On 09.09.2011 23:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 1:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 09.09.2011 21:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking
On 07.09.2011 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following:
OTOH, it is incoherent to say that the Universals = 'what the
nominals have in common' since we cannot prevent nominals that can
entirely contradict each other. A possible solution to this is to
consider how communication between
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I am
not sure if this could be generalized for all things). My first
naive/crazy idea was that this could give some basis to produce
qualia
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I am
not sure if this could be generalized for all things). My first
naive/crazy idea was that
On 09.09.2011 21:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I
am not sure if this could be generalized
On 9/9/2011 1:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 09.09.2011 21:58 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/9/2011 11:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2011 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I
On 9/6/2011 3:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Let me try it this way. Could we say that universals exist already in
the 3d person view and they are independent from the 1st person view?
Evgenii
On 06.09.2011 09:00 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 05 Sep 2011, at 21:02, Evgenii Rudnyi
On 06 Sep 2011, at 21:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Let me try it this way. Could we say that universals exist already
in the 3d person view and they are independent from the 1st person
view?
I think we can say that.
With the 'modern logic' approach we can bypass the middle-age problem
of
On 9/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does the existence of said universals act as a guarantor of the definiteness of the
properties of the universals? As I see it, existence per say is neutral, it is merely
the necessary possibility to be.
?? necessary possibility = necessity ??
On 05 Sep 2011, at 21:02, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I
guess that numbers could be probably considered as universals as
well). A simple example:
A is a person;
B is a person.
Does A is equal to B? The answer is no, A and B are
Let me try it this way. Could we say that universals exist already in
the 3d person view and they are independent from the 1st person view?
Evgenii
On 06.09.2011 09:00 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 05 Sep 2011, at 21:02, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I am not
sure if this could be generalized for all things). My first naive/crazy
idea was that this could give some basis to produce qualia related to
notation. Neurons somehow distill universals from things and report them.
On the
On 9/6/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I was talking about realism in a sense that universals exist (I am not sure if this
could be generalized for all things). My first naive/crazy idea was that this could give
some basis to produce qualia related to notation. Neurons somehow distill
Hi Evgenii,
On 04 Sep 2011, at 18:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A short remark. I have decided start with philosophy, as it is more
entertaining as mathematical logic.
I'm afraid you are wrong on this, with all my respect. Mathematical
logic is the most entertaining thing in the world
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I guess
that numbers could be probably considered as universals as well). A
simple example:
A is a person;
B is a person.
Does A is equal to B? The answer is no, A and B are after all different
persons. Yet then the question
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I guess that numbers
could be probably considered as universals as well). A simple example:
A is a person;
B is a person.
Does A is equal to B? The answer is no, A and B are after all
Hi Brent,
On 9/5/2011 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I
guess that numbers could be probably considered as universals as
well). A simple example:
A is a person;
B is a person.
Does A is
On 9/5/2011 1:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 9/5/2011 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I guess that numbers
could be probably considered as universals as well). A simple example:
On 9/5/2011 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 1:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 9/5/2011 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I
guess that numbers could be probably considered as
Hi Bruno,
A short remark. I have decided start with philosophy, as it is more
entertaining as mathematical logic. Right now I listen to lectures of
Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen (in German)
http://podcasts.uni-freiburg.de/podcast_content/courses?id_group=12
His title Controversy in philosophy took
20 matches
Mail list logo
