AF,
Since the discussion board suffered some kind of malfunction yesterday, I got behind on some responses. But I wanted to address the first part of your post for now.
:::First let's have a little lighthearted fun with Dummy:
I hope you were just having fun. Otherwise, you have shown that you do not know what you are talking about once again.
::: Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum.:
:: I think that should be "Quod erat demonstrandum."
:Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from a severe learning disability.
You also appear to think that pointing out a possible small error in Latin grammar amounts to a refutation of a mass of solid quotations. But you learned that sucking at Mommy's tits, didn't you.:
If you cannot get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters? Let us take care of this problem first. Besides a number of dictionaries and writers verifying my use of "Quod erat demonstrandum" (N.B. the gerundive), I found some handy sources on the web that I will now submit. From http://robin.hartshorne.net/QED.html:
The flamboyant Oronce Fine (1544) uses no less than 24 different expressions to end the proofs of the 48 propositions of Book I. Among these, our
quod erat demonstrandum with the gerundive expressing obligation or necessity, appears twice. Some of his other phrases are
quod fuerat ostendendum
quod faciendum susceperamus
quod demonstrandum fuerat
quod expediebat demonstrare
quod demonstrare fuerat operaepretium
quod faciendum proposueramus
And:
By the time of Clavius (3rd ed. 1591),
quod erat faciendum, and
quod erat demonstrandum
have become predominant, still with other formulae mixed in, such as
quod demonstrandum proponebatur.
Isaac Barrow (1678; first published 1655) who introduced many symbols into his proofs, also introduced abbreviations of proof endings after the first occurrence, and limits himself to these four:
quod erat faciendum (subsequently Q.E.F. )
quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D.)
quod fieri nequit (Q.F.N.)
quod est absurdum (Q.E.A.).
From another website ( http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.math/problems/morgan20.html), we read:
Date: 9/21/95 at 9:57:26
From: Doctor Sarah
Subject: Re: math
Q.E.D. : quod erat demonstrandum
The origin of this expression is to be looked for in Euclidean geometry. The pattern of Euclid's demonstrations is usually: (a) the statement of an axiom (e.g. the sum of angles in any triangleis always 180 degrees); (b) a rational demonstration to corroborate this statement, and, finally,(c) a re-statement of the proposition enunciated in (a). In order to put a seal on his demonstration, Euclid finishes with the statement, "this was to be demonstrated." (Of course in Greek.)Medieval geometers habitually translated this as "quod erat demonstrandum" as a sign that they had proved what they had set out to prove. In the 17th century the Dutch Jewish rationalist philosopher, Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677), set out to write a treatise on ethics (_Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata_) in which he proved various moral propositions in a geometric manner. Like Euclid, he wrote "quod erat demonstrandum," abbreviated Q.E.D., as a seal upon his proof of each ethical proposition.Thanks to Martin Ostwald, Professor Emeritus of Classics, Swarthmore College, for this answer.
:In the post "Re: TO DUNSSCOT Aug 11, 2001 10:37:38 AM" Dummy replied to :
another poster:
<< : I, for one, find Alan's writings to be clear, well-reasoned, and accurate.
AF is admittedly an intelligent man. I will give him that. He can write in a clear fashion as well. But most of his reasoning is not clear and he evidently does not comprehend either Standard or non-standard English too well. But we cannot excel in every field, can we? :-) Furthermore, methinks that in this case, accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. If you think his handling of the 3/15/90 WT material was accurate, there ism not really much that I can do for you. If you think he accurately represented Russell's comments earlier, then I goes Alvin C. Plantinga is correct when he writes about we infralapsarians being prone to noetic malfunction. >>
Now, I could focus on minor typing errors like Dummy's writing "there ism not really..." or "then I goes Alvin...", but I won't.:
By all means, please do, AF. Continue with your apophatic statements.
:What I will point out is that Dummy's last sentence is complete gobble-de-gook. An "infralapsarian" is "a term applied in the 17th century to Calvinists holding the view that God's election of some to everlasting life was consequent to his prescience of the Fall of man, or that it contemplated man as already fallen, and was thus a remedial measure" (The Oxford English Dictionary). Since Dummy is a 21st-century Jehovah's Witness, he certainly is not a 17th-century Calvinist, and so when he says anything at all about "we infralapsarians" he's talking gibberish.:
This statement again shows your complete lack of GNWSIS in matters pertaining to anything outside your narrow field of Being (Dasein). Those involved in the study of English literature often use the term "infralapsarian" to delineate certain narratives and theologians in general use such terminology. It is no longer restricted to 17th century Calvinism.
:Next note the completely screwed up logic in Dummy's last sentence (the phrase "noetic malfunction" is a pretentious way of saying "a breaking down of the mind"). He's attempting to show the other poster that my representation of Russell's comments was wrong, but instead of saying that, he says precisely the opposite, in effect, "If you think AlanF's right, then Plantinga was right in saying we 17th-century Calvinists are braindead." Good one, Dummy!:
Methinks you need to read Plantinga's material, if you want to know what "noetic structure" or "noetic malfunction" really means. You certainly cannot play the child's games of looking up "noetic," then looking up "malfunction" and expect to know what you are talking about, AF. Noetic malfunction is a terminus technicus. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
