> Tuukka: > An example of an abstract noun is: "bravery". This noun has the property > of being the opposite of "cowardice". This is kindergarten stuff. > > Ron: > "Bravery" is not relative to a particular experience, as say a concrete noun > like "strawberry" is. > This IS the context of your term "relativizably" . That the term is > predicated on a concrete > relative meaning. One that is relative to a particular experience that most > all may agree to. > Abstract nouns do not have a corresponding relative experience and are not > agreed apon > and are mostly subjective in meaning. What is brave to you may not be brave > to another. > This is 2nd grade stuff. > Consequently Tuuka, when one uses concrete nouns in logical strings of > meaning they bear > a consistancy while abstact nouns do not. THATS why they are not used in > analytical philosophy > not because they are not "allowed" but because they yield inconsistancies in > meaning.
Tuukka: If we are determining, whether a predicate is used nonrelativizably, it is irrelevant whether it looks like an abstract or a concrete noun. Nonrelativizability is not a property of a predicate, but a property of the way in which it is used. Ron: That is what I'm trying to get accross about nouns and how they are used as subjects. A predicate is that which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition. Abstract nouns, being the subject of a proposition, arenotoriously difficult to affirm because it is not relative to a concrete particular. This is what you are basicly saying about your personal term "relativizability". Tuuka, I apologize for coming off snarky, but it does not seem we are able to string together a meaningful dialog together. I'm going to have to back out of it for now. .thnx 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
