[Wittrs] Re: Nominalism / Sean
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Josh:
I'm not really into the name dropping or the comedy or trying to be clever with
digs and so forth. I'm not interested in discussing with you if it can't be
done. The 55 mph example isn't responsive to my question. The issue I was
presenting was this: one cannot espouse a scientific account of the form of
life that also purports to validate an irrelevant conversation about it. So the
question is whether idealism, nominalism, realism, etc., are "cereal-box
philosophies," as I have alleged.
To illustrate the point rather than declare it, I proposed that you answer the
question of what is the difference between an idealist, realist, nominalist,
etc., encountering a tree. What I wanted to do was to have a discussion with
you that I had had with Walter Horn on Analytic. What I had wanted you to do
was take up some sort of defense as to "who was right" about the tree. I
thought this method could benefit you. I had notice that you talk at a level
which likes to play with theory-words and recite what you claim to have read.
What I wanted to do was bring the discussion down to the level of examples. My
thesis is that much of what people call "philosophy's problems" disappear when
people think at this level. This is because the thinking generally about belief
systems in philosophy encourages lines of thought that cannot be
conversationally maintained once you start talking "on the ground."
I had originally tried to get an example from you about "computational
nominalism," but instead received your scientific theory. I had then tried to
get you to see that any scientific theory that would be accurate could not also
show that "nominalism wins," because there is nothing to win in this language
game. All that it is about is which aesthetic is preferred to
celebrate experience within the form of life. It's about window dressing.
Instead of hearing your denials of this, I had actually wanted you to discuss
the example I raised. So if you ever do want to engage in a discussion about
"who wins" when a tree is seen by an idealist and realist and so forth, I am
always here for such therapy.
As to the matters that you do talk about when you respond to me, I'm not up for
them.
Regards and thanks
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:
