Not REALLY, if
a REAL nominalist simply means that there is NON-REAL nominalist or
PSEUDO-nominalist.
Sorry for taking your humor too seriously.
Sung
A nominalist in name only would be a nominal nominalist.
But a real nominalist would be a contradiction in terms.
Checkmate ...
Jon
Stan, list,
The main idea is not that of a long run. Instead the idea is that of
sufficient investigation. Call it 'sufficiently long' or 'sufficiently
far-reaching' or 'sufficiently deep' or 'sufficiently good' or
'sufficiently good for long enough', or the like, it's stlll the same
basic
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
Sung, List,
Let's see if we can turn our discussion of these paltry stick figures to some
Thank Helmut. Nous sommes sur la meme page as Peirce would probably
interject. So if you ever get to the exact center of Manhattan which I take
to be the intersection of Herald and Greeley Squares, you get your choice
of beverage on me exchange for an hour of conversation. That actually goes
for
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14182
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14184
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14187
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14194
Sung, List,
Consider
