Now, 'Love', you were happily taking the ***** out of people who
believed in the concept of 'soul', but because you cannot grasp
Popperian or Kantian or HotAyrean metaphysics, which Zook, for example
understands instantly, you are a bit cross! Though it might not stand
up long in psi.physics, I could give a good Kantian defence of the
notion of the not not existence of the soul, starting with Plato!
Sheldrake and Penrose are not thickies, I hope you would agree!
However, as the notion of 'soul' is a silly reduction of a mystery, and
certainly not a notion Kant would have defended, I shall not do so. You
are only two willing to play games where you feel you have the upper
hand! Here, you do not, 'Stacey'. I doubt that you have even read Ryle
or Ayer, never mind Kant.
-Stacey
--
'foolsrushin'.
Bertrand Russell was a logician. What he meant was a bit ironic, I
suppose. The atheist was obsessesively preoccupied with the Christain's
claims!
That's all he meant, I am sure! He felt, I think, that they needed each
other, but that he himself needed neither of them! [You don't know my
position!] As regards the age of the earth, so long as pointer readings
continue [Rutherford] to work reliably, it does not matter if the
universe is creating itself constantly to agree with our readings. If
your aunt has the illusion she took tea at the Ritz last Friday and you
know for sure the universe did not then exist, either you or
she ought to be locked up - unless you understand Russell's sense of
fun! [And John's. Ed.]
'foolsrushin'
.
|
