RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
September 14, 2018 at 8:22 am
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2018 at 8:35 am by The Grand Nudger.)
The number of things did change, and that change was based upon subjects and their opinions. This is true even if we are describing something external to ourselves..and even if we could classify one opinion or the other as epistemically objective - the "right" opinion. More on this in a moment.
We make epistemically objective statements about ontologically subjective things with regularity. The best way to get over that speedbump, begins with acknowledging this. State your assumptions, define your variables, produce your work. So long as we do this even a mereological nihilist can accept that the epistemic statements are objective even if the underlying reality (whatever that is) is not. That even if parts and wholes do not exist...the statements we make about them are an accurate description of our observations.
Now, about the bit above.."things" were defined as a variable in polys statement. Trees, specifically. If in one formulation there are four trees and in another three...retreating to a more general concept of things is to -affirm- the mereological nihilists pov, not counter it. Implicit in your rebuttal is a denial of a difference between things (trees)..and not things (not trees). The only difference between the two disparate statements has nothing to do with "trees" or "things"..but, more properly, with the observers making the disparate statements.
We make epistemically objective statements about ontologically subjective things with regularity. The best way to get over that speedbump, begins with acknowledging this. State your assumptions, define your variables, produce your work. So long as we do this even a mereological nihilist can accept that the epistemic statements are objective even if the underlying reality (whatever that is) is not. That even if parts and wholes do not exist...the statements we make about them are an accurate description of our observations.
Now, about the bit above.."things" were defined as a variable in polys statement. Trees, specifically. If in one formulation there are four trees and in another three...retreating to a more general concept of things is to -affirm- the mereological nihilists pov, not counter it. Implicit in your rebuttal is a denial of a difference between things (trees)..and not things (not trees). The only difference between the two disparate statements has nothing to do with "trees" or "things"..but, more properly, with the observers making the disparate statements.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
