![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ramblin_rosieWhy does every other project seem more interesting at the moment than the midterm that's due at 12:30 tomorrow?
Humbug.
EDIT: Twoooo o'cloooock an' awwwwwwll's wayulllllll... that is to say, FINITO!
Now I just have to slog through John Duns Scotus. XP
EDIT #2: Okay, Duns Scotus is WAY more complicated than Aquinas, even though (at least in this excerpt) he makes the same point. But this just made me laugh:
When it is argued that, "If there is no truth, it is true that there is no truth," the consequence does not hold, because truth is taken either for the basis of truth in the thing, or for truth in the intellectual act of composition and division, but if there is no truth, it is not true that there is no truth, either by the truth of the thing, because there is no thing, or by truth in the intellect, since there is no intellect.
It's "The Suicide of Thought"! :D
Humbug.
EDIT: Twoooo o'cloooock an' awwwwwwll's wayulllllll... that is to say, FINITO!
Now I just have to slog through John Duns Scotus. XP
EDIT #2: Okay, Duns Scotus is WAY more complicated than Aquinas, even though (at least in this excerpt) he makes the same point. But this just made me laugh:
When it is argued that, "If there is no truth, it is true that there is no truth," the consequence does not hold, because truth is taken either for the basis of truth in the thing, or for truth in the intellectual act of composition and division, but if there is no truth, it is not true that there is no truth, either by the truth of the thing, because there is no thing, or by truth in the intellect, since there is no intellect.
It's "The Suicide of Thought"! :D
