<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Dead Philosophers Society</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:39:17 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Debate by Maria Pringle</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/01/08/debate/comment-page-1/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Maria Pringle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=516#comment-134</guid>
		<description>I understand that the problem is to define the epistemological basis that supports the knowledge of truth as justified belief. The friend&#039;s opinion is that truth is only known by scientific method. Part 1 says that critical thinking is rational thinking, in which knowledge is justified by general deduction or particular inference. Part 2 claims that when a theory is indemonstrable it is not truth but opinion. Part 3 is an inquiry on the principles of rationality.
 
I think that rational thinking is a scientific method and what the sciences are all about. Now, a justification for the truth of a belief is precisely that, a just kind of measuring that corresponds to what it is. This is, a complete explanation that comprehends all aspects of a thing, thus providing an appropriate grasp that we recognize as truth because it is verifiable.  But how is that we verify a thing?  There is the problem, how to define a basis of verification that can satisfy our “sense” of truth. Many people stop their inquiry at the quantifiable aspect of things determined by practical experience, this is the basis of sensitive emotions and belief justified by what “feels right.” Others stop at the operational determination gained in the arts and sciences; this is the speculative understanding of processes resulting in empirical truth justified by “scientific demonstration.” Still, there are fundamental aspects that belong to the virtuous level of human knowledge,  which explain the original proceeding or intentionality corresponding to things, and which is an intellectual kind of measuring of what is “just truth.” Nevertheless, the epistemological basis of truth should expand to the full dimension of human understanding – which St. Thomas finds in wisdom, comprehending the first cause and the ultimate finality of a thing&#039;s “ultimate truth.” 

On the discussion about the structure of personal knowledge, these are the different bias and bases for individual reasoning; as said, truth is a just correspondence of an integral relation that is measured at different levels; as fact, feeling, logic, just proceeding, and comprehensive finality - the Aristotelian “why” of all things. Therefore, knowledge of truth is not only in the feeling and logic correspondence of what is just, certain and good in the reality of a thing, but true knowledge also becomes an actuality reflected in the integral virtuous life of a person.  

Consequently, if one measures truth such as a mechanical result from a computer; yes, the human nature is left behind; and with it the basis of any rational principle; this is the capability of human understanding itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand that the problem is to define the epistemological basis that supports the knowledge of truth as justified belief. The friend&#8217;s opinion is that truth is only known by scientific method. Part 1 says that critical thinking is rational thinking, in which knowledge is justified by general deduction or particular inference. Part 2 claims that when a theory is indemonstrable it is not truth but opinion. Part 3 is an inquiry on the principles of rationality.</p>
<p>I think that rational thinking is a scientific method and what the sciences are all about. Now, a justification for the truth of a belief is precisely that, a just kind of measuring that corresponds to what it is. This is, a complete explanation that comprehends all aspects of a thing, thus providing an appropriate grasp that we recognize as truth because it is verifiable.  But how is that we verify a thing?  There is the problem, how to define a basis of verification that can satisfy our “sense” of truth. Many people stop their inquiry at the quantifiable aspect of things determined by practical experience, this is the basis of sensitive emotions and belief justified by what “feels right.” Others stop at the operational determination gained in the arts and sciences; this is the speculative understanding of processes resulting in empirical truth justified by “scientific demonstration.” Still, there are fundamental aspects that belong to the virtuous level of human knowledge,  which explain the original proceeding or intentionality corresponding to things, and which is an intellectual kind of measuring of what is “just truth.” Nevertheless, the epistemological basis of truth should expand to the full dimension of human understanding – which St. Thomas finds in wisdom, comprehending the first cause and the ultimate finality of a thing&#8217;s “ultimate truth.” </p>
<p>On the discussion about the structure of personal knowledge, these are the different bias and bases for individual reasoning; as said, truth is a just correspondence of an integral relation that is measured at different levels; as fact, feeling, logic, just proceeding, and comprehensive finality &#8211; the Aristotelian “why” of all things. Therefore, knowledge of truth is not only in the feeling and logic correspondence of what is just, certain and good in the reality of a thing, but true knowledge also becomes an actuality reflected in the integral virtuous life of a person.  </p>
<p>Consequently, if one measures truth such as a mechanical result from a computer; yes, the human nature is left behind; and with it the basis of any rational principle; this is the capability of human understanding itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dr Ralph McInerny Needs Prayers by Kinga</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/01/11/dr-ralph-mcinerny-needs-prayers/comment-page-1/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Kinga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=521#comment-130</guid>
		<description>This is a good place for this post.  Thank you Carl for sharing with everyone.

