Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Rich, all realists were presuppositionalists before the term became trendy. There are two ways to combat Kant's wall. Deny sense perception altogether, as idealists do; or insist that man's capacity to think is itself a rational category, as realists do. A rational capacity prior to the thought process is what we now call a presupposition. This is what Dabney was arguing for. Nash puts it is more modern terms that we would be familiar with. |
Interesting. But "deny sense perception altogether, as idealists do; or insist that man's capacity to think is itself a rational category, as realists do." are not mutually exclusive.
Since you keep bringing up realism and idealism - perhaps you would care to define and contrast them. I've read that materialism is the contrary of idealism.
Also, are you speaking of "common sense realism", "Platonic realism", "epistemological realism", what?
Was not Jonathan Edwards an idealist?
Also interesting that Ronald Nash was a student of and heavily influenced by Gordon Clark. Maybe he was a realist, but it makes me wonder if realism vs idealism is actually a critical point of contention.