Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier  Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier
Don't waste your time with Cheung, it's not serious philosophy.  But I had to say it. | What's not serious about it? | For starters, no *serious* contemporary philosopher would or has taken him *seriously*. Read some of Aquascum's critiques (just seach for it on google), they have not been dealt with in any satisfactory way. It is almost a waste of time to debate with them [those persuaded by Cheung]. The critiques are out there and they're good. Wish I could say more, but I just felt like opining (I just don't have the time to debate what has been debated ad nauseum). |
So...you say he's not a serious philosopher because "no serious philosopher would or has taken him seriously" and then support your argument by namedropping a guy called Aquascum. Well, okay. All I know about Aquascum is that he anonymously posts refutations of others' work on the internet and some people say that he is a "professional philosopher," whatever that means, and I don't understand how they could know this since he posts anonymously.
Neither do I know very much about Cheung, nor do I want to debate Cheung's philosophy with you (obviously, since I know only the very basics of it
). I just wanted to know what it is about him that makes him so unpalatable to you. It would not surprise me if no unbelieving philosophers would take a Christian philosopher seriously who bases his entire system on the Bible; the Word of God is foolishness to those who are perishing, right? But you're a believer, so what is it? his rejection of empiricism (not trying to make assumptions, it just seems that this is the problem most have with him and Clark)? If so, would you say that most of the Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza, Clark, et al. were not serious philosophers in their own right, even though you may disagree with them?