Dave B.,
Well Ian didn't think it was so bad.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, david dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
John said to Ian:
To be perfectly honest, I snagged the definition from Wiki on
Philosophical Realism and substituted SOM for the term everywhere it
appeared in the wiki
John said to Ian:
To be perfectly honest, I snagged the definition from Wiki on Philosophical
Realism and substituted SOM for the term everywhere it appeared in the wiki
article. My aim, as you can imagine, was to get some feedback on the idea that
SOM and Philosophical Realism are one and the
Hi John,
Ah, that would explain nuanced - written by a committee.
Could do better.
Ian
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, John Carl ridgecoy...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Ian,
To be perfectly honest, I snagged the definition from Wiki on Philosophical
Realism
and substituted SOM for the term
I hope so!
what improvements exactly do you suggest? (besides emphasizing our
reality?)
And isn't the similarity of understanding for the philosophical term
significant?
J
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi John,
Ah, that would explain
Thanks Ian,
To be perfectly honest, I snagged the definition from Wiki on Philosophical
Realism
and substituted SOM for the term everywhere it appeared in the wiki
article. My aim, as you can imagine, was to get some feedback on the idea
that SOM and Philosophical Realism are one and the same.
SOM is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically
independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices,
beliefs, etc.
SOM may be spoken of with respect to other minds, the past, the future,
universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers),
Hi John, I think that's a little too nuanced. Not wrong just need
something snappier before all the qualified examples.
For example, first sentence - the our is so much more important than
reality.
Great start though. Lets work on a definitive sentence - says the man who
abhors definitions :-)
