I always took it we are mates Nom - so I can say your paranoia knows bounds! Mind's Eye hasn't changed much. I don't take you for a fool. The slap in the face with a wet fish doesn't survive the sophist rationalisation - but argument such as this never stops adherents evading wet fish. The Greeks realised arguments plural can always be made. Their resolution through 'suspended judgement' doesn't work. Nominal in finance means : Describing a variable that does not take inflation into account. For example, when considering GDP growth, if GDP has grown 10% in nominal terms and the inflation rate is 3%, real GDP growth is only 7%.
Radioactive half-life is supposed invariable - but we think it does with our distance from the Sun - suggesting a particle - the neutrello (I forget exactly). You and I could get on the track of it if we learned the accounting procedures. Philosophy seems to have little to do with letting 20 ton weights fall on you from a great height because you don't believe in reality. Colour turned out not to be primary, but shorthand for subjective appreciation of frequency (my brother is colourblind). We used to have arguments about colour until he did O level physics. I would guess more protons are close to identical than me and Chaz - but given the scale maybe they aren't as simialr as we think? Perhaps some have freckles? I doubt nominalism or tropical fish realism defines either of us or is worth a rat's arse. On 26 Nov, 17:41, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Here I am... scatter minded as usual... I meant to say Aristotles' square > of opposition....but you know > thathttp://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 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.
