|
" What to make of a theory of Existential Darwinism that's neither existentialist nor darwinist?"
I'd just call it ED, but he might object. No...i declare that things are done becuase the definitions being produced aren't usable in any real way. becuase my disagreement starts there, i can try to show where my assumptions differ. but with the language Mead is using, that's not really an option. Perfection is defined as the perfect. If this is questioned, he repeats the assertion.
So i say it's done. I'm not trying to be mean, but i just don't see an avenue for continuing the discussion in a meaningful manner.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|