Not REALLY, if "a REAL nominalist" simply means that there is "NON-REAL nominalist" or "PSEUDO-nominalist".
Sorry for taking your humor too seriously. Sung > A nominalist in name only would be a nominal nominalist. > But a real nominalist would be a contradiction in terms. > > Checkmate ... > > Jon > > Benjamin Udell wrote: >> >> So the question is, again, do you think that numbers can be objectively >> investigated as numbers? - such that (individually, biologically, etc.) >> various intelligences, proceeding from the same assumptions, would reach >> the same conclusions. If you do think so, then you are a nominalist or >> anti-realist in name only. >> > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
