On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>> judgement"). In contrast, ehird appears to be arguing for, and Goethe
>>> against, non-literal interpretation of what had already happened ("X
>>> actually did happen"). That's an accepted part of the culture of some
>>> nomics (e.g. the FRC), but not this one.
>>
>> You mean Goethe for, ehird against?
>
> No, I don't. I may be misunderstanding the nature of the argument,
> though, hence the "appears to be" disclaimer.
It was ehird who said: ""X was intended therefore X is what is true"
is so awfully against
any spirit of Nomic that I can't even begin to comprehend it.", and
Goethe who let the spirit of a contract influence eir inquiry
(proto-)judgement. (But pardon me if I myself misunderstand.)
