Re: positivism (was Re: "rise of china" and wst)

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:

> 
>       Up till now, I thought I understood what you were saying.  None of
> your replies this time makes any real sense to me, so I abandon the field
> of discourse, letting you have the last word.  Besides, I suspect our
> comrades on the WSN are getting bored (or were already bored?) with our
> dialogue.  It was fun, and perhaps even relevant, while it lasted.

Perhaps I haven't been clear, or perhaps I've tried to bite off too much;
I was merely trying to say that positivism either imposes its own
calculus on the whole of reality (Comtean variety) or, as I now
understand, it simply defines truth in such a way as to render all
statements (and actions) that do not fall under the purview of its
calculus "senseless" (neopositivism).  That was the impression I got from
reading the article on Ayer, and Prof. Wagar seems to have confirmed it.  
So yes, I agree, there seems little point in carrying on.

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu