I think you just insulted me, not sure, but was that your intent?

No problem if you did, but just want to be clear :-)

Nah. An insult would either have been more oblique, or more direct.

I meant that Plato's Idealism was much better supported than, uh, Suburbia's.

Frankly, I think Aristotle put it to rest, but was too polite to his old teacher to come out and say so.

the atom

yeah, no kidding




Aristotle? hahahaha. i dont know about that. if anyone had plato in check it was Socrates. i mean, Aristotle has done a lot for science and biology, but for philosophy? the unmoved mover anyone?

Has the atom changed or our understanding of it?

Didn't think you were insulting me, but there was some debate since you were responding to Sub who was accusing me of being a platonist, which I found strange, but hey who knows :-)

this is the essence of our debate. i ask you this, whats the difference?

well, you're claiming there are knowable objective truths, what else but a Platonist is that?

Uhm, actually I never said that we can know objective truths. I said that there are objective truths. We can acquire increasingly definitive understanding of those truths, but never completely know them. At the same time, for all intents and purpose what is unknown is not of immediately relevancy for most people. So in short, it is good enough, though it can always get better.

Where we differ is that you believe everything is dependent on perspective, and I disagree. There are things out there that are "true", regardless of how we see them.

not perspective, but language. it is you who values "seeing" reality, and right, you did say it wasn't entirely knowable, yet still make claims as to its existence. In the agnostic fashion, isn't it best not to answer questions about the unknowable?

Get off my thread you little fartface.