Theos-Talk Archives (January 2006 Message tt00195)

Daniel,

It should be obvious to you that a historian and a philosopher will have 
different understandings of what constitutes knowledge and truth. I will 
point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
and ask you to refresh your memory about something which you probably 
already know. Pay particular attention to "a priori vs a posteriori" 
knowledge, if you will. If your purpose is to understand what I have 
written about Olcott's testimony, I believe that this review of definitions 
will help you to achieve your own understanding without any further help 
from me.

If, however, your goal is something other than a desire to understand my 
perspective in the context in which it was given, then I will need you to 
share a bit of your own perspective. For instance, when Olcott says, 
"What I have seen and experienced is, therefore, very satisfactory to 
myself,
though mainly valueless to others" how do you justify presenting what he 
said as though it should have some significant value to others? He told you 
it was mainly valueless.

If you will answer the questions you asked me from your own perspective, we 
can begin a dialogue. If you do not wish to share your perspective on your 
own questions, then, as a philosopher, I do not choose to be interrogated by 
a historian for interrogation's sake.


peace,


bill