Dear Stan, lists -
But Stan commits the same mistake of trying to purge one universal by means of
another - this time culture is the new universal assumed to be more real than
evolution … In Stan's argument, cultures are assumed to be real and to
determine minds of different individuals …
Hi, Jim,
I think that Graph 222 (at
http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/improvement_on_the_gamma_Graphs.htm
) isn't an open (unquantified, free) variable, instead it says that
/there is/ a man x such that /there is/ a man /y/, etc. I was wondering
the other day how one does express
Hmm. My understanding of the scholastic 'universal' (the Aristotelian, to which
I am assuming Peirce refers) is quite different from the specific actualities
of genes and natural selection. These two are actualities and very specific
despite their having observable commonalities with, eg, a
Dear Edwina, lists -
The neo-Darwinist conception of evolution works nicely as an example, exactly
because it is so stripped-down.
Even a concept as naked as that refers to real universals - as Edwina writes,
to genes, and natural selection.
F
Den 18/01/2015 kl. 19.30 skrev Edwina Taborsky
Stan and Frederik: I think that you both are talking about different issues.
It's not whether or not evolution is a 'real process', or even about the notion
of 'realism' vs 'nominalism' (whether one uses the scholastic or non-scholastic
definition of those two terms). I think Stan was referring
Dear Stan, lists -
I am making no claims as to trends etc. - I am making the very simple case that
evolution is a real process.
And I am adding that attempts to make nominalist reconstructions of the concept
evolution do not fail to introduce other universals taken for real, such as, in
Stan's
