[MD] The Fringe Factor

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Craig]
I think this is too harsh, for the following reasons:
1.  The most absurd posts never get responses.  Micah's position has generated
many thoughtful responses.

[Arlo]
All of which Micah ignores in favor of repeating a phrase over and over.

[Craig]
2.  Micah has defended his position consistently against all comers.

[Arlo]
No, he's *restated* his position. Hardly "defended".

[Craig]
3.  Micah's position is similar to that of Phaedrus, the living Sophist, at the
U. of Chicago (ZMM).

[Arlo]
I don't think Phaedrus was a Idealist. Indeed, as Platt points out, the MOQ
rejects this position.

[Craig]
4.  It is not absurd to hold that if there is no one to use the word/concept
'reality', then there is no criteria for its being used correctly.  This is a
respectful, Wittgensteinian, position in the philosophy of language.

[Arlo]
And, as I said to Micah, if "humans" were to disappear, so would all the
human-dependent patterns. So, yes, the "concept" of "dog" as understood and
used among humans would disappear, but the biological patterns that we refer to
as "dog" would not cease to exist. Indeed, said "dogs" would still be very much
aware of themselves, and continue to feel hunger and pain and pleasure. Micah
has instead opted for a complete anthropomorphic idealism where "reality" is
dependent on "human measurement". And to back this up, all he does is repeat a
phrase. But, hey, I'll back out of this. Have fun.