| Subject: | Re: Isn't this better described as 'aether'?
| | Date: | Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:44:34 GMT
| | From: | "Free Psychosoma Foundation" <KILLTHESPAMlifit@softhome.net>
| | Newsgroups: | alt.consciousness,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.skeptic
|
"Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddcc385.0310050929.11df41cf@posting.google.com...
> "Free Psychosoma Foundation" <KILLTHESPAMlifit@softhome.net> wrote in
message news:<DTWeb.155079$hE5.5239583@news1.tin.it>...
> > I can handle an immaterial "substance", but something that is but does
not
> > exist? Fascinating!
>
> This all goes back to the "Does 'exist' rate as a predicate" idea, which
> Kant famously wrestled with.
>
> Wordsmith :)
I'm in good company then, but if he Kant, then who kan? ;-)
|