Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[rossum]

But like I said, why would a house need to consent?

Because the current law, as written, requires consent from both parties to a marriage. When you have set up your Housetafarian religion you can set up your own rules as you see fit.

Why arn’t you pro polygamous marriage?

Because it discriminates against women. I have no objection in principle to polyamorous marriage, though there will be a number of legal details to be worked out if it ever becomes law.

And people marrying their personal property or corporations is just one more among the cloud of different definitions? and why would some be valid and others not?

Some people I know are already married to their iPhones.

[qute]The construct of marriage is based on that most simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another and your arguments to discount that I believe are no different to posing that someone thinks he can marry his house, therefore marriage between people and property is therefore also legitimate.
I agree that houses are designed for people. What is your objection to person-house marriage?

I disagree that people are designed.

I see your signature say’s “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” and I believe that philosophy of yours perfectly reflects your arguments here, but at some point, I hope you will see that such a philosophy is a sham.

There is a lot more to my sig than appears on the surface. It is off topic here, but relates to the writings of Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika school of Mahayana Buddhism.

Just on a side note, that philosophy “There is no truth, only perception” how do you apply that to things like mathematics? because either way you see it, it has to add up, you can’t have 4 + 4 = 10, unless the number 4 is recognised as 5, in which case you would have to qualify with 5 + 5 = 8, thus making it add up, in which case would strongly indicate to me that objective truth does exist.

The statement “4 + 4 = 10” does not stand alone; it makes assumptions about the context in which it is embedded. For example, in octal (base 8) we have 4 + 4 = 10. If the “+” operator means concatenation, rather than addition, then “4 + 4 = 44”. There is a huge amount of context behind any mathematical statement. 1 + 1 = 10 in binary. The truth of the statement is not objective, but depends on which set of underlying assumptions is currently in operation.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

The statement “4 + 4 = 10” does not stand alone; it makes assumptions about the context in which it is embedded. For example, in octal (base 8) we have 4 + 4 = 12. If the “+” operator means concatenation, rather than addition, then “4 + 4 = 44”. There is a huge amount of context behind any mathematical statement. 1 + 1 = 10 in binary. The truth of the statement is not objective, but depends on which set of underlying assumptions is currently in operation.

rossum

Yes, but either way you percieve it, it has to add up, so there does exist objective truth, there is no percpetion where Earth’s gravity is not 9.78 m/s², the numbers might be percieved differently, but when “translated” they must be the same regardless of perception, thus I believe it should strongly indicate that objective truth does exist.

For exmaple, your speed limits are in miles an hour and ours are in kilometers an hour, however both can be translated to give us the same speed (objective truth), we cannot percieve what ever translation of speed we like, there can be no legitimate disagreement in such a translation, one is right and the rest are wrong. Therefore perception can’t be reality.

Please re-read my last post, ive tried to summarize what I’m saying there, but the quote by C.S. Lewis is a good one to reflect on.

I’ll reply to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Please re-read my last post, ive tried to summarize what I’m saying there, but the quote by C.S. Lewis is a good one to reflect on.

C. S. Lewis’ knowledge of science if deficient. His “If…” in the first line fails. Chemistry is not “accidents”; is is not an “accident” that water is H[sub]2[/sub]O, and not H[sub]3[/sub]O. Physics is not “accidents”.

Accidents are not repeatable the way chemistry and physics are repeatable. The Miller-Urey experiment was not an accident – it has been repeated many times and always gives the same results. It has even been tweaked, using slightly different conditions, and produces similar results. Chemistry is not accidental.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

Love is love. I’m sure you’ve read St. Paul’s beautiful definition of love, but I’m curious… How would you define it? Straight people having sex and making babies?

Yes, and generally in most cases, that contract is made because of love. Sometimes it’s for convenience, sometimes it’s to get a green card, sometimes it’s because someone got knocked up. But more often than not, it’s because of love.

That does make it unique, but it doesn’t mean that people who can’t procreate can’t get married.

I’d beg to differ. And there are no laws against single motherhood, yet it exists.

A prosperous and stable society is a happy society. Gay couples can contribute to the prosperity and stability of society just as much as straight couples.

Not it isn’t.

It may not produce future citizens, but (1) Gay couples can still raise children and turn them into responsible and successful citizens; and (2) Who the heck cares if someone reproduces or not??

Aside from procreation, which I admit straight people are pretty good at, society allows heterosexuals to form unhealthy and statistically unstable relationships all the time.

The state is also (or at least pretends to be) concerned with the well-being of its citizens. And this is not Sparta – our society recognizes the value of each individual, as well as the entire population as a whole. This recognition is spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Only looking at as mere perpetuation of a nation-state is rather fascist thinking.

