Dear list:
Oh, I now remember who asked to be informed when he was acting a nominalist. For nominalists do this: “The Nominalists flatly denied the existence of anything but the concrete. For them, a universal name was in itself a mere “flatus voices”, according to Ockam’s famous expression; it had no meaning except when applied to its singulars… It had to stand for a singular object, an individual man or being, “But then,” said the *Universalists, “if it stands for only one individual, you must know who he is, when you say, He is a thief, as usual in such sentences. If you do not know, and deny that it stands for somebody in general, the sentences becomes a jumble of words, without any meaning. To put their attack into somewhat more modern language than the crabbed form of the text: If you say, “Socrates is an animal and it is an ass,” you mean that the universal “Animal” is replaced by it. But suppose you substitute vertebrate for animal; the sense of it is at once altered. Substitute mammal; the sense varies again. Thus we have an endless series of different significations given to it, each of them more concrete, yet none ever reaching the ultimate limit of individuality. This would be the ruin of all science; for we could never draw any inference from the universal to its singulars; and between each of these it’s there could be found or imagined room for an infinite multitude of others. These constantly changing significations would destroy the possibility of deduction… We can never conclude that A is this singular individual man.” ~ Johannis Wyclif, *Tractatus de logica*, Volume 2 Hth, Jerry R On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Jon: > > From my perspective, the question posed to you was intelligible to an > undergraduate. > > You describe yourself as > "Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman”. > > If you do not want to answer this question about your beliefs, simply say > you do not want to answer. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > I am still not following you. Are you suggesting that meanings are always > singular, never general? What makes dictionaries possible if everyone's > "literal meanings" of the same terms are (or could be) completely > different, just because we are different individual people? For that > matter, what makes communication of any kind possible if that is the case? > And why would I be "especially" able to "make reasonable projections" about > the consequences of my writings when they concern "science" or > "technology"? Is it just because I am an engineer? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < > jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > >> List: >> >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone >> else's, or from the "generic meaning"? >> >> In more than 20 years of posting to List serves, this is among the most >> surprising responses I have ever received. >> >> My response is simple, Jon. >> >> Because you are you and not me. >> Logically, the antecedent of your writings is you. The consequences of >> your writings are totally beyond your control, although, from time to time, >> you may make reasonable projections, especially if it concerns “science” or >> “technology”. >> >> This is, literally, a foundational property of reading anything, and, >> especially, CSP. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
