My dear Simplicimus:
When we are slandered, we answer kindly (I believe St. Paul said that). I did define "self-evident proposition," but perhaps you did not have ears to hear, in the words of Isaiah and your Lord and mine. I said it was a proposition which does not require an argument. Another definition is "a proposition whose truth is accepted as soon as its terms are understood." You do not complain that you do not understand the terms "exist," "nature," and "thing" in the proposition, "Whatever exists in nature must exist as a kind of thing." "Kind" is a troublemaker for you, and you claim that kind terms or sortals are constructions that we humans find useful for categorizing and organizing the world and in general making sense of what we encounter out there, presumably so we can make a better use of the world and meet our "seeming needs" (in Yeats's phrase) more efficiently. According to you, these kinds into which we place things are at bottom arbitrary, that is, devised for purposes we determine according to whatever standard we wish to adopt, purposes therefore which we could have determined far otherwise than in fact we did.

Now I submit, fellow Christian, that you do not believe that all or even most sortals are human constructions, arbitrary or otherwise. "Orchard," for instance, is a quite different sortal from "apple tree." Orchards and the term which identifies them are the product of human intervention in the course of nature. You cannot go to an orchard and investigate it to find out more about what makes it an orchard. You can, however, go to what you have already identified as an apple tree and investigate it and others of its kind and discover properties of apple trees and apples which you did not previously know existed. Why are you able to do this? Because apples and the trees they grow on are natural kinds, kinds with natures which are not completely known to us but which exist independently of our perceptions, understanding, and categorizations; and which an investigation can therefore reveal more about to us.

Other than Jesus, what has existed in nature (existed in the world of space and time accessible to the senses) which has not belonged to a kind, whether natural or artificial? I swum the Tiber in my mother's womb, but for yourself you need to answer this question. The fate of the Counter-Reformation hangs on your answer.

Simplicimus responds:

D, two procedural points (I address the substance in the post below on "Self-Evident Propositions?")

First, I did not intend to slander you: I did not see (still don't) where you'd previously defined the term "self-evident proposition". However, I certainly acknowledge that you provided a definition (two statements of it) in this post, so we now have something to start working with.

Second, it will be much easier for everyone who may wish to follow this discussion, if you'd put your posts into the "Self-Evident Propositions?" thread. I assume that you've been creating new posts because you do not want your points to get lost as comments below the fold. The way to get past that problem is to edit the existing thread of "Self-Evident Propositions?" You do that (once you've signed in, same as you did to make a new post) by clicking on the pencil (or crayon, or whatever "kind" of thing the icon is supposed to be) at the bottom of the post.

Unless you object, I propose to delete both of your most recent posts (as separate posts) because I have copied them for you into the thread "Self-Evident Propositions?" If you would find that objectionable, please let me know.

Regards,
Simplicimus

Good Simplicmus,
I was unable to follow your directions on my most recent post because I did not see a pencil at the bottom of your response.

Pseudo Dionysus