No argument abt ideas can be won by contesting definitions. Invalidating words ppl use to discuss their ideas doesn't make the ideas go away
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
It just means they can't talk to you about them any more. Better to get at the rationale for the ideas & try to dismantle that.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You can't get rid of disbelief in God by complicating the words 'atheism' 'evidence' 'faith' and 'God.' You can just end the conversation.
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I can show that 'atheism' used to mean 'ungodly.' Milton describes Satan's demons as 'atheists.' Says nothing abt what an atheist thinks now
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I have been critical of 'philosophy' which is wrong. I'm really critical of approaches to ideas which attempt to obscure rather than clarify
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Deliberately, I mean. To protect ideas by making them hard to talk about. To resist bringing them into the light of day.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ultimately, a focus on semantics to the point where substance cannot be discussed usually indicates a position which has no substance.
1 reply 4 retweets 9 likes
And this is why we find obscurantist jargon & semantic quibbling so dominant in theology & postmodernism. Don't be intimidated by it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.