(February 18, 2017 at 12:57 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I remember when I use to have so much disdain for Khemikal back when he was Rhythm. The more I sparred with him, the more I realized that I'd rather be on his side than not.
Could someone brush me up on Berkely's Foundational argument?
How could anyone have disdain for Rhythm?
To me, he's the god of logic (teensy weensy bit of hero worship there if you didn't notice 
) and a role model to me; what I aspire to be like if I am to be successful at philosophy and formal logic.I can't really help too well with the brushing up of Berkeley's argument, because that's still a work in progress, but as a side argument, perhaps designed to appeal to emotion, the three dialogues are basically him trying to prove that though he (as Philonous) is considered to be a sceptic by most people (of the time) for putting forward idealism... throughout the course of the dialogues he's trying to turn the tables and prove that the materialist position (represented by the character of Hylas) is actually the most sceptical position (ie doubting everything and denying the nature of reality)... so the first dialogue is setting the scene and laying the foundations, but once he's got Hylas to agree that there can be no material substance, the two subsequent dialogues appear to be focusing on proving the two aspects of scepticism in Hylas... the second dialogue focusing on his denial of reality and the third, which though I haven't fully read yet I can see where it's going, looks to be focusing on his doubting everything. Whether that is just a side argument to appeal to emotion, or has any real bearing on the whole thing, I have yet to find out, but that does seem to be the narrative structure of it. As to the actual argument, as I said I'm not yet in the best position to summarise it, so I'll leave that to someone else
