>>[...]
Stephen
>> >This is not to say that one's ultimate premise cannot be critiqued - it can
>> >and be replaced by another ultimate premise. To that extent Chris is
>> >misconstruing what Johnson (and I) are saying by prefacing "assumed"
>> >with "simply". The process at arriving at an ultimate premise does not have
>> >to be simple, but in the end an ultimate premise must indeed be assumed.
>>
>>[...]
Another hint:
On what basis can you critique ultimate premises? Obviously, if you
critique them in terms of themselves, and if they are a poor basis for
critiquing, then the results may not be very good. For example, if your
belief in God is an ultimate premise, then critiquing it in terms of itself
will not be very effective, regardless of whether it is true or false.
Circular critiquing is only meaningful if the circularity of it produces a
conflict, a contradiction, thus indicating that there is a problem with the
ultimate premise involved. But, otherwise, it means very little.
Another hint: What is the *general* basis for critiquing ideas? What are
the logically required presuppositions for critiquing anything?
Another hint: Let me repeat: Can you say "False alternative"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 14:46:04 EST