[betty boop]

This a a lot of baloney. This is not philosophy; this is sophistry. There's nothing to say about it, because he has said nothing. There are many modes of nihilism; this one is the nihilism of abusing philosophical language to feign the appearance of philosophy, whilst saying nothing. On the left, Foucault; on the right, Voegelin.

I can't tell you how sorry I am that you feel that way, maro. I have this eerie feeling that your critique of Voegelin's critique is coming straight out of a Second Reality...where perchance you have chosen to hole yourself up for the duration....

For the record I note you did not engage any point of V's analysis on substance, merit, technical adequacy, evidence, etc. Instead, you went straight for the ad hominum attack.

Where I come from, this usually is considered to be the sign of a weak argument.

[cornelis]

does it follow that Aristotelian and Thomist metaphysics must be thrown on the scrap heap of symbolisms that once had their moment of truth but now have become useless?

You will have anticipated that the answer will be negative. To be sure, a large part of the symbolism has become obsolete, but there is a solid core of truth in it that can be, and must be, salvaged by means of some surgery….

The lover of wisdom always has a face, and this is one of respect. If I had a language . . .

[maro]

ad hominem. Homo, hominis, third declension. Accusative singular ends in "em."