What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.
Right?
Whole “discoveries” can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.
Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.
Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.
Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.
Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the “laws of matter” as “intended”?
By God perhaps?
Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.
In other words, if it’s not God.
And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.
So, I’m off the hook, but…but still able to be held responsible for “choosing” not to understand it.
You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.
By the way…
Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been…terminated by her?
Why?
Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.
Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296