Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > With those remarks what you say makes sense for me, > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Oh hurrah, then there is finally light at the end of the philosophic tunnel for me :D Trying to learn this stuff is just a matter of becoming a baby again... the baby just has to keep painfullly throwing himself at the stuff and after enough ga-ga-goo-goo sounds the baby finally starts to speak a few words that make sense. In other words: I need to study, study, study ;) Let me just test out what I think is the key point. It's this. Three ontologic levels: (1) Abstract entities of universal applicability (eg Math/number) (2) Abstract entities of limited applicability (eg Alphabet, Chair concept) (3) Concrete instances (eg specific Chair) Only (1) is real. (2) and (3) are cognitive interpretations or constructs. True yes? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
