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

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:46:43 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
>
> This seems quite clear and consistent with his opening critique of 
> the St. Augustine passage.
> 
> Nominalists want their logic to neatly cleave around a Language 
> versus Not-Language divide and have the Language side consist of 
> "names" of the Not-Language side. Whereas this habit of thought is 
> well catered to by some language games, some brands of Logic (e.g. 
> Python), it's simply going to lead to problems down the road, if 
> clung to as a model of ordinary (everyday) language.  I don't see 
> a need for Hacker's clarification as the above stands on its own.

A language versus non-language divide ... maybe, depends.  I wonder
if you can expand on this.  See if you can maneuver between throwing
away language - and the linguistic turn - and throwing away this
"divide".  I'll tell you how nominalism does it.

Augustine's example is of someone learning an association between
word and thing, a simple relationship.  The point of nominalism is
to make minimal (usually zero) commitment to the thing, which in
turn shows even the minimal commitment to the word.  Augustine is
about as far from nominalism as one can get.  The nominalist looks
at a linguistic expression as - a linguistic expression, not as 
having inherent or direct meaning.  Perhaps as having meaning to
the speaker, and/or the hearer, but already we start to drift away
from what nominalism is about.

Let me ask you this - in Python, or any other language, what is it
that gives any variable meaning?

Josh

Other related posts:

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