sola scriptura

[WolfVanZandt]

[Josh]

[Josh]

[AllanS]

[Robert]

[WolfVanZandt]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Josh]

[Josh]

[John Anthony]

[Robert]

[Robert]

[WolfVanZandt]

I did not, anywhere, imply that reason could not provide facts. I implied, and, indeed, stated blatantly, that many of the philosophers did not produce facts because they did not use mature reason. They were merely playing word games.

And you are right in saying that Wittgenstein rejected much of his earlier hyperobjectivism later in life. Nevertheless, as hard as it is to pin down what postmodernism is about, I can't see him as postmodern.

[WolfVanZandt]

Josh, as far as the accuracy of Wikipedia is concerned, as long as no one else saw it, you might indeed turn poor Berkeley into a toad frog, but I get to edit your entries and as soon as I, or anyone else that was interested at all, saw that blatant inaccuracy, it would be edited out. I can see subtle inaccuracies - and, more likely, unorthodox opinions and commentary - making its way into the wiki but I haven't seen much gross inaccuracy - not in any field that I know anything about.

A for the commentary on what Berkeley believed, I've seen pretty much the same interpretation in Harry Barnes "An Intellectual History of the Modern World". I've seen quite different interpretations. Will Durant seemed to take a more moderate position - that Berkeley said that matter was only a product of mind but by going on to say that the only way we know of matter is through our mind and that except via our perception, matter doesn't exist to us. Evidently, Berkeley was oblique enough as to allow for a very wide range of interpretations. And that is certainly what would be expected fromsomeone who is playing word games.

[Josh]