of outright intellectual disingenuity.
Originally posted by LemonJello Unfortunately, our "battles" in the past have tended to go like this. You posture cryptically a bit, then start in with some loaded questions and rhetoric that seriously misrepresent the argumentative points at issue in the form of Socratic method gone horribly wrong; then I waste time and energy addressing your misrepresentations, in which you obstinately persist until the point of outright intellectual disingenuity.
Originally posted by LemonJello Unfortunately, our "battles" in the past have tended to go like this. You posture cryptically a bit, then start in with some loaded questions and rhetoric that seriously misrepresent the argumentative points at issue in the form of Socratic method gone horribly wrong; then I waste time and energy addressing your misrepresentations, in which you obstinately persist until the point of outright intellectual disingenuity.
Ah, the good old days.
Cryptic?
I beg to differ.
If the words you are using have a specific meaning now (to you and others or to you all alone, either one applies) which is either unknown or not considered by Calvin then, you would be at an impasse.
In other words, the terms and the meanings thereof are necessarily required in order to compare the thoughts/concepts involved.
Without an agreed-upon lexicon, you're simply undertaking a circle jerk.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Cryptic?
I beg to differ.
If the words you are using have a specific meaning now (to you and others or to you all alone, either one applies) which is either unknown or not considered by Calvin then, you would be at an impasse.
In other words, the terms and the meanings thereof are necessarily required in order to compare the thoughts/concepts involved ...[text shortened]... d-upon lexicon, you're simply undertaking a circle jerk.
Let me know if you need more lotion.
The meaning of the word "necessary" has not changed since Calvin was writing. What is more the difference between necessity of consequence and necessity of consequent was discussed by Aquinas around 300 years earlier. I can see two possible lines of argument for you. The first is that Calvin did not write in English, but Latin. If you can find the relevant section of the original text you can try using an online translator, unless you are well versed in Latin, and see what it comes out with. Alternatively, you could try arguing that in those days paper was expensive and having written the words "consequent" and "consequence" in non-respective order he wouldn't have wanted to rewrite the entire manuscript page for a trivial change. An even better argument would be that Calvin probably didn't expect his readers to take the order in which he used the words "consequent" and "consequence" in the sentence under discussion as indicating that he was using the former rather than the latter.
09 Jan '16 01:211 edit
Calvin's Institutes
Back to Top