FM> I am especially concerned with your curious statement that some
FM> "philosophical SYSTEMS have proven to be right!" What does this have to
FM> do with the advent of the automobile? Could you elaborate on the
FM> analogy a bit more but more to the point WHAT philosophical systems have
FM> proven to be "right?"
MB> Quite simple. Very very simple. _You_ said that all philosophical
MB> _systems_ proved to be "wrong". If so, then is impossible that any
MB> should not have been proved to be right. Because you cannot have one
MB> without the other. For example, in order for your statement to be true
MB> - then the philosophical SYSTEM whereby you derived this truth must be
MB> "right". And therefore you demand a contradiction - which is
MB> impermissible.
Mark, I believe I'll refer you to my postings to John on this subject
rather than go, repetitiously, over the same ground and make the points I've
just finished making. The erecting of a philosophical system (ideology) is
wrong and unwarranted by the very shared experience we all have that we not
only don't really know the BEGINNING we surely don't know the END so we CAN'T
know the totality of the structure and a system is a declaration of the end
f
history. The Marx-Lenin axis was surely that, would you not agree. This,
they said is the inevitable meaning and outcome of history and man can do
nothing else in the long run but join our "vanguard" in tracing the journey
because we are the "knowers."
Marx evidently realized before his death how wrong he had been. Neither
e
nor the doctrinaires who followed him could describe this type of "new man"
who would occupy the "final realm" when the socialist revolution had been
completed and "Communist" man (with no need for a structure of political
order) had emerged. The structure outlined is really as eschatological as
he
Christian revelation and even MORE bound by doctrine.
Sincerely,
Frank
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------
* Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12)
|