FM> Parmenides, of course, doesn't finally answer the question but he
FM> cogitated on Truth and Delusion and was told that the NOT IS is
FM> unthinkable.
DM> As long as "unthinkable" is NOT presented as impossible; just an
DM> observation of limits to the present state of human thinking .....not
DM> some finality! Reversing common notions, we might even wager "NOT IS"
DM> as a future possibility, even if never been before.
Your response is on a different wave length, David. Parmendides was not
n
the realm of the progression of watching steam under pressure from a tea
kettle and conceiving a steam engine or watching water rise in a bathtub when
a body is in it and measuring the weight of metals.
He's reflecting on being, truth and delusion. Not the same thing. I
certainly didn't use the term "unthinkable" to reflect a "Descarte" type of
Parmenides.
DM> Unless I've missed something, what has the "NOT IS" to do with the
DM> questionable "truth" tensions between philosophy, and theology/ideology?
DM> Philosophy is exploration searching for truth which it must NEVER find
DM> as that would contaminate it with ideology ....yes? Also, a "NOT IS"
DM> (if possible or ever understandable) might well be (likely be) an issue
DM> of future science ....especially as synthetic neural expansions develop
DM> beyond their present infancies.
Who dictated that Philosophy "must never find truth?" It CAN never
ncover
the total reality because philosophy is indulged in by human minds that are
parts of the reality with only the perspective of participation. A great
eal
of truth is discovered and much is agreed upon. It just cannot be paraded
or
the full structure of reality for reasons I've given over and over again.
he
only truth we have is found WITHIN that perspective of participation.
Sincerely,
Frank
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------
* Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12)
|