The largely one-sided dialogue with “Michel Paquerot” continues. In response to his previous inquiries as to whether his comments constituted enlightenment, I simply responded, “No. Anything enlightening requires more periods.”
I have since received two e-mails from him. On Tuesday, he simply wrote, “i wonder if such is the case inasmuch as interpretative labor may be enlightening”. (Normally I wouldn’t put the period outside the quotes, but I want to quote him exactly.) Then today, he wrote:
the first e-mail I sent can be given the following summary or rather analysis.Remember that we anted to argue that the empirical is the logical.The argument has two clauses.According to the first of these clauses for a theory of what is proof ( logic or epistemology )we can only adduce as empirical,proof that is truth-conditions.According to the second a theory is in every case a theory of what is proof or its own logic(epistemology).Taking into account the first clause we may infer what was to be argued for.I`d like a comment of what may be grossly said to be the content of the argument rather than such formalities as punctuation marks.
I’m not sure what my reply will be. Any suggestions?