Good without God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I woild agree if anyone had done that here they would be wrong  - but since they haven't so what. It isn't true of all documents, and implying that since not everything is perfectly supported, everything is equally valid is idiotic.

As to the 'eternal verities', that's you committing the opposite fallacy of appealling to antiquity.

No, it isn't because you could come up with one tomorrow sane. It seems they are above argument from modernity or antiquity.

There is material of interest to historians and there is material of interest to philosophers. Each type of material has it's own support. Different rules on validity are used in analysis.

[Dicky Underpants]

I felt you were using the word "ancient' in the perjorative.

Well, I wasn't.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it isn't because you could come up with one tomorrow sane. It seems they are above argument from modernity or antiquity.

There is material of interest to historians and there is material of interest to philosophers. Each type of material has it's own support. Different rules on validity are used in analysis.

Could I? How could you tell?

As to your seond sentence, you are correct. But that just backs up Dicky's post, and my elaboration of the issue of meaning. Changes in meaning, lack of clarity, lack of discussion all effect how you approach both philosophical documents and historical documents though and you don't appear to understand that

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could I? How could you tell?

As to your seond sentence, you are correct. But that just backs up Dicky's post, and my elaboration of the issue of meaning. Changes in meaning, lack of clarity, lack of discussion all effect how you approach both philosophical documents and historical documents though and you don't appear to understand that

I could tell if it was philosophical in nature and had no reference to recent events or geographical contexts.
Although I can see a view that says everything might be written with the latter two things in mind.

How could you prove changes in meaning apart from just having a general belief that things must have?