what I mean is that retreating into "well everything is held by faith" isn't really hitting the point. Then we're basically saying "well sort of nothing is really true" - there are obviously different senses of "faith" being used and this is actually making the ambiguity greater.
-
-
Which is why I am not positing it. I am asking how someone who doesnt acknowledge the epistemological necessity of faith (i.e. not me who does) answers the question, and escapes the skeptical critique.
-
they simply do what they always do, see it as a metaphysical claim which seems to them to not be "in" what the see, and reject it
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
