|
"Read that post closer. The omniscient horse was only the first part of my counter-objection. The second part dealt with a horse exemplifying horse-ness."
As I said, I was nit-picing. I felt that the "most perfect horse" example was flawed, especially when it was extended by the idea that the "most perfect horse" would possess all perfections. I was perfectly aware of the "horseness" portion of the argument, just felt that the extension of the logic was not quite right. Again, I said I was being nit-picky.
|