On Tue, 27 Jun 1995 19:08:43 +0930 you wrote:
>(Abstract)
>In responding to Stephen Jones, I argue that there is a subtle difference
>between saying "all is matter" in a literal sense (everything that exists
>_is_ matter), and saying "all is matter" in the sense that "all is
>dependent on matter for existence". While in the first sense "all is
>matter" may be considered "self-refuting", in the second sense it is not.
>It is my understanding that it is this second sense that materialists
>actually ascribe to.
>(End of Abstract)
>But according to your quote, they don't claim matter is all in the sense
>you seem to want to mean it, rather they claim that the existence of all
>is derived from matter, which is a slightly different claim.
>
>By the way, for the record, I am not properly a materialist (I am
>probably closer to one than some other people). However I do not believe
>materialism is a view point easily refuted.
Thanks for your response. I did not intend this to become a big issue
(it was
something said in the middle of a post about something else), and I
don't claim to be a philosopher.
Because of the demands of time on all of us, I am going to try to
avoid getting caught up in side issues from the main game. That's why
I haven't continued
with some of my posts (eg. this one, Bill's "breath and spirit" etc -
besides, I thought he was going on holidays! <g>).
The main game for me from now on is going to be building a Progressive
Creation model (I will appreciate your help with that). See my
Clarifications
post.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------