Thanks. I didn't mean to imply your 'own' to mean idiosyncratic, just that the
definition was different from that of many others here. I think you mean
objective vs subjective (realist vs nominalism) whereas my understanding is
that realism refers to generals/universals/laws that are real but not
individually existential (while your real objects are individually
existent)...and nominalism refers to a denial of such universals and considers
universals merely linguistic/conceptual constructs.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Pattee
To: Edwina Taborsky ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7934] Re: Natural Propositions:
At 03:32 PM 1/17/2015, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Howard, I think that possibly, you are using your own definition of
'realism' rather than the one many of us use; we've been through this
difference before.
HP: As I said, I agree with the SEP Realism discussion.
My main point, however, is that an ideological or exclusive commitment to one
or another epistemology is a case of "blocking the path of inquiry." Reality is
complex and requires complementarity in its multiple models.
Howard
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
