Here I am... scatter minded as usual... I meant to say Aristotles' square
of opposition....but you know that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
On Monday, November 26, 2012 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote:
>
> Conceptus / Res... is the distinction that William of Ockham (maybe not
> the first to do so)....The definitions are pretty much true to modern
> day.... Concept/ Reference .... Idea / Matter... Mind /Body....Motivation
> / Action (for living "animal" sorts) and some others, perhaps.....
> now... a "universal" ... being a composite of separate individual "ideas"
> in the mind which are perhaps founded on separate observed references
> (or perhaps not)...the universal in and of itself has no objective
> substance... and therefore no "reality" per se (e.g. I know one man
> Archytas and I know another man Chazwin.... they are similar but not
> identical... I thing I'll call the "conceptual" similarities between the
> the "universal" man)....the same goes for abstract objects, e.g.
> properties, numbers, propositions, possible worlds"... they are all
> operations of the mind.... call them ideas or any of the other related
> terms I set forth above (Cocept, Mind, Motivation... etc), which is to
> say... all mental constructs... perhaps of conglomerations of separate
> experiences of real object "things (or perhaps not)....
> So of course when you say that nominalists deny the existence and thereby
> the reality of such universals and such.... well.... of course... you
> should say that they actually deny the "Objective physical existence" of
> such conglomerate mental constructs... the way I put it is that ideas,
> concepts and such have existence ("nonphysical") within the mind... nowhere
> else, per se....hence my motto.... I have never met a circle or its
> diameter, but your ass resembles them, like it or not your ass stinks.
> You should note that nominalists usually have no problem accepting the
> "physical" or real objective existence of the other side of the
> "split"....i.e., the Res...Reference....Matter.... Body.... Action.....all
> of which nominalists accept as "rock-solid"....just as I have no problem
> accepting the real or "physical" existence of Archytas and Chazwin.....I
> just don't see the two of you sharing in one and the same (identical)
> "real",as in physical body....
>
> It gets to a question of how one distributes (or defines) the
> "epistemological" terms of Subjective or Objective over the base "split"
> components of a "thinking" or "live" entity... such as an animal..... very
> broadly....a Realist views it as Conceptus(objective) / Res(
> objective)...... but an Idealist views it as Conceptus(subjective) /
> Res(subjective)..... a Nominalist views it as Conceptus(subjective) /
> Res(objective).... and a Phenomenologist view is as Conceptus(objective)/
> Res(subjective).....
>
> How have you been Archytas?.... well, I hope....Here we are, still
> treading the same epistemological ground....Think... "fours"... I keep
> trying to say... remember Plato's square of opposition... and switch out
> the "propositions" with sets of Conceptus / Res.... don't think
> ....identity.... think.....opposites....
>
> Democracy / Capitalism......contrary....Totalitarian / Socialism
>
>
> Democracy/ Socialism........contrary.....Totalitarian / Capitalism
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:21:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>
>> I would add Nom that nominalism, in both senses (there ate two forms),
>> is a kind of anti-realism. For one kind of Nominalism denies the
>> existence, and therefore the reality, of universals and the other
>> denies the existence, and therefore the reality, of abstract objects.
>> But what does Nominalism claim with respect to the entities alleged by
>> some to be universals or abstract objects, e.g. properties, numbers,
>> propositions, possible worlds? Here there are two general options: (a)
>> to deny the existence of the alleged entities in question, and (b) to
>> accept the existence of these entities but to argue that they are
>> particular or concrete. To the chemist, protons are not 'real' as
>> they are constructed and we can blow them apart. They and smaller
>> 'bricks' are just accounting devices. No doubt I always thought you
>> were in 'denial' mate!
>>
>> On 24 Nov, 16:36, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I think he is... but I wonder what self-proclaimed "realists" like
>> > Archytas, think? Locke was pretty close to being a nominalist,
>> > however....must have gotten it from his Oxford education... much as he
>> > reportedly disliked it's(Oxford's) classic bent.....
>> >
>> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/ZjS-zE0ncKIJ.
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.
