tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post5391020238913664006..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: First picture of a truthmakerEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-56464739642352726182011-11-08T00:05:21.696+00:002011-11-08T00:05:21.696+00:00Where can you--or did you-- observe the object[s] ...Where can you--or did you-- observe the object[s] signified by the conjunction "and"? Yet we understand and use it all the time.<br /><br />Anyway Im not here to justify "pure" realism and universals--I object to Billy Maverick-- but think in a pragmaticist sense (google that one) it can't be avoided in many instances, if not most--ie, humans use language,and language often involves ...general terms, abstractions. "Democracy" as well, or many general terms, various taxonomies (ie, triangles). <br /><br />In the case of the position of the watch , it does involve a mental class of "watchness" (just as a fat person involves..obesity, a right triangle, triangleness) and ..any perceivable objects--watches-- presume..a positioning in space and time--that's a cognitive given.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-52195522929816250962011-11-07T23:19:48.622+00:002011-11-07T23:19:48.622+00:00But even a nominalist will agree that particulars ...But even a nominalist will agree that particulars exist. "This watch is on the table" references watch-on-tableness, and we can't perceive watch-on-tableness. But we can perceive particular instances of watch-on-tableness, like the one in the picture.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-14729186714877341272011-11-07T19:32:20.280+00:002011-11-07T19:32:20.280+00:00Actually if this is about taking on Platonic reali...Actually if this is about taking on Platonic realism with a capital P (as Mav P likes to fancy himself--tho forgetting Plato's own..progressive and humanistic leanings), I agree. The world is plural, and the...language (whether formalist, or not) does not suffice to describe it, or many "events". A history book is not WWII< whatsoever. Hegelian nomimalism if you will I sort of agree to, but that's not "anti-realism" to me (or as Peirce said, Hegel was a nominalist with "realistic yearnings" ). There is "thirdness" --ie synthesis or "mediation", of the perception (human Mind,if you will), and perceived (objects,events, etc --ie, and that might include...logic and math. in pragmatic fashion (ie, the watch exists in a domain, can be mapped out as much as a bridge might). And Peirce was also well-aware of probability (ie, not only mere truth functionality) <br /><br />The pseudo-platonist ala Maverick Perp, however, who insists.., "I can't put perception or what you call nature, etc into my syllogism, ergo the world doesn't exist"--gulag meat. As Frege probably should have beenJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-32444831747924940042011-11-07T17:07:00.513+00:002011-11-07T17:07:00.513+00:00well, yes,but spatial position itself constrained ...well, yes,but spatial position itself constrained and still capable of..categorization (ie, has physical limits, even coordinates, so to speak--do coordinates imply a type of realism? I would say probably yes, tho....moderate IMO.<br /><br />You saw a watch? Yes. To say where was it resting is a further clarification. But it wasn't floating in air. Life is much easier with a tacit acceptance of classes Ock. That doesn't mean we have to agree they're part of the mind of Apollo (as Maverick Perp would have us believe).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-3271346627257290052011-11-07T16:15:37.409+00:002011-11-07T16:15:37.409+00:00>>The object falls in the class of "wat...>>The object falls in the class of "watchness." <br /><br />Watch-on-tableness.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-57717305137679190142011-11-07T15:46:58.465+00:002011-11-07T15:46:58.465+00:00Oh now I got it Ock--yr really an atheist nihilist...Oh now I got it Ock--yr really an atheist nihilist . So your nominalism is like a form of your atheism. To say ''there is a class of watchness, obesity, not to say..triangles, or mammals" offends your naturalist self.<br /><br />As does say Kant's justification of empirical realism, tho via...his categories (in fact directly related to Frege's hasty denial of empiricism--tho Frege was in no way a nominalist).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-319309247619966312011-11-07T15:31:20.774+00:002011-11-07T15:31:20.774+00:00No it isn't.
