On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:28 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Please quote me accurately. I didn't say "good and bad qualities." I
wrote, "such as qualities that can be evaluated as 'good' in a work"
and "The raw material that leads to 'good' and 'bad' predicates
reside
in the objects."
Michael, check your posting of 1:15 am on Feb 28. The following is a
copy-and-paste from that posting:
"I believe it is possible to speak of good and bad qualities in
things, and
these qualities are
independent of the perceiver's/interpreter's set of standards for such
things. They raw material that leads to "good" and "bad" predicates
reside in the objects, not exclusively in our heads."
Oops, Homer nodding.
But in my defense, I had already made the point that the qualities
"can be evaluated as 'good....'" And I reiterated it in the passage
you now quote, "raw materials that leads to 'good' and 'bad'
predicates..." And besides that, I said "it's possible *to speak of*
good and bad qualities," which are one's judgments of the kind of
quality, but the quality resides in the object.
It's a convenience of speech to call them "good and bad qualities,"
just like it's convenience to say that the work *is* X or Y, when one
has plainly laid out the caveats of instantiation, reification,
copulating verbs, etc.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
