Le 13-sept.-06, à 09:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> 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
> (3) Concrete instances (eg specific Chair)
> Only (1) is real. (2) and (3) are cognitive interpretations or
> constructs. True yes?
To be short: yes.
I could introduce nuances, but this is because I have already a utterly
precise theory. So I prefer to refer you to my papers instead, or to my
past, present, and future posts here. The risk of being precise too
early would be that we could easily be driven into useless
Just to be a little less short I would say that (1) and (2) are closer
than it seems to be with your phrasing. And then (3) refer to empirical
existence which is indeed a cognitive construct or an internal
i-person view or hypostase (assuming comp, bla-bla-bla ...). Concrete
objects or apparent tokens are just relative types.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at