Frances to Cheerskep and others... There is admittedly a problem with words like "is" and "you" and "this" for example when used in discourse, but the cause of the problem may simply be the limits of lingual signs, rather than the wrongness of signers. There are after all many natural qualities that are signified by words which actually exist outside signs and signers. If a quality like "infinity" or "continuity" for example is held to be an ideal objective property of the world, then it will be real if it is sensed, and it therefore does exist independent of life and sense and mind and thought. The natural laws of mathematics furthermore are also objective phenomenal existents that are merely discovered accidently by humans. To the extent that there are some sensible empiric things that continue to exist in the world as qualities and laws external to sensible minds, then the rigid absolutism of notionalists and nominalists that there are no such things must be amended.
Cheerskep wrote... In a message dated 7/7/09 1:56:49 PM, [email protected] writes: > Yes, Cheerskep. Before you start typing, I did use the verboten verb, > "is." And I meant it. And I might do it again ... just because I can! > <g> And ditto with all those slithery terms, like "high," "important," > "significant," etc. Ah, you're a brave man, Brady! That "I meant it" is impressive. And "just because you can"! Powerful stuff -- or it is if you mean you will believe something just because you can! There are so many hobbled dullards who can't believe something without some of what they in their cramped fashion call "evidence". So do you also believe there ARE the mind-independent entities Bad luck, good luck, curses, grace, evil, heaven, hell, angels, the devil, miracles, essences, categories, qualities, relations, numbers, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, meanings, etc for starters? It does humble a chap to look upon so open-minded a fellow.