Red Herring: Civil marriage does not refer to love. It simply determines which parties are eligible for marriage.
Strawmen: People who can’t procreate can marry–did anyone say they couldn’t?
Red Herring: No one said there were or should be laws against single motherhood.
Irrelevant: Society allows heterosexuals to form unhealthy relationships. So? Is there a large group of adulterers demanding a special form of marriage for their sex practices?
Irrelevant: Reference to Sparta
Opinion: Who cares if someone reproduces or not.

Position: Society confers certain rights and benefits on married people. Gays want a special type of recognition for a non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable relationship.

I can see what’s in it for the individual who wants to get “married.” But why should society support a self destructive lifestyle?

You look at it from your own self interest and if you are trying to present a case for societal support and recognition, don’t forget the WIFM
Lisa

 

[Dawnia]

Ahh, my mistake, replace it with brothers/sisters.

intrafamily marriage

 

[Monkey1976]

The state is also (or at least pretends to be) concerned with the well-being of its citizens. And this is not Sparta – our society recognizes the value of each individual, as well as the entire population as a whole. This recognition is spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Only looking at as mere perpetuation of a nation-state is rather fascist thinking.

Funny thing about Sparta: They actually required homosexual activity in their standing army, in which - by law - every Spartan male citizen was bound to serve for a time. But even they recognized that there was something unique about the union of male and female and reserved the title of marriage for that union - even to the point of customs where the bride would dress and appear as a male so as to “ease” her husband into the marital act.

 

[mtbender]

Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday the federal government will recognize more than 1,000 same-sex marriages in Utah, despite an earlier announcement this week from the state’s governor saying the state would not.

foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/10/federal-government-oks-same-sex-marriage-benefits-in-utah/

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I wasn’t talking about a person, I was talking about a house.

And when I find that special corporation that gives me butterflies in my tummy i’ll let you know, I hope you will be ready to enshrine it into law.

Well, I’m an ordained deacon… I’ll happily officiate the ceremony for you. It might make the exchanging of vows kind of difficult though.

Like I said, the basic construct of marriage is the simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another, thus why disallowing it on the basis of skin colour is unjust discrimination in regards to marriage, because I have identified the logical basis of marriage I can call it unjust discrimination without opening the flood gates so to speak.

Men and women are obviously designed to reproduce together. But since we’re talking logic, there’s no logical reason why men and women need each other for companionship. There’s also no logical reason why children need a man and a woman to raise them together. An anthropological study of other cultures around the world will show that a mother+father+child paradigm is not universal, it just happens to be common in our own culture.

Skin color was at one time considered a valid argument, due to the fact that God put the races on different continents. We now recognize that this was a silly argument. People are starting to recognize how silly the arguments against same-sex marriage are, and I’m sure in 50 years we’ll look at them with the same disdain as the arguments against interracial marriage.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Ermm…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/images/2005/12/15/xmas_lights_huntington_01_400x270.jpg



rossum

I guess I was wrong!

 

[josh987654321]

C. S. Lewis’ knowledge of science if deficient. His “If…” in the first line fails. Chemistry is not “accidents”; is is not an “accident” that water is H[sub]2[/sub]O, and not H[sub]3[/sub]O. Physics is not “accidents”.

Accidents are not repeatable the way chemistry and physics are repeatable. The Miller-Urey experiment was not an accident – it has been repeated many times and always gives the same results. It has even been tweaked, using slightly different conditions, and produces similar results. Chemistry is not accidental.

rossum

That’s exactly his point, hence objective truth does exist.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers [and Mathematicians] as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy [and Mathematics] - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

He is saying that if there is no God, if the universe were a mere accident, than objective truth cannot exist, because as he rightly puts it, it would be like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset, and we all know that objective truth does exist, hence the philosophy that there is no truth only perception has to be false, because regardless of perception, we cannot change these realities, maths will always have to add up and the Earth’s gravity will always be 9.78 m/s², the numbers might be percieved differently, but when “translated” they must be the same regardless of perception.

The very notion of “translation” would be absolute nonsense unless there were an objective truth behind it that could be translated.

Hence the philosophy “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” is not only a contradiction, but also has to be false, as we know that objective truth does exist.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Because the current law, as written, requires consent from both parties to a marriage. When you have set up your Housetafarian religion you can set up your own rules as you see fit.

So why don’t they recognise my Housetafarian religion’s defintion of marriage? No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if he marries his house. How do you justify discriminating against him?

