[Wittrs] Re: Nominalism / Sean
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
... ok. I've got it now. You want to have a scientific view that comes along to
defends your view of nominalism. Since we can't seem to get the answer with
"computational nominalism" -- the bun is still in the oven -- let's try it
with the label that you do like, and that are already "birthed."
Can you give me an example of someone being a "nominalist" with their behavior
versus not being one? Let's say an Idealist and a nominalist encounter a tree.
What is the difference? Isn't it purely a matter of allegiance and not fact? In
fact, isn't it purely a matter of speaking?
And let's say I say, "nominalism isn't true." Or let's say someone says,
"realism is true." What would one do with these statements other than commit
them to either irrelevance, faith, decoration or allegiance? One would no more
set about to convert any position on these matters than they would make them
root for another football team.
Regards.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg
New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
Other related posts:
