Wednesday, February 18, 2009

a possible defense of "Everything is holy"?

Dr. Vallicella's post on contrast arguments may-- or may not-- provide ammunition for a defense of the claim "everything is holy." I need to read his post more carefully before saying more. A quick excerpt:

The idea behind contrast arguments is plausible: if a term applies to everything, or everything in a specified domain, then there is a 'failure of contrast' that drains the term of all meaning. But I will argue that contrast arguments are not probative.

[...]

Everything is self-identical and nothing is self-diverse. And this is necessarily so. Hence necessarily there is nothing to which 'self-identical' does not apply. This fact, however, does not render 'self-identical' meaningless. Since it is true that everything is self-identical, it follow[s] that it is meaningful.



_

No comments: