I am glad you raised the subject of senses, in buddhism the calculation of
actual senses within the mortal vehicle is 6 but, of course, that is not the
end I submit this article for consideration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana. I am interested in how it compares
with a nominalists viewpoint.
-----Original Message-----
From: nominal9
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:44 PM
To: Epistemology
Subject: [epistemology 12116] Re: OT For joke lovers
So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of
Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing
specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every
observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which
the
observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there
exists a
diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even
if the
observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The
appearance
of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the
observation, creating the appearance of identical results.
Nominalism is a bit "shy" about granting any actual standing to
"universals".... beginning Scholasticism dealt in "universals"... then
came along William of Ockham... the "first" nominalist....(more or
less... mostly more)....
Anyway, Ockham says tht Universals do not actually "exist" in
reality... but that they are, at best, "abstracted thoughts" regarding
very similar (in many Physical senses "clone" identical) particular
things..... Ockhams' greatest contribution to Nominalism (to my
thinking) was distinguishing between levels of "Intention"... First
and Second....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention
First intention
(Logic) a conception of a thing formed by the first or direct
application of the mind to the individual object; an idea or image;
as, man, stone.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Second+intention
Second Intention (Logic) a conception generalized from first
intuition or apprehension already formed by the mind; an abstract
notion; especially, a classified notion, as species, genus, whiteness.
Universals are... second intentions....
As to your observations about "appearance"... that smacks of what I
used to hear was called the "fallibilist" argument... which pretty
much amounts to the assertion that "one" can't trust one's own
senses....
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fallibilist
Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the
philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in
principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that
absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal
doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce,
John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on
foundationalism.
However, it is already present in the views of some ancient
philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato.
In fact, it had a such a direct philosphical relationship with
Pyrrhonistic Skepticism, that Pyrrhonists of history are sometimes
referred to as fallibilists, and modern fallibilists as Pyrrhonists.[1]
[2]
Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory
of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions.
Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack,
among other things, the distinction between analytic and synthetic
statements.
Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our
knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for
what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical
knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we
take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some
fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true
(such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain
fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these
axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of
error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans
Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty,
even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen
Trilemma.
Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal
infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based
arguments.
My quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or
other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your
eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other
senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you
can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual
"knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant)....
make a big to-do about it.....
On Jun 8, 12:53 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
Hmm. I'm glad that we can agree to refrain from combat. Verbal jousting
becomes tedious after repetition.
So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of
Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing
specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every
observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the
observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a
diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if
the
observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The
appearance
of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the
observation, creating the appearance of identical results. However, the
need
to go about one's business makes this irrelevant and a satisfactory
performance of one's tasks can be attained by merely a casual glance at
most
observables, with the observation filed away along with similar inaccurate
observations in one's memory. If some problem results due to that casual
approach to life, then and only then do *I* take a closer look to see what
went awry...
I guess that you could say that I am superciliously superficial, shallow
even...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:23:25 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:
> I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I
> prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or
> points of argument...
> No need to get personal with me... unless you want to.....
> I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians
> are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians
> like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true
> Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer
> individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment
> on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously....
> Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism...
> Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on
> epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take
> variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I
> think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I
> dislike about them....
> Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting
> "personal"....
> On Jun 8, 11:23 am, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/sYe16Qq5iTA
> > Perhaps you should read at the link above. I despise authoritarianism.
> > My
> > desires for government power border upon anarchy. I have been on the
> > internet since 1997, active in 2001, 2007, 2010 until now. I dropped
> > in
> on
> > epistemology early this year, where I have contributed my bombast from
> time
> > to time. If we are to engage in a flame war, then let's confine it to
> this
> > thread, since the pathetic sight of otherwise reasonable persons
> > slinging
> > mud and feces will be in context...
> > Lonnie Courtney Clay
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:56:37 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:
> > > Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly
> > > politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in a
> > > gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior
> > > and
> > > refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque....
> > > PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the
> > > locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of taking
> > > a
> > > hike....
> > > On Jun 7, 10:14 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Yep, she is a Titan, though definitely not of intellect. You on
> > > > the
> other
> > > > hand appear to be a mite, exerting all of your might (utterly
> negligible)
> > > in
> > > > an attempt to derail clean (more or less) humor onto the tracks of
> > > political
> > > > dissent. That won't work (because I consider politics beneath
> > > > notice)
> due
> > > to
> > > > the entire topic being suffused with emotions which positively
> > > > ooze
> > > > testosterone, with very little concealing perfume or deodorant.
> > > > Take
> a
> > > hike,
> > > > or joust here, as you please.
> > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:28:51 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote:
> > > > > Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks
> > > > > Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt Crack....
> > > > > On May 28, 12:54 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/ckETvke2mOE
> > > > > > Has some of my original jokes. Want more?
> > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