Because it discriminates against women. I have no objection in principle to polyamorous marriage, though there will be a number of legal details to be worked out if it ever becomes law.

So you wouldn’t oppose it becoming enshrined into law like same sex marriage?

Some people I know are already married to their iPhones.

lol, I should have used that one.

I agree that houses are designed for people. What is your objection to person-house marriage?

My objection would be that houses are designed for people to live in, not to marry.

I disagree that people are designed.

Than it has to have been an accident. Hence the discussion at the moment on objective truth.

*If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers [and Mathematicians] as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy [and Mathematics] - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. *C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Well, I’m an ordained deacon… I’ll happily officiate the ceremony for you. It might make the exchanging of vows kind of difficult though.

lol, why won’t you also push for the legal recognition of my marriage of a house?

Men and women are obviously designed to reproduce together. But since we’re talking logic, there’s no logical reason why men and women need each other for companionship. There’s also no logical reason why children need a man and a woman to raise them together. An anthropological study of other cultures around the world will show that a mother+father+child paradigm is not universal, it just happens to be common in our own culture.

It’s not simply about who is raising the children, it’s about using a third party to intentionaly bring a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive them of their biological mother or father when it’s done in no way to benefit the child.

The main difference I believe is in the creation of the child, one is being concieved with the intention of depriving them of their biological parents, and when it comes to adoption they have already been concieved. Adoption is sometimes necessary, but not ideal and I believe it would be just as bad for someone to concieve with the intention to give their child up for adoption.

Sometimes these “less than ideal circumstances” may arise and are necessary, but I worry when people say things like “I don’t see any difference between them” I worry when “less than Ideal” becomes the norm and treated as no different to the “ideal.”

There are many who fail to live up to the ideal family (of a healthy biological mother and father raising their children they concieved together) in todays society, but instead of trying to reach it, what worrys me is when people try to lower the bar, or claim that less than ideal circumstances are just as good, that kind of reasoning I believe is gravely dangerous.

What happens when there are no children to be adopted out and homosexual couples want children? because you’ve set it up as the norm for family.

The only way homosexual couples can get children is for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing!

Either they concieved with intent to deprive them of their biological mother or father, or **** happened, the former is gravely immoral and the latter I at least understand, but in any case it provides an incentive for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing when it comes to children.

Skin color was at one time considered a valid argument, due to the fact that God put the races on different continents. We now recognize that this was a silly argument. People are starting to recognize how silly the arguments against same-sex marriage are, and I’m sure in 50 years we’ll look at them with the same disdain as the arguments against interracial marriage.

The key is “at one time” a particular time when the Amercian Slave trade was about and shortly after. There is no rational basis in which to segregate marriage by skin colour.

In 50 years, homosexuals will still not be able to concieve a child together, as you need x and y chromosomes and they will never be able to use the reproductive system or their sexual organs in the manner in which they were designed to be used for, that’s not just some minor irrelevant difference.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well, I’m an ordained deacon… I’ll happily officiate the ceremony for you. …

Men and women are obviously designed to reproduce together. But since we’re talking logic, there’s no logical reason why men and women need each other for companionship. There’s also no logical reason why children need a man and a woman to raise them together. …

Imagine that! Our bodies are designed obviously for reproduction together according to you, yet you disassociate logic from the companionship of a man and a woman who produced a child, no logic to the raising of that child by his progenitors, or in case of the absence of his natural parents, by opposite sexed adoptive couples. What audacity in thinking in the push for gay marriage," to justify the rejection of the Creator’s design and the illogic of homosexual sex. It is also the self serving justification pushing society to accept the placement of children with adoptive same sex couples.

Lisa mentioned a descriptive Internet abbreviation, WIFM, in her latest post. What is in it for ME. That is the logic of such homosexualist philosophy. I can see why a Catholic would leave the faith for an invented religion. He gets to live out the WIFM philosophy. Why, one can even be an ordained deacon, to propagate WIFM!
,

 

[LisaA]

Well, I’m an ordained deacon… I’ll happily officiate the ceremony for you. It might make the exchanging of vows kind of difficult though.

Men and women are obviously designed to reproduce together. But since we’re talking logic, there’s no logical reason why men and women need each other for companionship. There’s also no logical reason why children need a man and a woman to raise them together. An anthropological study of other cultures around the world will show that a mother+father+child paradigm is not universal, it just happens to be common in our own culture.

Skin color was at one time considered a valid argument, due to the fact that God put the races on different continents. We now recognize that this was a silly argument. People are starting to recognize how silly the arguments against same-sex marriage are, and I’m sure in 50 years we’ll look at them with the same disdain as the arguments against interracial marriage.

