Thread: JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00063.html ET:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00064.html JR:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00065.html CG:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00066.html JR:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00067.html KM:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00068.html
Edwina, Jerry, Clark, Kirsti, list, Thanks, all, for the responses. I'm still looking for better terms than “essentialism” or “ontologism” to explain the problem that I'm seeing here. Essentialism is not the same thing as Platonism or any realism about supra-individual entities. I personally don't have any objection to realism about Platonic Forms or Ideas, maybe because I'm doing most of my thinking in mathematical forms, where Pythagoras rules. The problem I'm trying to point out has to do with the excessive or even exclusive reliance on monadic predicates applied to putative individuals to describe everything. In many ways, then, the kind of essentialism or ontologism I'm talking about has the same defects as nominalism, because it falls into the same lack of critical reflection about individuals and fails to take the reality of supra-individual entities or relations into account. Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
