Understandable. I slipped up on you when you were in a spate of High
Seriousness (which I enjoyed, and that possibly makes two of us,
though I can never be sure about you).
Your discussion of the Ontological Proof reminded me of a book that I
must dig out of my boxes. I wonder if you know it? R.G.
Collingwood's "Essay on Philosophical Method." He had a provocative
statement about Kant and the Proof -- something like "Kant was the
only thinker who had actually understood the proof who went on to
reject it." I liked his prose style quite a bit. Very fine thinker
who flew somewhat in the face of his times.
Joel W.
On 3/10/07, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Whoops, sorry. Missed the allusion. My excuse is that I approached
> the story from the view of Mr Johnson, one of history's great
> curmudgeons.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 11/03/2007, at 6:18 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> > You're so literal. Block of wood. P1. (Not funny enough to
> > explain.)
> >
> > Yes, it was Berkeley, whose scheme wouldn't have been conceivable
> > without the ontological proof as backdrop.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|