Deacon in what faith tradition? Some have way more credibility than others…you know being part of the Church of What’s Happening Now is different than becoming a Deacon in the Catholic Church.

No logical reason for having a mother and father raising children? You must not spend much time reading about the devastating impact of fatherless homes which have a substantially greater incidence of everything from teen pregnancy to drugs to incarceration to illiteracy. We don’t need to point to theology as binding when it’s obvious there is a reason for this family structure.

The arguments against redefining marriage are certainly valid. Gender is far more significant than skin tone or melanin levels. Are you aware men and women are different? Are you aware that it takes a man and a woman to create a child? Not all married people have children but all children have parents and for society to suddenly decide that a mommy or a daddy is optional, that people achieve special rights by declaring their sexual activity, and that a non procrative, unhealthy, and statistically unstable cohort deserves the same recognition as male female marriage is truly laughable.

How ironic that the Left which is behind redefining marriage claims they base their conclusions on science yet they completely ignore basic biology in furtherance of a disordered lifestyle.

Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Red Herring: Civil marriage does not refer to love. It simply determines which parties are eligible for marriage.
Strawmen: People who can’t procreate can marry–did anyone say they couldn’t?
Red Herring: No one said there were or should be laws against single motherhood.
Irrelevant: Society allows heterosexuals to form unhealthy relationships. So? Is there a large group of adulterers demanding a special form of marriage for their sex practices?
Irrelevant: Reference to Sparta
Opinion: Who cares if someone reproduces or not.

Position: Society confers certain rights and benefits on married people. Gays want a special type of recognition for a non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable relationship.

I can see what’s in it for the individual who wants to get “married.” But why should society support a self destructive lifestyle?

You look at it from your own self interest and if you are trying to present a case for societal support and recognition, don’t forget the WIFM
Lisa

Excellent distillation.

I wish to add below excerpt from an article written by Monica Migliorino Miller in July 2012.

*Gay rights activists argue that to deny persons with same-sex attraction the right to marry is to deny them the personal happiness and sense of dignity that heterosexuals enjoy—and thus the fairness card is played as a way to elevate such partnerships to the level of marriage.

Defense of marriage has nothing to do with hate. Rather this entire controversy has to do with the nature of objective reality itself. It has to do with the essence of what it means to be embodied persons and the way in which such embodiment leads to the foundation of the family.

Those who oppose “gay marriage” are simply unwilling to locate the foundation of marriage and the family in precarious human feelings and emotions—which is the primary value upon which gay unions are formed and legitimized. No one can deny that such feelings are real, that such love is real, that the need for human intimacy between homosexuals and lesbians is real. It is simply that such private need is not the moral, legal equivalent of the institution of marriage, parenthood and the family that government has a duty to protect.*
,

 

[josh987654321]

Excellent distillation.

I wish to add below excerpt from an article written by Monica Migliorino Miller in July 2012.

*Gay rights activists argue that to deny persons with same-sex attraction the right to marry is to deny them the personal happiness and sense of dignity that heterosexuals enjoy—and thus the fairness card is played as a way to elevate such partnerships to the level of marriage.

Defense of marriage has nothing to do with hate. Rather this entire controversy has to do with the nature of objective reality itself. It has to do with the essence of what it means to be embodied persons and the way in which such embodiment leads to the foundation of the family.

Those who oppose “gay marriage” are simply unwilling to locate the foundation of marriage and the family in precarious human feelings and emotions—which is the primary value upon which gay unions are formed and legitimized. No one can deny that such feelings are real, that such love is real, that the need for human intimacy between homosexuals and lesbians is real. It is simply that such private need is not the moral, legal equivalent of the institution of marriage, parenthood and the family that government has a duty to protect.*
,

:clapping:

I think the question is what happens when heterosexual couples are all doing the right thing and there are no children to be adopted out and homosexual couples want children? because people have set it up as the norm for family.

I believe the only way homosexual couples can get children is for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing!

Either they concieve with intent to deprive the child of of their biological mother or father (e.g. using a third party), or **** happened, the former I believe is gravely immoral and the latter I at least understand, but in any case I believe it provides them with an incentive for heterosexual couples to do the wrong thing when it comes to children.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[LisaA]

Excellent distillation.

I wish to add below excerpt from an article written by Monica Migliorino Miller in July 2012.

*Gay rights activists argue that to deny persons with same-sex attraction the right to marry is to deny them the personal happiness and sense of dignity that heterosexuals enjoy—and thus the fairness card is played as a way to elevate such partnerships to the level of marriage.

