Paul J. Bodin writes:
>You have used the word "universal" rather freely. I am not sure that
>I can know such "universals" with absolute certainty. Some
>philosophers have asserted that there are such universals, but I do
>not find their cases persuasive--they usually dodge the
>epistemological question with an argument that amounts to "otherwise
>nothing will make sense." A voice deep down inside me answers, "Well,
>maybe things *don't* make sense--at least not by those standards."
>There are mysteries which we cannot fathom, certainly, and the
>attainment of absolute knowledge and universal certainties seems a bit
>tenuous to me.
I have listed the "universals" I think we can rely upon. Aristotelean logic
(things like the law of non-contradiction, yes I know some philosophers
contradict this, but many peopl beleive seven impossible things before
breakfast too. The peasant farmer knows contraditions from manure),
Correspondance theory of truth, authorial intent, etc.
I did not call these universals to mean necessarily that they are always
built into our epistomology (though some are) but to say they are not
cultural, and therefore different over the centuries.
What, if anything, would you any ancient author to have in common with
interpreters of their future?
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: email@example.com
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8