Jeff, List: I think that you have put your finger on the key question. What exactly does it mean to say that a general is real (or not)? Alternatively, since generality is logically the same as continuity (RLT 190), what exactly does it mean to say that a continuum is real (or not)?
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon S, Mike, List, > > Before trying to address metaphysical questions, why not start with some > semiotic questions. Let's start with two simple conceptions: > > 1. Quarter Horse > 2. Unicorn > > What sorts of answers seem to follow if we consider the different kinds of > relations that hold between objects, signs and interpretants and ask: in > what sense are we dealing with a general that is or isn't real in some > respect? > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354
----------------------------- 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 .