Why are protecting this person? ...No it isn't.<br /><br />Why are protecting this person? Inquiring minds want to know<br /><br />It's only a universal when put in something like..."watchness" .or fatness,obesity. The object falls in the class of "watchness." That has nothing to do with Frege's critique of empiricism (or Bill Mav.) ,at least not directly. <br /><br />IN that case, yes, there is "watchness.' Ie, the perceived object falls in the class of watchness, or "Al" is fat, ie in the class of obesity. Problem solved. That doesn't mean floating in Plato's abode.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-25732593177512213722011-11-07T15:19:16.248+00:002011-11-07T15:19:16.248+00:00J please stop the personal attacks or you are bann...J please stop the personal attacks or you are banned. Also consider making points which are relevant to the post.<br /><br />And, yes, it is a version of the problem of universals.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-25506854013723942002011-11-07T14:44:12.802+00:002011-11-07T14:44:12.802+00:00--If asked, Mr. Ock--did you see the watch on tabl...--If asked, Mr. Ock--did you see the watch on table (say one was stolen..and the maid Rosie's a suspect). Yes or no? Perhaps you have pictures of it. A receipt. Your Aunt says shes seen it. So, you say yes or no. Yes, you say to the cop, it is true there was a watch on the table. <br /><br />The problem is..the philosopher cannot describe the relation between the observation and the proposition--i.e. he has no access to the cognitive-neurological process (but certainly the visual process, light hitting rods and cones, then transmitted via neurons to cortex,etc can be described quite precisely--). Ergo, lacking understanding of the actual pathway of perception (ie visual apparatus) to..the translation into syntax ("there was a watch on the table"--ie the "truthmaker" being the perception of the object itself)..the philosopher, at least the naive Cartesian sort, says there is no connection, no correspondence. A typical hasty generalization. There's a neurological connection between perception and language (in fact research on this issue) but he doesn't know what it is. Same for other sensory experiences.<br />Given a glass of sea water, instead of normal H20, yll know it's salty. OR when you go outside and it's cold, you know it's cold. (Kant says something like this in CoPR does he not--there is an external cause to perceptions of phenomena, even if those perceptions are conditioned via a priori categories and space/time ..i.e. you don't really control your sensibility so to speak--a point LOST on Billy Maverick (unless maybe your rip out your eyes).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-48510650703211052252011-11-07T14:42:48.200+00:002011-11-07T14:42:48.200+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-43149753909443862132011-11-07T14:40:18.520+00:002011-11-07T14:40:18.520+00:00We're ignoring your response Byro-Anthony. You...We're ignoring your response Byro-Anthony. You know nothing about the issue. Read this, Ock: ""This watch is on the table" is a universal. It is a sentence which can refer to a limitless number of different states of affairs.""<br /><br />Pure bullshit. <br /><br />(this is the dude, Ock. Believe it--stalking the site)Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-1121540547871218032011-11-07T14:36:29.538+00:002011-11-07T14:36:29.538+00:00"This watch is on the table" is a univer..."This watch is on the table" is a universal<br /><br />No in fact it's not. You just don't understand the problem, whatsoever. Have you ever read a book ofphilosophy in your life? Unlikely.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-13089941380150516952011-11-07T13:47:38.711+00:002011-11-07T13:47:38.711+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-10506354718614781712011-11-07T13:08:30.233+00:002011-11-07T13:08:30.233+00:00Ah, but it is the problem of universals. "Th...Ah, but it is the problem of universals. "This watch is on the table" is a universal. It is a sentence which can refer to a limitless number of different states of affairs. One cannot see "this watch is on the table" any more than one can see "watch" or "table".<br /><br />Feel free to respond to this, "J", but I'm fairly certain that I'm going to ignore your response, especially if you don't stop the personal attacks.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-71990498362549750512011-11-07T12:36:57.646+00:002011-11-07T12:36:57.646+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-14571029124772718912011-11-07T11:51:34.457+00:002011-11-07T11:51:34.457+00:00>> All these possible states of affairs will...>> All these possible states of affairs will make the proposition true. Are they different truthmakers, then? Or are they in reality the same truthmaker? But then what does it look like?<br /><br />Ah, nice, the problem of universals. To be answered however you answer the problem of universals, of course :).Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com