Category Archives: Reasonings

Part of an ongoing conversation. A reader (here) has written to ask on what grounds I am not outraged over Mr Shea outlawing talk of secession and treason by outraged pro-gunners at his blog. I began with a respectful disagreement … Continue reading →

A reader with (considering the question) the very appropriate name of Moore writes in to ask: Economically and socially speaking, is there any amount of wealth that is ‘too much’? Here’s the analogy: we have a right to bear arms. … Continue reading →

Darrell says: Mr. Wright, if I recall rightly, refers to himself as a compatiblist (a determinist who believes in free will – a position that I thought Dr. A held as well, but I am now uncertain) and believes in … Continue reading →

Bel Roise once again asks a question to attack the Foundation of my philosophy. Okay, not really, but I could not resist the pun. Time permits me at the moment only to reply to one remark in his long and … Continue reading →

A reader apparently named after a famous admiral from Trantor bent on destroying The Foundation, Bel Riose, asks an interesting question, but also cautions us not to the ongoing and endless conversation about materialism to reach its ontological and axiomatic … Continue reading →

A reader who has far more patience for this long dead topic than it deserves asks:  I believe that the question that Dr. Andreassen has been trying to ask with the convoluted Mechaspeare thought-experiment is, do immaterial things impact the … Continue reading →

This article appeared in February of this year, and originally appeared the year previous. An inattentive reader made the unlikely claim that I was reluctant or unable to answer the question addressed here. I reprint the article as a reminder … Continue reading →

Andreassen characterizes my previous discussions with him concerning eliminative materialism (the doctrine that nothing but matter exists) in this way: I am happy to present the evidence and argument that convinced me, if only we could get past the jeer … Continue reading →

Part of an ongoing conversation. Nostreculsus writes: Mr wrf3 is making an interesting claim. Imagine that radio antennae pick up a series of radio signals – intervals of activity (above a certain threshold) alternating with periods of radio silence. It … Continue reading →

This is taken without amendment from the first Appendix of C.S. Lewis’ THE ABOLITION OF MAN. The purpose here is to show the universality of certain moral precepts, especially those on which even men who say they doubt the universality … Continue reading →

A reader weighs in with a comment on Natural Law which is more clearly written than what I could say. Allow me to reprint his words here without further comment from me: Here’s hoping our host won’t mind if a … Continue reading →

Part of an ongoing conversation.  A reader with the abbreviated name of wrf3 has illogically denied the existence of Natural Law in a fashion as to show he knows not what the term means. Attempts to explain the term to … Continue reading →

Recently in this space, I made the bold claim that atheism by its very nature, since it defies all tradition and repudiates all the greatest thought of all history Western and Eastern as superstitious nonsense, subjects the atheist to an … Continue reading →

A reader whom I respect has hurled his gauntlet at me. Allow me to show that respect by answering at length, and answer every point seriatem: In reference to my post here Joetxxx says I understand, and, indeed, even respect … Continue reading →

An another blog lost in the bogs of the Internet, we read these words: “There isn’t a form of media on this earth that isn’t biased. As George Orwell said, all art is propaganda. And good journalism is art in … Continue reading →

A review of EUGENICS AND OTHER EVILS An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State by G.K. Chesterton. You can read it (and it will well reward your time) here. G.K. Chesterston displays sparkling wit and trenchant insight into human nature … Continue reading →

A reader and I are revisiting an old, old dispute. I said this: The real meat of the question is what epistemology (that is, what theory of what constitutes a legitimate proof) can serve to prove or to disprove the … Continue reading →

A reader put forward the novel idea that there was no sacrament of confession in the Early Church, which was (so he said) much like the Protestant churches in this and in all other regards. The argument, if I may … Continue reading →

In which the basic American theory of law is explained painstakingly to our foreign friends, who say that the states are not sovereign: The general police power is a legal concept relating to the core definition of sovereignty going back … Continue reading →