List,
If you say that *some* of what you know might be wrong...are you saying that
some of what you know might be right? And if doubt describes the first
case, does faith describe the second? So could the same information (the
"more to be learned") be learned using either faith or doubt?
Who is to say that the absolutist is a monster? If the absolutist only
sticks with what he knows, then he would only be a monster if what he knows
is monstrous, right? (or if we begin with the idea that all that there is to
know is monstrous to some degree) AND why does having nothing to doubt
imply having "no beliefs or opinions"? If a person had beliefs and/or
opinions which contained more faith than doubt, would the best way to
present this argument involve using the greater quantity or the lesser quantity?
And, do you believe that it is POSSIBLE to project what one knows into the
future? That is, imagine that only those things which objectively occurred
were projected into a hypothetical future as a map of the possible (and how
could we assume that something else besides what we have experienced could
occur...can we postulate colors that we've never witnessed)? Wouldn't we
then, choosing from experiences similar to those of our past, formulate a
set of "probable" future learning from ONLY the set of that which is
possible...being based at some level on only those things which we have
experienced? Would faith that this is true or doubt in reality assist
internalizing this future learning?
Finally, do you think that Chartre dispelled doubt--as he said he did to
formulate his metaphysic...one based on something other than doubt (as he
said it was)?
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/makepage.htm
First you forget names, then you forget
faces, then you forget to pull your
zipper up, then you forget to pull your
zipper down.
Leo Rosenberg