Jeffrey, List,
I guess there are two ways of classification: Creation and observation. Both make things. Creation is primary and produces the crude thing, the universal ground of it, like a first sketch. The thing may then be further specified (individuated) by observation. For a theist God is
Jack, Jon, List,
Both Hume´s law, and the "natural fallacy"- theory say, that you cannot conclude from "Is" to "Ought". I think, that is because the two are categorically different approaches. So I guess, that it neither is possible to conclude the other way, from "Ought" to "Is". Now I
List,
I have not fully understood the proof of the thing in itself, but it seems to me, that it is formally the same or similar as Anselm of Canterbury`s proof of God. Is that so?
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Mai 2023 um 05:16 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt"
An: "Peirce-L"
Jack, List,
I feel quite critical towards some forms of constructivism, but in this case I ask: Migtn´t it be, that a representation is a reconstruction, and that, of which it is one, is a reconstruction too, and so on, and in the beginning there doesn´t necessarily have to stand a
