(January 23, 2018 at 5:42 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That’s why I don’t have the patience to deal with post’s like Polymath’s. Polymath is too far gone in his or her denial of intelligibility. Polymath is committed to the idea of a world without any ‘whatness’, one in which there are no things (just accidental collections) and descriptive language just floats free without any correspondence to real objects. Likewise, people who cannot understand the notion of privation (because they do not recognize the necessary conditions for intelligibility) will never realize that ‘maximally evil’ is an oxymoron. That’s one reason why my posts are getting fewer and fewer. Even when conversing with the most astute AF members, we seem to be talking past one another for lack of a common nomenclature.
I see where you are coming from on the idea of intelligibility, but, to me, Polymath's description (on the whole) is more coherent. Isn't coherency important when speaking of intelligibility? These criticisms of the Aristotelian view did not originate with Polymath. The debate is long in the tooth now, and you can't blame him for adopting the modern syntax.
