[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism? (nominalism, yet again)

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:17:31 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
>
> > When Mr. Namespace doesn't grok nominalism, at all,
> > we're not communicating.
> 
> I only met you recently and hadn't assessed to what degree you'd 
> hung the nominalist albatross around your own neck (stinky dead 
> bird of a belief system).  I'd like to free you of that investment 
> if you're willing.  It's unbecoming of any philosopher who admires 
> Wittgenstein, but then you've more often than not posed as one of 
> his detractors on this list.

You seem to have things exactly backwards about nominalism,
your criticisms of it are exactly backwards from the usual
*criticisms* of nominalism as too skeptical, too contingent,
and you seem to prefer to reinvent it as best you can under 
your own headings.  We have some shared interests, but you don't
seem interested in using existing work, ideas, or vocabulary to
pursue them. 

Just trying to save you some time, but perhaps you enjoy
taking the scenic route on your journey.  

I hardly think a study of Wittgenstein implies one agrees with
100% of what he said, since Wittgenstein himself (like most
who work on a topic for many years) doesn't agree 100% with himself,
either.

Have a good time with it, Kirby.  I'll continue to read your
messages and translate them as best I can into more normative
uses of the English language, and learn what I can thereby.

Josh

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrs
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2009