--- Begin Message ---As this message came in with my comment attached, to which it seems to bear a somewhat vague connection, let me put a few questions:
- From: joerg benesch <jgruel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:30:22 +0200
Who the heck is Quang=tzu? Quang Ping, whom google gave me? corrupted for Zhuang Zi (of the "Nan Hua Jing" - and how would he come in here )? or even Kong Zi == Confucius? To see whether this guy be "recognizibly essentialist", he'd better first be recognizable altogether, that is, have a recognizable name (though I'm not sure whether that suffices for a true essentialist).
What does it take to be "recognizably essentialist"?
What does it take for a name (apart from being recognizable) to "name the right thing"?
And I agree that in this our age of desinformation, the rectification of names is essential. Indeed, it needs more than a campaign.
On a cold and rainy Suebian morning
Joerg Gruel
"Omnis sapientia venit ex Westphalia"
PALMA schrieb:if this is supposed to be an argument about or against essentialism, some people may have to retake logic 101, even in china if need be ( zum Beispiel Quang=tzu is recognizably essentialist, , that is precisely why it makes sense to call for a campaign for the rectification of names, they have to name the right thing)
joerg benesch wrote:(...)
--- End Message ---
