Not exact matches
Unfortunately, many people
seem to have a problem accepting that they shouldn't persecute others based on their subjective answer to an objectively
unanswerable question.
Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world
seems compelling and even
unanswerable.
This question
seems to be
unanswerable.
I was furious at this rejection (as I later told him) because it
seemed that the objection was one of principle rather than of fact or interpretation, and so was
unanswerable: there could be, Ford thought, no demonstrable connection between Whitehead (and Hartshorne) and Hegel.
It
seems to exhaust the theoretical options to say that such an answer must be achieved by reference to either: 1) the categories themselves; 2) the noncategorial aspects of events; 3) both categorial and non categorial aspects of events; 4) some alleged factor (e.g., a God, Platonic Forms, «nothing») other than the categorial aspects of events; or 5) by nothing (i.e., by no alleged factor at all, including «nothing»), so that the ultimate issue is meaningless or at least
unanswerable in principle.
Seems like those humans who can't function without an answer to the
unanswerable need constant reinforcement and encouragement.
He turns to three rabbis for answers to his questions, all of which are, the filmmakers
seem to be saying, essentially,
unanswerable.
While this Austinian canard might have
seemed attractive, I would have thought that Herbert Hart's critique was
unanswerable and that the day to day experience of Slaw readers would show that this just isn't so.
An interviewer
seems to be a fathom because all you know about him is that he has the authority to question you and if you find the question
unanswerable, then you become clueless as to what step will the interviewer take.
So many
unanswerable questions about the unfathomable knife and yet we all own a few and can't
seem to part with them.