Xref: utzoo news.groups:17586 talk.philosophy.misc:3554
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!mirror!francis
From: francis@mirror.UUCP (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM
Message-ID: <35887@mirror.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 21:38:03 GMT
References: <3284@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <3285@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <9442@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <2018@cjsa.WA.COM> <0ZltB5y00Xc1MZPXZ9@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: francis@prism.TMC.COM (Joe Francis)
Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge Mass.
Lines: 15

In article <0ZltB5y00Xc1MZPXZ9@andrew.cmu.edu> cr10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christopher John Rapier) writes:
>About the Skepticism vs Realism debate I mentioned earlier I suggest
>read Rene Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy". Great work
>that attempts to provide a base for reality without presuposing the
>existance of reality. Excellent philosophizing. 

Hmmm.  I found "Meditations on the First Philosophy" to be a mixed bag.
I can appreciate the "carefully reasoned" approach (which is not to say
that a book must be written this way to be worthwhile), but I was
dissapointed by how easily fallacies could be unearthed in his text.

Reminded me of Alvin Plantinga, who is noteable for using very formal
logic constructs (for a philosophical work - don't be offended
mathematicians) to couch his arguments in, which makes it all the
easier for the critic to find the hole.