tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post116823117414204719..comments2024-01-21T14:29:38.613-08:00Comments on Dangerous Idea 2: Reply to Ed BabinskiVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-65367509280703343742008-12-02T11:10:00.000-08:002008-12-02T11:10:00.000-08:00"..but the variety of ways one can explain the big...<I>"..but the variety of ways one can explain the big questions in philosophy might make a person a bit more critical, perhaps even cynical, concerning what words of philosophy are capable of proving...So what does philosophy prove?"</I><BR/><BR/>And yet here's Ed, trying to prove his point (both here and on many other places on the net), with his own <I>philosophical</I> diatribes. "What can philosophy prove?" is just another way of using philosophy to analyze philosophy.<BR/><BR/>...Unless of course Babinski wants to qualify his rants as merely <I>diatribes</I>, without the philosophy. Which I think would be pretty accurate.kh123https://www.blogger.com/profile/15230935976084971917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-1168663980650459652007-01-12T20:53:00.000-08:002007-01-12T20:53:00.000-08:00I originally wrote more than the section you cited...I originally wrote more than the section you cited. My point was that naturalists and substance dualists both believe the brain/mind is unique. Each has their own philosophical explanations for that uniqueness. So what does philosophy prove? <BR/><BR/>As you pointed out there's Christian monists and Christian dualists, and on the naturalist side there's "dualists" of a sort too, though not usually substance dualists. The varieties of philosophical explanations are limited seemingly only by philosophers' imaginations, and competing philosophical systems can be coherent, yet incapable of disproving other equally coherent systems, i.e., when it comes to such questions as the one at hand.<BR/><BR/>It's true that words are all we have to go on so far as communication is concerned, but the variety of ways one can explain the big questions in philosophy might make a person a bit more critical, perhaps even cynical, concerning what words of philosophy are capable of proving.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com