Calories In A Publix Roast Beef Sub

Criticism of such criticism Algaba J. Ramón Esquinas

Mr. J. Ramón Esquinas Algaba (JREA from now on) me "critical" in the forum of the magazine Symploké Catoblepas, but in the title of his message ("mendacious Moore" wrote very sophist) commits a common fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, and that disqualifies me as "mendacious" which means liar (as DRAE), but that does not bother me too much, since who engages in crude personal attacks is undermining its synderesis alone .

Now, let to analyze the self-proclaimed "modest objections" to my short JREA Filomat criticism.

such JREA Says:

For now, expose the Doctrine of the Three generic materials without referring to the distinction
Ontology General / Special Ontology and without reference to

Transcendental Ego and the Idea of \u200b\u200bthe World, is already or neglect or a conscious
device to show an exhibition caricatured easier to criticize

.

Answer: It seems that this JREA or not read the title of my article or just not read, because it says "brief critique of the doctrine of the 3 genera of materialialidad Gustavo Bueno ", that is, my criticism was not intended to exhaustively criticize the hundreds of pages of test materials and the pamphlet" Subject ", simply criticize brief and ONLY in the context of a short article, the doctrine of 3 GB materiality genres, nothing more. If you want other day I deal with the distinction between general and special ontology, the transcendental ego, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe world, the idea of \u200b\u200btranscendental subject, etc. Look, nobody rushes to my and do not lose sleep over allegedly had wanted to criticize the ideas of GB.
wrote this JREA :

But that is not talking about logic, but ontology. Are you denying the validity of analogies
ontological?

answer: Are you trying to say that the analogies do not have to do with logic? Analogies are not a type of reasoning? Are not logical forms all types of reasoning? Whether deny the validity of analogies ontological I remember that analog logic reasoning is not logically valid, only deductive arguments are, because, unlike analog and inductive arguments, they are indicative. Now, if you know of any system of logic in which arguments are demonstrative analog and not mere conjecture or ways to develop hypotheses, let me know and I will correct it right away or blot out my article, but if not ...
Try reading my mind (why telepathy?) The so JREA: Behind

Méndez is a reductionist and historicist idea (M2, say) which presupposes that
philosophical ideas and traditions that spring from just under the people's minds

WITHOUT ANY basis in reality or the thing

answer: Here JREA commits such a vulgar fallacy diversionary straw man, and gives me a reductionism "mentalist" I have never defended Could you paste my quotes so great where I'm standing pataphysical subjectivist (at Berkeley)?. Leaving aside your rude straw doll is clear that not all ideas are reduced to such m2 (in the terminology buenista) because, for example, without society there would be no ideas as evidenced J. Piaget, social psychology and cases of children raised by animals (wolves, bears, gazelles, etc.) Showing that they have no thoughts or ideas, etc. as these are acquired in the social environment. It is also clear that many ideas and concepts must have empirical referents materials, etc. so you false attribution is misplaced.
JREA .:

But this is not true, because for now, men are beings who operate
things and immersed in the reality we have to conclude that the appeal
ancient doctrines not appeal to free stale views
thinkers, but appeal to the very tradition that has taken shape-notes to use the simile

musical, which will be shaping the melody of the ideas that will be

answer: tradition If you understand "old doctrines" , concluding that must appeal to tradition because we have to appeal to ancient doctrines're telling me that one must appeal to tradition, because ... we have to appeal to tradition (Circular reasoning). And, as usual, instead of arguing at length about the cognitive validity of such a "tradition" ... appeal to a common musical simile. Simile is it that you demonstrative argument?.
JREA :

Whoever speaks of the Idea of \u200b\u200bCause, no matter what they thought of the philosophers, both Greek and medieval
, you are simply ignoring the historical process itself philosophical
which he, in the XXI century can even speak of the Idea of \u200b\u200bCause

answer: Can you tell me where on my blog I deny that the idea of \u200b\u200bcause is a historical product, or does is another doll straw generous gift me?.
JREA :

ad hominem argument
argument is not a subjectivist, but it has to do with the objective exercise of Ideas
. It is therefore an argument whereby apagogic
held ideas about men against other men face in the philosophical arena
. Not simply claim that Somebody's niece is metaphysical,
but show how the performance of their ideas will lead to metaphysical positions or formalist
when exercising such plans or ideas in other contexts

ontological answer: Error, the ad hominem argument according to the dictionary of fallacies of Ricardo Garcia is a FALLACY OF PERSONAL ATTACK merely disqualify the opponent without refuting their afirmaciones.Me seems to confuse a dialectical reasoning (apagogic argument by which the ideas held by some men over other men face in the philosophical arena, as you say ) with a diversionary fallacy (ad hominem fallacy), indicating that you have a conceptual or semantic confusion.
JREA :

As Solzhenitsyn's appointment is one more than the ravings of this
man - who tried to oppose socialism
mystical materialist socialism - they just wanted to talk to them
began diamater reconocimendo existed god or spirit that no man was a nothing
. It is foolish and gullible in philosophy
request otherwise accept your position, this is pure idealism of dialogue and consensus.
what to do, is to demonstrate that the claims of the contrary are false,
metaphysical, formal or simply free. Philosophy, not the science
is apagogic. Therefore, it is thought most meet the
other than with the other

answer: Well, I'm not at all agree with Solzhenitsyn's anti-fascist (or less with utopian socialism or his idea of \u200b\u200bGod). If I quoted it was because his allusion to Marxist dogmatism reminded me dogmatic "buenistas" like you who, like the Marxists scholiasts live calling the beginning and do not establish nor refute anything: where is your rebuttal to my assertion that the analogies are not demonstrative? where is your proof that the "philosophical tradition" is a source of wisdom and has a great cognitive value? where is your refutation of my claim that the analogy is weak GB, eh?, etc. Instead of demonstrations and arguments, just get your fallacies of begging the question, ad hominem and straw man. Mr Mal

JREA

please, be strong over the another.