At 06:21 AM 07/07/2000, you wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:27:10 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>CC>One common view of reason is that, though reason can prove a conclusion on
> >the basis of given premises, and it can prove those premises on the basis
> >of still more premises, we eventually arrive at premises that cannot be
> >proved on the basis of any further premises, and that *these* premises are
> >simply *assumed.*
>
>This is not merely a "view". This is a *fact*!
I find it interesting that you re-affirm the position I was refuting here
and then, in much of the rest of your post, criticize *me* for
misrepresenting your position. Do you or do you not mean "simply
*assumed*"? If you do, then my criticism stands and I'm not misrepresenting
your view. If you don't, then my criticism does not apply to your view, but
then you shouldn't get upset at *me* for taking you at your word when you
say that starting point premises *are* simply assumed.
You *seem* to mean, judging from the basis of the rest of your post,
something quite different from what you say in the passage above.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 08 2000 - 12:36:11 EDT