Defense of marriage has nothing to do with hate. Rather this entire controversy has to do with the nature of objective reality itself. It has to do with the essence of what it means to be embodied persons and the way in which such embodiment leads to the foundation of the family.

Those who oppose “gay marriage” are simply unwilling to locate the foundation of marriage and the family in precarious human feelings and emotions—which is the primary value upon which gay unions are formed and legitimized. No one can deny that such feelings are real, that such love is real, that the need for human intimacy between homosexuals and lesbians is real. It is simply that such private need is not the moral, legal equivalent of the institution of marriage, parenthood and the family that government has a duty to protect.*
,

I return the compliment. The above is spot on. The gay activists do not have biology, theology, history, tradition or sociology to support their demands that marriage be redefined. But instead of even trying to make any kind of cogent argument about why their sexual activity which is by definition only a way of obtaining physical pleasure and demonstrating affection—they demand we ignore the laws of biology and nature (not to mention our faith) and place a particular sexual practice on par with the ability to create life. As the above says it’s completely FEELINGS based and that anyone who points out that the reason for the mommy/daddy = babies is far beyond a mere transitory emotion or physical sensation is deemed a homophobe or a H8r.

How ironic that a false version of the marital embrace can only create a false version of marriage. Like Fool’s Gold the sparkle is but an illusion. Two men or two women cannot marry. This doesn’t mean they can’t experience love and apparently sexual pleasure. But emotions and physical sensations do not have the same societal impact as creating new life. And in that creative power is the responsibility to do the right thing by the child.

I suspect the demand for gay “marriage” results from our society’s consumer mentality where children are only children if you “want” them and if you don’t use ABC or get an abortion. Instead of recognizing and treasuring the creative power to bring new life to the world, children become a commodity to be purchased, bred like livestock or adopted into a home where they are denied a mother or a father.

Can you gay activists not see that this is driven by your selfish desires alone, yet you demand that the rest of society, which does not benefit, pay homage to your sex life as something more than it is?

Lisa

 

[HandyAndy]

I have to be honest here, and acknowledge that I have been embarrassed and shamed by some of the arguments put forward by the same sex marriage advocates. They have rightly pointed out so so many similarities between the two sides.
The heterosexual group has failed in many instances to live up to the high standards that marriage so implied. Family units broken, divorce, abuse, orphaned children, unnatural sex, polygamy, prostitution, open marriages,single parent families by choice, so on and so forth.
Marriage has been so trivialized by our own actions, as to bring it to the point where it is no longer the norm or the goal…but a prize. A leveler that will be manipulated through the courts, so that the unique relationship between a man and a women is so demeaned, giving way to all manner of relationships deemed its equal. Shame on us.
A move away from religious teachings and a family mirrored in heaven, is being replaced by a secular society, making policy on the run. I believe that history will find a civilization, which will be chasing its tail, trying to solve many a problem of their own making. Our own arrogance will be our undoing.
We should all be ashamed of such a dismal track record. The unique relationship between a male and a female, marriage and a family, should have represented the very essence of a successful civilization. Our laws should reflex and affirm this success…as they once did.

Marriage should be about LOVE. Marriage should be about FEELINGS. Marriage should be about the PHYSICAL expression of those feelings…and it is this PHYSICAL expression of such feelings that we part company. Same sex IS disordered in the same way it is disordered; if practiced in a heterosexual relationship. You will never be able to demonstrate the physical love expressed in a same sex relationship; to be anything other then misguided. Your feelings are not in dispute here. It is the physical expression of the love you have for another, that makes it wrong. Same sex is not by any means, the only form of physical love that is wrong. It is this “physical love” that is the biggest challenge for mankind and many have fallen prey to it. They are no longer the masters of it…but slaves to it. Sex is possibly one of the most abused gifts known to man. We have always struggled to keep it out of the gutter. We may even be losing the struggle…and not by way of any gay advocacy…because when all is said and done…It was always ours to lose.

 

[josh987654321]

rossum:

.

Just on the quick side note

*“The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” *

You can’t debunk truth while making a truth claim.

The moment you make a truth claim, you rise above your bondage of total subjectivity and the moment you claim any truth, you violate it, so that statement “there is no ultimate truth” cannot possibly be true.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Just on the quick side note

*“The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” *

You can’t debunk truth while making a truth claim.

The moment you make a truth claim, you rise above your bondage of total subjectivity and the moment you claim any truth, you violate it, so that statement “there is no ultimate truth” cannot possibly be true.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

I am off to Paris for five days, so I will not be posting here for that time.

rossum