|
Author
|
Topic: The Great Chain of Being
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
I have read or heard this claim but no one has EVER been able to maintain this position to my face. Owen has a short phrase when challenging Darwin that is suspiciously like it. It seems to me that the notion is one of an attempt to keep the likes of Osborn to history and all others who might be trying to keep whatever hybrid evolution they posses attached to Kant's idea. Dont know.
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
Message 11 of 29 (11327)
06-11-2002 12:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
06-10-2002 4:25 AM
|
|
Q- why then did Gould have a shelf of Buffon? My guess is he was trying to re-read Buffon's "mould" OUT not in (to) Jacob's "inacessible cardinal". There really is such a defintion in math. And Maxwell had the notion of intruments containing "disruptive cardinals".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 06-10-2002 4:25 AM | | Quetzal has not replied |
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
Message 12 of 29 (11328)
06-11-2002 12:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by John
06-11-2002 11:49 AM
|
|
Fine can I Pick up on Philosphers of the 1920s that Wrote in Nietsche as one of the four Guys kant picks apart to ground the metaphysics of morals. We can not even get metaphysics one step popular for it self if we can only still stalemate debate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by John, posted 06-11-2002 11:49 AM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by John, posted 06-11-2002 12:15 PM | | Brad McFall has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2