It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by schuyler
Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
This thread is an oxymoron.
I hear you. It's also a logical fallacy called "No true Scotsman."
The use of the term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking
When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".
So I although I agree with the OP that we have a part of us that can inhabit a different realm and astral travel, which is still exciting to me, claiming to be "truly" enlightened probably is evidence that you are not. Even if I could perform astral travel with impunity I don't think I would call myself enlightened. I think it is mistaking knowledge for wisdom.
edit on 6/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)