humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <37a372c1-2c3d-48a3-a87d-ae907b7b0d89
@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, fredweiss@papertig.com says...
> On Apr 11, 10:19 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > So, once again, you go back to the definition of certainty that you have
> > claimed to reject: all the evidence in favor and none against. And you
> > try to blame the lack of progress on me! Shame, shame.
>
> Hmm...actually there is some thin shard of progress here. Apparently
> now choosing to dig into your memory bank you suddenly recall the
> definition which you just claimed I didn't have.

My apologies for any confusion; I used your mention of progress
uncritically. My point was not that you do not have any candidates for
a definition, but only that you can't manage to elect one.

> However you still
> desperately hang on to it as your standard straw man of my position,
> in claiming that I've gone back to it.
>
> If supposedly I've gone back to it, from what position have I
> retreated?

As I just noted, "retreat" implies more order than you have managed.

> In other words, let's see if you can remember the reason why I have
> repeatedly and clearly rejected that very definition which you are now
> claiming I have gone back to (while at the same time supposedly not
> having a definition).

You cut your own text that I was replying to above, text that reveals
the transitory nature of any such reason however "repeatedly and
clearly" it might have been posed. I'm not going to do your work for
you; the point of my replying to Mark was to see if he was willing to do
so.

--
Gordon