Final Fantasy VII was an amazing and excellent video game on its own. One of the reasons why its so great is because of its ambiguous and vague ending. So, to Square(soft? Enix?):
STOP RUINING IT WITH ALL THESE SEQUALS.
I pretty much pretend that Advent Children didn’t happen and that Meteor destroyed the planet, taking humanity with it. Its better that way.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mandrake Zooms
- I study Philosophy at the University of Houston. My main interest is meta-ethics. I also enjoy reading philosophy of education, and political philosophy. For fun, I read Taoist classics, walk around listening to my ipod, ride my bicycle, and enjoy the company of my friends. In the future I would like to get my Masters in Philosophy and then attend law school. I plan to do non-profit work. I’m also sort of neurotic, so sorry ahead of time. But I’m working on it!
4 comments:
I should have been clearer.
I felt your question presupposed that all a priori statements are products of innate ideas. That is, related to the example with gadwall duck, there's absolutely no way the person could make the statement "That could not be a gadwall duck" unless his or her assessment of the matter were just post hoc.
It seems that referring to that statement as a priori runs counter to the exact nature of the example (just redefining the nature of the example itself without proper justification), thus, referring to it as such would turn it into a "meaning" case, which is exactly what was being contested by Dretske.
To make the statement a priori would imply that the statement came about from emergent knowledge from all the perceived variables (ducks, peoples' beliefs, etc). Right, a priori, if it were a priori--which is what is being argued by Dretske. No doubt, there's a strict relationship between ontological entities and a priori statements. Saying the statement is a priori makes us question how the two Dretske examples are of the same class.
I thought this was about Alternate Reality Games.
Oh, well.
Post a Comment