OK; fair enough. However, since I’m not the only one who has taken what you’ve said and understood you in this way, could you help us understand what you mean, here?
I would be happy to do so, and some feedback from you and any others who would like clarification would help me out. Try reading my stuff a second or third time. The problem is that you are trying to put my ideas into the context of yours, where they do not fit. So try interpreting them as objectively as possible, forgetting, momentarily, your own opinions. Then come on back. If you genuinely want to understand my meaning, I will do my drattedness to support the process.
OK… but you realize that “I didn’t like it, but I don’t remember why” isn’t a particularly compelling defense of your position, right?
As a defense of my position, it pretty much sucks. Wasn’t offered that way. I’m trying to avoid unprofitable arguments. Perhaps if you and I can get past the issue addressed just above, we can move on to Aquinas.
Some will resist, purely on the basis that Thomas is Thomas. That’s weak sauce. However, it seems to be counter-productive to refuse to debate the issue based on immature reactions to the dialogue.
At least we are both lined up on what or is not counter-productive. I regard it as counter-productive to engage in an argument with a dogmatist. It is true that I cannot change what passes for a dogmatist’s mind by not arguing with him. However, when the exact same outcome is obtained by arguing with him, why waste my time?
I love discussions with intelligent, honest antagonists who are interested in exploring new ideas. Find me a few.
We “stand on the shoulders of giants”, don’t we? Why require that we re-invent the wheel? After all, we didn’t require you to refrain from quoting laws of thermodynamics, but rather, allowed it and engaged it in the dialogue – why should I allow you to hold me to a more restrictive standard?
All too often we find ourselves standing on the shoulders of fools.
In case you’ve not noticed, we do continue to reinvent and improve the wheel. The radial tires on a modern car differ greatly from the bias ply innertubed tires I was so often repairing as a young man. Do you really think that it would work to outfit a B-2 with chariot wheels?
I understand your point. If you read what I write about the laws of thermodynamics, you’ll find that they are not quite as written in physics texts, possibly not as described in Wikipedia. My understanding of those laws is good enough to allow me to explain and discuss them without references.
Moreover, I am concerned with and have often addressed the theological/metaphysical implications of these laws, which I find to be rather profound. This is not a mainstream take on the subject. Physicists do not agree with it.
So when I write about thermodynamics, I’m writing and discussing from my personal understanding. What I’m asking you (and, ideally others who might wish to expand their minds) is the same thing.
I want you to go into Aquinas or atop whoever’s shoulders you want to perch on, and
profoundly understand his words, like I do with thermodynamics and most other topics I discuss on CAF.
This is a way of showing your good faith, and of proving that you are not a dogmatist and possibly worth my time. And with that comment, I’ve had enough low-level quibbling. Either get on a serious subject that you can have an open mind about, and about which you understand at the level beyond words, or else go quibble with someone else.
