I ran across this work, and find an interesting discussion, starting with a fairly roundabout way to show what a first, undeniable principle or truth — branch on which we all must sit stuff — is like:: Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement. [p. 33] So, next, we have another roundabout way of summarising duties/oughts as universally prefer-ABLE behaviour: The proposition before us is thus: can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal? When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean Read More ›

as, it is worthy of further consideration (which is not the same as an endorsement). I headline a comment: [[Kojonen develops his case further: I will . . . argue in this book that the teleological order of biological organisms can still, in a rationally permissible way, be understood as a sign of the divine reality, even in an evolutionary cosmos. [ –> a if not necessarily the main thesis] . . . . According to [American Botanist, Asa] Gray (1860), evolution actually “leaves the question of design just where it was before,” because the biological design argument does not in any way depend on whether God created living organisms directly, through miracles, or through a secondary cause such as Read More ›