2009/8/28 David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com>:

> Well, I don't think that it is just words, but it can be difficult to
> see this because of the heavy freight of association carried by the
> standard vocabulary.  At root, if one doesn't intuit the 'personal'
> (in the most general sense - e.g. Bruno's sense of the 0-personal) as
> a) ontological and b) uniquely so, one is still unconsciously
> categorising in terms of Descartes' two substances, however the
> vocabulary masks this.  But perhaps this is what you mean by "just
> words"?

Is functionalism monism, property dualism, or might it even be a form
of substance dualism? Can a materialist honestly be a monist or is he
just a dualist in denial?

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to