(My bolding)And that also means that......the law of non-contradiction is contingently true (look - 'true'....it's 'true', not false), not necessarily true. It's 'true'. But it is not 'necessarily' true. True, but not necessarily true. — Bartricks
Once LNC is rejected, reasoned discussion follows. Lesson is, don't pay any nevermind to Bart. — Banno
Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment (as reason overcoming religion) on its head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological debate between Descarte and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions posed by nominalism, which according to Gillespie dismantled the rational God / universe of medieval scholasticism and introduced (by way of the Franciscans) a fideistic God-of-pure-will, born of a concern that anything less than such would jeopardize His divine omnipotence. — Christopher Blosser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.