--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Antonio Rossin <[email protected]> wrote:
Georges,
In your writing below, you did not explain what the
concept "Reification" stands for, even though you've
put it clear how we language users do use it, to wit,
as a linguistic shortcut.
So, let's try to define the concept "Reification" first
of all, before going on.
A Reification (R) is a unquestionable piece, or a still
unquestioned piece, of human language.
In terms of Dialectics:
R is any statement having not been antithesized still.
Which implies that every statement is a thesis, and
that every thesis lacking of its antithesis becomes R.
Accordingly, not to let your writing remain a R, let me
question it, i.e. antithesize it, the best I can. To do so,
I'm inserting a comment of mine into your text.
================
G:
Reification has been defined about hundred times in our lists, as well
as by Kotarbinski etc., as exporting abstractions to reality and
populating it with Loves, Masses, Probabilities and Riemann Tensors.
It's obviously in this sense that I use it and my post, whether right
or wrong does not need redefinitions of clearly defined and universally
known philosophical concepts.
Reification has nothing to do with any ruddy pseudo-dialectics and
your "antithesizings" are off topic and will not be commented.
I shall not read nor answer any "redefinitions" of reification.
Cheers anyway
Georges
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
