On 9/18/10 11:57 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > Reification is represents my reasoning for labeling intellectual static > patterns of value a product of subject/object thinking. The 'reifying > carrots' thread I have presented many examples, primarily Buddhist, but also > others, explaining the process. Here is one such example:
In linguistics Main article: Abstraction (linguistics) Reification, also called hypostatization, might be considered a formal fallacy whenever an abstract concept, such as "society" or "technology" is treated as if it were a concrete object. In linguistics this is called metonymy, in which abstract concepts are referred to using the same sorts of nouns that signify concrete objects. Metonymy is an aspect of the English language and of other languages. It can blur the distinction between abstract and concrete things: 1805: Horatio Nelson (Battle of Trafalgar) - "England expects that every man will do his duty" [wikipedia] I guess basing one's general understanding of reality on a formal fallacy does have a certain boldness about it. Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
