Originally posted by ivanhoeI find it mystifying that you, who have read my posts and not
As I told you before, trying to understand your opponent is not your strongest point in these discussions.
understood them until DrS summarized it, can accuse me of
having difficulty understanding my 'opponent.'
Look up the term 'faith' in your dictionary and you tell me
if the title is not misleading (and, thus, arrogant).
Nemesio
P.S., Understanding Coletti would entail the suspension of all
logic and reason and the reinterpretation of fundamental logical
principles in the specific and incoherent way that he means them.
I simply don't have the endurance to try to understand someone
who uses predefined concepts in a way contrary to those definitions.
1 edit
Originally posted by Coletti"The following English translation of the Holy Father's address, which was given in French, appeared in L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4 November 1992."
Back on track.
I think the first quote is rather confusing. Reality is what reality is regardless of the which theory of knowledge one holds to. If ones epistemology is faulty - it will likely lead to a confusing understanding of what is reality - not bring out some valid aspect of reality.
But I suppose that is not what the author is trying to say.
I'll try to find the French original.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "I find it mystifying that you, who have read my posts and not
I find it mystifying that you, who have read my posts and not
understood them until DrS summarized it, can accuse me of
having difficulty understanding my 'opponent.'
Look up the term 'faith' in your dictionary and you tell me
if the title is not misleading (and, thus, arrogant).
Nemesio
P.S., Understanding Coletti would entail the suspension ...[text shortened]... try to understand someone
who uses predefined concepts in a way contrary to those definitions.
understood them until DrS summarized it, can accuse me of
having difficulty understanding my 'opponent.' "
As I pointed out before, I wrote the following on page three (!) as an adaptation of, a translation of, or an addition to the thread's title:
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose to go on bickering about it for a couple of pages. Now you accept it, after Dr.Scribbles has "interpreted" your observations. Do you still wonder why I don't understand what you were driving at ?
Why didn't you accept the above mentioned redescription of the thread's title ?
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "I simply don't have the endurance to try to understand someone
I find it mystifying that you, who have read my posts and not
understood them until DrS summarized it, can accuse me of
having difficulty understanding my 'opponent.'
Look up the term 'faith' in your dictionary and you tell me
if the title is not misleading (and, thus, arrogant).
Nemesio
P.S., Understanding Coletti would entail the suspension ...[text shortened]... try to understand someone
who uses predefined concepts in a way contrary to those definitions.
who uses predefined concepts in a way contrary to those definitions.
You don't have the endurance to understand any of your opponents. This means you are simply wasting your time all the time.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou think you can not be mistaken about truth values?!?
If you believe this, why don't you rebuke Coletti for saying that it runs contrary to propositional logic? He says that tastes [b]are subject to debate, being propositions with actual truth values about which some people can be mistaken.[/b]
What is not subject to debate is that propositions are either true or false - even if YOU don't know which. Ignorance of the truth values of a proposition does not mean it is not a proposition.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesInstead of asking me to rebuke him, you could try to understand what he is communicating.
If you believe this, why don't you rebuke Coletti for saying that it runs contrary to propositional logic? He says that tastes [b]are subject to debate, being propositions with actual truth values about which some people can be mistaken.[/b]
Me thinks, it shouln't be too difficult for a self-proclaimed giant in formal logic to understand a mere mortal like Coletti ........ 🙄