Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> With those remarks what you say makes sense for me,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Oh hurrah, then there is finally light at the end of the philosophic
tunnel for me :D Trying to learn this stuff is just a matter of
becoming a baby again... the baby just has to keep painfullly throwing
himself at the stuff and after enough ga-ga-goo-goo sounds the baby
finally starts to speak a few words that make sense.
In other words: I need to study, study, study ;)
Let me just test out what I think is the key point. It's this. Three
ontologic levels:
(1) Abstract entities of universal applicability (eg Math/number)
(2) Abstract entities of limited applicability (eg Alphabet, Chair
concept)
(3) Concrete instances (eg specific Chair)
Only (1) is real. (2) and (3) are cognitive interpretations or
constructs. True yes?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Sep 13 2006 - 03:20:12 PDT