I think, though, that I would generally discount the second way. That is, as your example, Scalia may have been dedicated to his beliefs, but it would not have been Democracy. I can't think of any class set that would allow the second potentiality.
But yes, even in the first case, there is possibility for reasonable disagreement, and one should not be cast out of hand without having their argument tested. However, even in this case, an argument, and hence position, is either correct or erroneous, and thus they either Are or Are Not, based on pre-set parameters of what Is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-09 06:45 pm (UTC)I think, though, that I would generally discount the second way. That is, as your example, Scalia may have been dedicated to his beliefs, but it would not have been Democracy. I can't think of any class set that would allow the second potentiality.
But yes, even in the first case, there is possibility for reasonable disagreement, and one should not be cast out of hand without having their argument tested. However, even in this case, an argument, and hence position, is either correct or erroneous, and thus they either Are or Are Not, based on pre-set parameters of what Is.