How old does an argument have to be before it can assume the de facto status of being foundational? Before it can just be assumed as a given?
How popular must it be with philosophers, serious theologians, or John Q Public before it simply becomes the truth?
Can you build arguments upon layers of previous arguments - a philosophical Stratum Ex nihilo?
Or, in the end, do you always have to ground your arguments in some factual observation about reality?
Pictorial Theology
Pliny's cartoonist alter ego covering science and theology: CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW
Pliny's Theory of Cosmic Origins
Inconceivable!
Linked to Post
Neuro Basics: Part 1
Linked to Post
You Are What You Glutamate: Neuro-basics part 2
Linked to Post
Neuroplasticity 1: e-LTP
Linked to Post
Neuroplasticity 2: l-LTP
Linked to Post
The Plain, The Plain!
Linked to Post
Intangibles
Linked to Post
Evolution of Functions Requiring Multiple Mutations
Linked to Post
The Human Onion
Linked to Post
Twenty Dollars and One Cent
Linked to Post
Milky Way to GO!
Linked to Post
The Tao of Pliny
Linked to Post
Color Commentary
Linked to Post
Eight-Squared Ode
Linked to Post
Graphic Novel
Linked to Post
Hardcore bike commuter
Linked to post
Dream Transportation
Linked to post
Agmysticism Defined
Linked to post
I'll wager you mr fancy math!
Linked to post
The Snoah ball
Linked to post
1 comment:
Obviously, if there are no observable "facts" to support your philosophy, you must fall back upon previous ideas that are not proven either, but which have been repeated as "truth" as often as possible over the millennia.
Post a Comment