.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

You ask :

1. « Does "Banjo Paterson" think that other belief's such as Hinduism, and paranormal Buddhist teachings, as well as the unscientific elements of communism should be considered primitive and be destroyed under these auspice's ? »
.

I think you have in mind my penultimate post in which I wrote :

« Tylor and Frazer both foresee that as civilisations advance from religious reasoning to scientific reasoning, religion will eventually die out, as science can offer more rational explanations to those existential questions »

While that does seem plausible to me, I think it might take an eon or two for the process to be completed.
.

2. « Do we just follow Aristotle's view that all idea's need to be tested to be true- and reject Plato's abstraction ? »

I see no reason to believe that they are necessarily contradictory.

I understand that the classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle who set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and treated compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

He posited that if a hypothesis is thought to be true, but a subsequent empirical investigation does not demonstrate that it is, then it may be concluded that the hypothesis is false.

As for Plato’s so-called abstraction, I have the impression that there is no consensus among philosophers as to exactly what he meant by the term “abstract objects”.

According to the OED the adjective “abstract” means :

« denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object »

That sounds like “imagination” to me, in which case, perhaps Plato means “imagined objects” – such as the unique design of a building imagined by an architect before he puts pen to paper.

However, as it seems Plato did not offer a clear definition of what he meant by “imagined objects”, I suspect he might have been just floating a trial balloon to test the reaction of his colleagues in the philosophical community at the time – keep them guessing.

.

Yuyutsu,

They're all inter-connected threads of the same tapestry.
As the title tells you - "Religious freedom - Or the
right to discriminate?"

Dear Foxy,

«They're all inter-connected threads of the same tapestry.
As the title tells you - "Religious freedom - Or the
right to discriminate?"»

Sorry, but I fail to see a connection between religious freedom (+discrimination), and these newly-introduced issues of equality, injustice, homosexuality or racism.

Could you please elabourate?

Yuyutsu,

No. My posts are quite clear.

Dear Foxy,

«No. My posts are quite clear.»

Your posts may be clear, but they do not address such alleged connections.

---

Well Everyone Else,

Foxy seems unable to demonstrate a connection between religion and/or discrimination on the one hand and inequality, injustice, homosexuality and racism on the other.

Is anyone else here interested in trying to give it a go?

Yuyutsu,

I've already given it a go.

Go back and read my posts.

I can't be held responsible for your inability to
see the connection.

Arguing with you does not interest me.