Not exact matches
The question is presented as part of a larger discussion on the nature of
philosophical and imperial authority, yet it is clear that the imperial part of the
argument is not necessary to its main thrust, as a result
standing out all the more.
And since Stapp has provided no further
arguments for the meaningfulness of the joint class A, B, C, and D or for the propriety of treating the four equations relating the four sets of spin - value products as simultaneous equations, one can only conclude that both of these matters
stand in need of considerable clarification and that any
philosophical claims which depend upon the conclusion reached in Stapp's proof are in jeopardy.
In short, the ontological
argument can be made to
stand as a touchstone for
philosophical positions; what does the verdict of a given philosophy on the
argument tell us about the assumptions and the viability of that philosophy itself?