![]() The only way this dialog works is as a parody of religious dogma and its blind dismissal of reality, but parody was sadly not the intent. I would say 'curiously', but I know why he did it - to spinelessly (OK, out of practicality) pander to the horrendous religious powers that were, which was his initial agenda, though he failed miserably. After being thoroughly and clearly beaten, he nevertheless declared himself the winner by having his victorious nemesis acquiesce to the preposterous arguments offered. His agenda is clear (that matter does not exist, only the spirit of God), but he is repeatedly beaten badly by his imaginary nemesis, offering only feeble attempts to parry the thrusts with double-talk, contradictions, blind dogmatic 'is' claims, and supreme dances of twisted sophistry. ![]() This must be the only time in philosophical history that a thinker lost to himself, and badly. The Thinker Who Lost the Argument with Himself ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |