|
|
|
|
|
Dear Jaal,
You suck.
Sincerely,
Swamiji@nyaya.om
Editor: The fallacies are of five kinds, viz., inconstant, contradictory, unfounded,
counterbalanced and incongruous. The inconstant reason is of three kinds: the first is
styled common, the second uncommon and the third inconclusive. That which is never present
in what is possessed of the thing to be inferred is called the contradictory reason.
Unfoundedness is of three kinds: of the substratum, of nature, and of concomitanthood.
When two opposite things occur in the consideration, the two reasons are said to be
counterbalanced. Where the subject is devoid of the thing to be inferred , it is called
incongruity.
|
|
Dear Jaal,
You suck.
Sincerely,
Stcherbatsky@Buddh.ist
The so-constructed predicate is always a Universal, whereas the subject is
always something unique. The judgement implies not only the unity of subject and predicate,
but their objective reality in the sense of a constance of the object at different
times, for different people and from different points of view.
|
Dear Jaal:
You really suck.
Sincerely,
Hume@empiricism.orgy
It is certain that the most ignorant and stupid peasants - nay infants, nay
even brute beasts - improve by experience, and learn the qualities of natural objects, by
observing the effects which result from them. I must confess that a man is guilty of
unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation,
that therefore it does not really exist.
|
Dear Jaal,
You suck.
Sincerely,
Kant@germanidealism.ugh
Editor:We find ourselves involved in a difficulty which did not present itself in the
sphere of sensibility, that is to say, we cannot discover how the subjective conditions of
thought can have objective validity, in other words, can become conditions of the possibility
of all cognition of objects; for phenomenon may certainly be given to us in intuition without
any help from the functions of understanding.
|
|
Dear Jaal,
You suck.
Sincerely,
Aristotle@greek.cum
Editor: Now these various morbid dispositions in themselves do not fall within the
limits of vice, nor yet does bestiality; and to conquer or yield to them does not constitute
unrestraint in the strict sense, but only the state so called by analogy; just as a man who
cannot control his anger must be described as 'unrestrained in' that passion, not
'unrestrained'. (Indeed folly, cowardice, profligacy, and ill-temper, whenever they run to
excess, are either bestial or morbid conditions).
|
|
