Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:12:39 GMT

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:33:48 -0500, Albert <alwagner@tcac.net> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:15:44 -0500, Albert <alwagner@tcac.net> in
>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>patty, you really need to take that web of belief back to the church
>>>>where you bought it and get a refund. It doesn't matter where ideas
>>>>originate. It matters where they wind up through demonstration.
>>>>
>>>>Problematic means contingent.
>>>
>>>Come on, Lester. You didn't even investigate her link. If you
>>>had, then you wouldn't have replied with that stupid remark
>>>above. Here, try again:
>>
>>
>> Back in the Prince Albert mode, I see.
>>
>> Why should I investigate patty's link?
>>
>>
>>>http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>
>>>You claim to hate philosophers, then you attempt to philosophize
>>>without reading the works of people smarter than you and millenia
>>>older than you. What arrogance.
>
>>
>> I have to confess I've never actually met a philosopher millenia older
>> than myself, but I promise not to hold their age against them.
>
>Your failed attempt at 'cuteness' just reveals your poor reading
>comprehension. Why would you expect to meet a 3000 year old man?

Because you say so?
 
> All I suggested was reading their works, so that you would not
>have to repeat the accumulated accomplishments of millenia of
>thinkers.

Which are what exactly?

> Apparently, you think that you can, in fact, toss out
>that previous body of work without even bothering to read it.

I'm discussing tautologies and empirical truth. You're the one intent
on discussing the accumulated accomplishments of millenia of thinkers.
I suggest you start a thread on the topic. I'm confident it will be,
like yourself, a short read.

>Your arrogance is even more profound than I thought.

My contempt for philosophers who can't be bothered to do a day's work
for a day's pay is undoubtedly even more profound than you thought,
when you bother to think, assuming you can think, which you have yet
to demonstrate.

>> What
>> the hell, wonders probably never cease in that little philosophical
>> dreamworld of yours. Back in the can, Albert.
>
>Your attempt at control by condescension not only fails, but is
>totally unflattering to you by revealing a juvenile mindset.

So my attempts at patronizing condescension are failures but yours are
successes?

Regards - Lester