Comments on the book Unstable Truth

Hello, I spoke with you at the Beit Midrash Between Times about two months ago, after the class (on biblical criticism in general). I mentioned there that I had some minor comments about inaccuracies in the book “Truth and Unstable.” Here are some of them that I now remember from the distance:
1. On page 70 you wrote in parentheses “(for if he had assumed [the requested -n.], he would have been valid)” – but this is not accurate. There are arguments that assume the requested and are not valid:
Assumption: P implies Q
Conclusion 1: P (not valid!)
Conclusion 2: P entails Q (the trivial use of the desired assumption)
In defense of the sentence you used, we can say that we assume intelligence of the other side (chivalry?) and therefore simply ignore the invalid conclusion. But it is still an error (which is certainly petty for a comment on my part, but worth correcting).

2. On page 222 you claim that the argument about a particular idea “indicates … a kind of being (idea) with essential characteristics” – but the argument does not indicate the existence of ideas (does not strengthen Plato’s side), but rather indicates the existence of ideas in our consciousness, and Aristotle would also agree with that, wouldn’t he?

3. On page 223 you wrote “When there is a distant object, there may also be an argument about the appearance of the eyes, and it is still clear that one is right and the other is wrong” – not accurate, there are such arguments in which both sides are obviously wrong. It would be accurate to say that *at least one is wrong*.

As you might have guessed, I am writing this reference after reading up to page 223… Unfortunately, I found several more such examples, but I did not write them down and did not have the strength to address each and every one.

thanks,