Peter Metcalfe asks:
> Extraordinary in what respect? Bad or Good?
unusual... SAINT is not identical to GOOD MALKIONI. If that vere so, then your logic would hold true, but it would include
SAINT = GOOD MALKIONI Meaning that all good malkioni are saints... But that's not the case. A saint is somebody who transcends the GOOD MALKIONI definition, somebody who is a GOOD MALKIONI, and then some. They manifest things impossible to ordinary GOOD MALKIONI, so the symmetry isn't there.
> >Conclusion becomes: It's not self evident that saints are in Solace.
The conclusion stands.
> When someone says 'All Men are Mortal. Socrates was a Man. Therefore
> Socrates is Mortal', do you interject 'since Socrates was an
> extraordinary man, it is not self-evident that Socrates is mortal'?
No, the premises lead to the conclusion alright. But the case is different. My quibble is with the premise Saints are good malkioni, if the definition of good malkioni is that they go to Solace.
> Bear in mind that at least four or five saints are stated in
> the literature to be in Solace, the onus still is on you (or
> anybody who wishes to take up the challenge) to demonstrate why
> Malkioni should believe that Saints are not in Solace.
Ah! But that is not my point. I'm sure the _malkioni_believe_ that their saints are in Solace, but that doesn't mean it _is_ so. I thought we were trying to figure out which option makes most sense metaphysically. It's got very little to do with what the Malkioni believe.
. . .
That is not proof... assurance maybe, but not proof.
-Adept
"thinker, dreamer and adventurer"
PS. No time to spellcheck... sorry.
Powered by hypermail