Best,
Kinga</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good place for this post.  Thank you Carl for sharing with everyone.</p>
<p>Best,<br />
Kinga</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton by dhigginbotham</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/23/everlasting-man-by-g-k-chesterton/comment-page-1/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>dhigginbotham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=495#comment-125</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m currently reading Chesterton&#039;s &quot; What&#039;s Wrong With The World.&quot;  I guess what I like most about him is his ability to connect philosophical language and concepts to everyday language and practicality.    He can speak on the metaphysical question of first causes and immediately convey the materialist position, (in the old chicken/egg argument,) as that of &quot;all things coming from the egg.&quot;  This uncanny ability to speak from both worlds appeals very much to me.

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m currently reading Chesterton&#8217;s &#8221; What&#8217;s Wrong With The World.&#8221;  I guess what I like most about him is his ability to connect philosophical language and concepts to everyday language and practicality.    He can speak on the metaphysical question of first causes and immediately convey the materialist position, (in the old chicken/egg argument,) as that of &#8220;all things coming from the egg.&#8221;  This uncanny ability to speak from both worlds appeals very much to me.</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton by Ben Espen</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/23/everlasting-man-by-g-k-chesterton/comment-page-1/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Espen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=495#comment-122</guid>
		<description>The Everlasting Man is one of my all time favorite books. Every time I read it I gain something new.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Everlasting Man is one of my all time favorite books. Every time I read it I gain something new.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton by Kinga</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/23/everlasting-man-by-g-k-chesterton/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Kinga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=495#comment-121</guid>
		<description>&quot;I propose to maintain that whether or no it is the twilight of gods, it is not the daylight of men,&quot; writes Chesterton in the Everlasting Man.  One of my favorite lines from that book.  Without naming Nietzsche, it immediately puts his entire philosophy in proper perspective.  

I am not quite sure how Chesterton is ecumenical, but he is certainly big on grand desires of mankind, and I love him for that (well, that and his priceless syntax).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I propose to maintain that whether or no it is the twilight of gods, it is not the daylight of men,&#8221; writes Chesterton in the Everlasting Man.  One of my favorite lines from that book.  Without naming Nietzsche, it immediately puts his entire philosophy in proper perspective.  </p>
<p>I am not quite sure how Chesterton is ecumenical, but he is certainly big on grand desires of mankind, and I love him for that (well, that and his priceless syntax).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ancient and Medieval DVD by Clark Hutton</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/01/ancient-and-medieval-dvd/comment-page-1/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark Hutton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:01:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=489#comment-120</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll give either of you $20 for the DVD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll give either of you $20 for the DVD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ancient and Medieval DVD by Jason Carr</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/01/ancient-and-medieval-dvd/comment-page-1/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Carr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=489#comment-103</guid>
		<description>I have one copy of the DVD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have one copy of the DVD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ancient and Medieval DVD by Carlisle Kellam</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/12/01/ancient-and-medieval-dvd/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlisle Kellam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=489#comment-101</guid>
		<description>Yes, I believe I do.  What&#039;s it worth?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I believe I do.  What&#8217;s it worth?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spring Registration Form by Kinga</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/11/30/spring-registration-form/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Kinga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=479#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Hi David,

Thank you for posting the link to the registration.

Kinga

p.s.  I want to hear the Atheist Tapes you mentioned in one of your previous posts.  Perhaps we could revisit this topic again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David,</p>
<p>Thank you for posting the link to the registration.</p>
<p>Kinga</p>
<p>p.s.  I want to hear the Atheist Tapes you mentioned in one of your previous posts.  Perhaps we could revisit this topic again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spring Registration Form by dhigginbotham</title>
		<link>http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2009/11/30/spring-registration-form/comment-page-1/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>dhigginbotham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=479#comment-99</guid>
		<description>http://www.holyapostles.edu/PDF/DL%20Reg%20Form%20-%20SPRING%202010.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.holyapostles.edu/PDF/DL%20Reg%20Form%20-%20SPRING%202010.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.holyapostles.edu/PDF/DL%20Reg%20Form%20-%20SPRING%202010.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
