Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LizardWizard" data-source="post: 1606650" data-attributes="member: 16433">2 Kaleon Moonshae:Whew, thanks for such a lengthy and well-considered reply!!!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Yeah, I understand that such paradoxes are intentionally off-beat and have little to do with real-life situations, but some are quite odious, because they demonstrate the flaws of such method of thinking. They do stimulate cogitation, but at the same time they can lead one's thought into overly abstract areas -- so abstract, in fact, that the very process of thinking becomes meaningless.Real-world scholastics helped develop human reasoning, but too often did it concern itself with really peripheral and weird matters. Apart from this God and mountain paradox, scholasts discussed such themes as "Could the Lord assume the form of a pumpkin to spread His word, and could the pumpkin preach, die on a cross and raise from the dead?" and the well-known "How many angels/devils can sit on the edge of a knife/point of a pin?"It may look like nit-picking, but such way of making questions about the world is overly metaphysical. Personally, I would try to solve dilemmas of this kind on case-by-case basis.</blockquote>