It just serves my imagination to think of you on a white horse with a long spear Nom, though perhaps the Glaswegian razor fits better with Occam. Tropical fish realism only goes so far and I doubt any of us are really philosophical, as you know. No realism works without a load of "adjustment". I currently like defeasible reasoning, which at least gives up on 'all swans are white' after a visit to a place with a black swan.
On Monday, 26 May 2014 03:09:11 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: > > 'Sir Nominal' ?.... hardly.... I'm just a peon.... or an aspiring > "bomb-throwing Anarchist", HAR. > > I get your point about the "courage" quotient of the so-called political > rightt as compare to th political left. Can you explain it? Why is there an > apparent necesary condition imposed that in order to be of the political > left, "one" must renounce use of force? > > Epistemology, I've made my mind up...As you probably have, as well, > Archytas. There is a difference between a Nominalist like me and a Tropical > Fish Realist like you... I think I explained it to you. You and I differ as > to the nature" of the Conceptus... i.e., the Idea,or the "mind-product"... > a Nominalist holds the Conceptus is Subjective.... whereas a Realist > holds the Conceptus to be Objective.... I would say that Both Nominalist > and Realist agree that the Res... i.e., the Physical Matter is Objective . > > I would hope that some day I could convince you otherwise, as to the > "nature" of Ideas.... but, that's up to you to decide.... Maybe if I ask > you to at least look into the possibility and study the question a bit > more "empirically" (and not so much analitically) you might see the > difference. Personally... I have never met a circle....etc. HAR > > I've been discussng the Ukraine issue on that other board... RevForum... > any opinions that you would like to offer on that topic? > > > On Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > >> Thatcher wasn't amiable Sir Nominal. More of a not very good looking >> tart at a poorly attended stag party. There are few places to actually >> speak freely. For historic reasons I used to have a drink with the UKIP >> people and their conversation was much less constrained than in my local >> Labour club, with much more sensible discussion on racism and immigration - >> not nearly as snotty as the PC version that was being enforced. Odd. >> About one in three UKIP members then seemed to be ex-Spitfire pilots. >> Hard to think of anyone who stood up to the Hun like that as a bigot. >> >> I've been thinking of an epistemology based on working one's way out of a >> trance. It's pretty clear most of what we get told is rot - even the >> science I was taught at school turned out to be simplistic and half-baked. >> And there's lots of history like those nasty Germans being responsible for >> world wars we ;heroes' had to fix. Is that as true as Julius Caesar >> invading Britain in 53BC (a lie to puff JC) or 1066 being the last invasion >> of England by foreign troops (so explain the battle of Lincoln in 1217 >> against the French), or the rousing speech of Good Queen Bess promising to >> fight with the heart and soul of a man several days after the fighting was >> over and leaving the poor sods who'd seen off the Spaniards to starve >> without pay? I'm a bit iffy about working up from the Planck level on such. >> >> On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 20:36:13 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Epistemology is important, it is not just theoretical discussion, it is >>> reflected in things we think and do, and its implications reverberate in >>> daily life. >>> >>> Some people may like certain political or religious dogmas, or they may >>> set certain principles and present them as truth. Whatever drives them, >>> they don't want certain things to be discussed. >>> >>> Sadly, only a few people appear willing to discuss things here. I am not >>> sure why this is the case. It may be a technology issue. Google has taken >>> little effort to improve the functionality and features of groups over the >>> past few years. The same thing appears to occur at other places, such as >>> Yahoo. Yet, social media such as Facebook and Twitter are thriving and have >>> seen enormous growth. Google has responded with Google+, but I have not yet >>> seen much integration with groups. >>> >>> What do others think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sam Carana >>> >>> Cheers Sam Carana, >>> >>> ALL THE BEST TO YOU AND TO THIS GROUP.... This is better than "social >>> media", I think.... >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
